Journal of Marketing Management
Palmer, A. and Ponsonby, S. (2002) ‘The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
: The Influence of Personal Perspective’, Journal of Marketing Management, 18(1–2), pp. 173–192.
doi: 10.1362/0267257022775864.
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjmm20
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms:
The Influence of Personal Perspective
Adrian Palmer & Sharon Ponsonby
To cite this article: Adrian Palmer & Sharon Ponsonby (2002) The Social Construction of
New Marketing Paradigms: The Influence of Personal Perspective, Journal of Marketing
Management, 18:1-2, 173-192, DOI: 10.1362/0267257022775864
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1362/0267257022775864
Published online: 01 Feb 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 475
View related articles
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
Journal of Marketing Management 2002, 18, 173-192
Adrian Palmer1 The Social Construction of New
Marketing Paradigms: The Influence of
and Sharon
2
Personal Perspective
Ponsonby
University of
Gloucestershire
University of Ulster
Marketing is no stranger to “big new ideas” which purport
to be new paradigms for the study of the discipline.
Relationship marketing, one-to-one marketing and postmodern marketing typify recent ideas, which have gained
much support. However, it is widely recognised that,
compared to the natural sciences, the marketing discipline
has created relatively little knowledge which can be
described as genuinely new. In the absence of any objective
reality, marketing knowledge reflects the interpretation of
reality by individuals. Surprisingly, relatively little
analysis has been undertaken into the source of new
marketing ideas and the influence of social construction on
these ideas. This paper presents a review of contemporary
“new marketing” paradigms and uses a framework of time,
place and role to explain the derivation of these ideas. It is
concluded that proclamations of new marketing may say
more about the proclaimer than the subject being
proclaimed.
Introduction
In recent years, marketing has matured as a discipline. One sign of this
maturity is an increasing willingness of marketing academics and
practitioners to look inwardly and become more self-critical of their
discipline. An abundance of scholarly research and practitioner
proclamations have suggested that marketing is undergoing a fundamental,
epoch breaking change (Brady and Davis 1993; Grönroos 1997). Talk about
new paradigms has been interspersed with gloomy predictions about the
future of the marketing department and the triumph of chaos where
previously there was order (Gummesson 1997; Murray and O’Driscoll 1997).
“One-to-one Marketing”, “Chaos Marketing”, “Postmodern Marketing” and
1 Correspondence: Adrian Palmer, Gloucestershire Business School, Box 220 The Park,
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 2QF, Tel/Fax: +44 1242 543235, E-mail:
apalmer@chelt.ac.uk
2 Sharon Ponsonby, Faculty of Business and Management, School of International
Business, University of Ulster, Magee College, Northland Road, Londonderry, BT48
7JL, Northern Ireland. Tel/Fax: +44 28 71375239 E-mail : SJM.Ponsonby@ulst.ac.uk
ISSN1472-1376/2002/1-200173+19 £4.00/0
©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
174
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
“New Marketing Manifestos” typify recent debate (Pepper and Rodgers
1995; Nilson 1995; Brown 1995; Grant 1999). Marketers have increasingly
acknowledged theoretical shortcomings, flaws and intellectual crises, thus
Wilson and Gilligan (1997, p. 25) declared that “There has been an increasing
recognition over the past few years that marketing is, or may be facing what
is loosely referred to as a mid life crisis…due to the widespread concern that
something is amiss”. In addition, Brown (1995, p. 42) proclaimed that the
“Marketing concept is deeply, perhaps irredeemably flawed, that its
seemingly solid theoretical foundations are by no means secure and that the
specialism is teetering on the brink of serious intellectual crisis”. The
Relationship Marketing paradigm has been hailed as a long awaited solution
to the limitations of existing marketing theory and practice, despite there
being no universally accepted definition for this phenomenon (Kandampully
and Duddy 1999).
Despite the volume of literature predicting the terminal decline of
marketing, evidence of its plight and the benefits of new paradigms is mixed.
Consider the following evidence from the UK grocery retail sector:
Traditional methods of mass marketing have been proclaimed by many as
being outdated in an age when information technology allows individual
targeting and dialogue with customers. Yet research has indicated that the
most profitable retailers are not those with a personalised loyalty
programme, but ones which offer standardised, low prices for all (Knox 1998;
Murphy 1998). It is reported that the market share of Asda has increased
since it abolished its trial customer loyalty programme (Curtis 1999).
Similarly, in the airline sector, advocates of new marketing paradigms might
have expected operators who finely tailor their operations to the needs of
multiple small segments to win out over airlines, which offer one standard of
service to all. However, during one week in 1999, British Airways (which has
made great efforts at customisation of its services) reported a loss while the
low fares, no frills, minimal segmentation airline Ryanair reported sharply
increased sales and profits (The Times 1999a). Reports of innovatory one-toone dialogue between FMCG companies and their end-user consumers often
run ahead of the reality, as witnessed by the Heinz company’s climbdown
from its dialogue with consumers in favour of a more traditional mass
communication appeal (Tylee 1998). Even talk of the fragmentation of brands
to meet niche segments may not be reflected in reality, as evidenced by
Unilever’s decision to cut the number of brands it offers to a few mainstream
brands (The Times 1999b).
While the management of change is a fundamental task of a marketing
manager (Salaman 1996; Beer and Eisenstat 1996; Waterman 1988), is the
prescription of new marketing paradigms a significant contribution to
knowledge? Alphonse Karr, the French writer and editor of Figaro (1893)
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
175
stated in his satirical review, Les Guepes, (1849), “Plus ca change, plus c’est
la meme chose” - “The more things change the more they stay the same”. Are
suggested changes to marketing transitory and lacking any deep-seated shift
in foundations, or do they really represent a paradigm shift? Could
discussion of new marketing paradigms say more about the social
construction of the individuals making the proclamations, than the subject
being discussed? Observation of reality cannot be separated from the
observer’s perception of that reality (Bauman 1998). Much human
communication is not accepted literally, but decoded in the context of the
position that a communicator and recipient are coming from, and this is
particularly important with marketing which essentially deals with social
constructs rather than absolute truths. Discussion of changing marketing
phenomena is subject to individual interpretation and it is therefore
important to understand the position that a proclaimer of a new marketing
paradigm is coming from. Hermeneutics presents a view of human
understanding and interpretation. Unwritten social and cultural meaning
systems define social reality and behaviour and educators are frequently
held responsible for developing social constructs (DiMaggio 1988; Scott 1987;
Handelman and Arnold 1999).
The central proposition of this paper is that claims of new marketing
paradigms should be deconstructed in the context of three phenomena: time,
place and role.
The time dimension refers to the observation that many apparently “new”
marketing practices have strong antecedents, which proponents do not
always fully recognise or acknowledge. This paper explores the breadth of
contemporary new marketing ideas that are firmly rooted in very longstanding practices. The place dimension refers to the fact that much of what is
claimed to be new, is extant in distant cultures, and newness represents a
novelty from the perspective of the proclaimer, rather than a new insight into
human behaviour. The third dimension of role recognises that proclamations
of new marketing ideas may reflect a relatively narrow perspective of
individuals making the claim, for whom new marketing ideas reflect a
personal role shift as much as the development of new knowledge. It can be
likened to the stonemason lifting his gaze from individual bricks and gaining
a holistic vision of the cathedral he is building.
The aim of this paper is to provide a critical counter balance to
proclamations of “big new ideas” in marketing. While recognising the clarity
of exposition of many of their proclaimers and the contribution that has been
made to increasing levels of marketing knowledge and awareness, the paper
explores whether “new” marketing paradigms are a discovery by some
sectors of the marketing community of phenomena which have been long
established elsewhere. The emphasis of this paper is on the social
176
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
construction of exemplary contributions to the literature. The scenario may
emerge of an academic view of marketing that regards new frameworks such
as relationship marketing as an ideal paradigm, while practitioners are
compromised by the realities of operationalising the concepts. Reactions of
practitioners to Relationship Marketing approaches, for example, have varied
from a familiarity with the basic principles that they encapsulate, to
incredulity at how the basic propositions could be operationalised.
This paper initially offers an overview of the contemporary debate about
“new marketing”. It then proceeds to explore the following propositions:
i.
ii.
iii.
contemporary “new” marketing paradigms are based on principles
that are fundamentally unchanged over centuries of market
mediated trading;
the principles of new marketing ideas have contemporary and
recent antecedents in other trading systems;
attitudes towards new marketing paradigms are influenced by the
role of those making claims of paradigm shifts.
A further aim of this paper is to address the issue of whether claims of new
marketing paradigms widen or help to bridge an apparent gap between
marketing academics and practitioners.
What is the “New Marketing”?
Current literature has bestowed a plethora of “new marketing” theories.
Much of the recent debate has been associated with the need for marketing to
escape from the apparent straitjacket imposed by the scientific framework of
marketing mix approaches to marketing management. Gronröös (1997)
stated that ‘the major problem with the marketing mix and its 4P’s has been
their position as the major, and in many situations as the only acceptable
marketing paradigm’. He asked why the marketing mix management
paradigm and the 4Ps model have become such a straitjacket for marketers
and noted that the ‘main reason is for pedagogical virtues’. The marketing
mix is theoretical and has formed the basis for the overwhelming majority of
texts on marketing. Its defendants point to two principal reasons for its
continuing domination of the literature: the pedagogic benefits of using a
highly structured approach around which discrete lessons and class
discussion can be focused and the apparent lack of suitable alternatives.
The theoretical limitations of marketing mix approaches have been widely
noted. Van Waterschoot and Van den Bulte (1992) pointed out that the
properties that are the basis for classification have not been identified, and
the categories are not mutually exclusive. Bennett (1997) stated that an
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
177
emphasis on the 4P’s model (McCarthy 1964) might lead to too narrow a
focus on internal variables and does not include some of the process
variables that also form part of the marketing planning system. The
reduction in the marketing mix to four elements might have improved the
elegance and simplicity of the framework, but lost its substance and validity
(Gummesson 1994). In response, there have been numerous attempts to
expand the basic mix framework, most popularly the 7 Ps framework
developed by Booms and Bitner to incorporate decisions which are of
relevance to services marketing. Further refinements have been proposed by
Collier (1991), Nickels and Jolson (1976), Reneghan (1981) and Christopher,
Payne and Ballantyne (1991). It has been pointed out by Gummesson (1999),
who himself has proposed a “32 Rs” list of relationships, that many of these
reformulations are contrived and designed to fit around beginning with the
same letter of the alphabet.
Talk about a “new marketing” has attracted considerable interest. In his
“new marketing manifesto”, Grant (1999) defined new marketing in terms of
being: driven by insight, not analysis; favouring constant change over
conservatism; being humanistic rather than scientific; and being essentially
creative. The literature has been rich in colourful description, with analogies
drawn with a car journey (O’Malley and Patterson 1998), eschatological
biblical behaviour (Brown 1997; O’Shaughnessy 1997) and medicine (Baker
1991). Alternative paradigms have been presented based on a holistic
overview of marketing in which strength derives from a diversity of
approaches and breaking of rules (Brown 1995; Gronröös 1997; Murray and
O’Driscoll 1997). The term “Postmodern marketing” has frequently been
applied to this approach, and extensive use of analogies made with
postmodernism in other discipline areas (Brown 1995) such as architecture
(Jencks 1987), art (Burgin 1986), anthropology (Nencel and Pels 1991), civil
engineering (Platten 1986), economics (McCloskey 1985) and geography (Soja
1989). Postmodernism is essentially a reaction to the presumed certainty of
scientific or objective efforts to explain reality. New marketing ideas emanate
from the opinion that ‘reality’ is not plainly reflected in human
understanding of scientific efforts to explain it. Postmodernists “Do not agree
with hermeneutics, if in its search for explanation, it assumes that one
interpretation is better than others, if its goal is to recover a singular meaning
for any political or social act” (Rosneau 1992, p. 14). “Rules” of market
segmentation give way to a realisation that each consumer-producer
transaction is unique and one-to-one relationships supersede segmentation
approaches based on logical empiricism.
Despite the emergence of a plethora of “new” marketing ideas that stress
the need to break rules and provide a holistic approach to individual buyerseller relationships, a scientific approach to problem analysis remains a vital
178
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
and growing part of a marketing manager’s task. Wilson and Gilligan (1997,
p.10) state that scientific theories in marketing enable us to “Explain and
understand the behaviour of marketing variables and their interrelationships, predict the future behaviour patterns of marketing variables
and their interrelationships, produce prescriptions and achieve control over
the outcomes of interactions of marketing variables”. Some indication of the
drive for the scientific approach to measurement is indicated by the growth
of the market research industry, with more than £300m worth of quantitative
studies and £150m of continuous tracking studies and omnibus surveys
conducted annually in the UK (Gofton 1999). Wierenga and Van Bruggen
(1997), noted that decision support systems have become increasingly
complex and subject to increasing time pressure.
Recent developments in direct marketing are based on a scientific method
of enquiry, which is essentially rules-based. New methods of profiling
customer databases have used expert systems to provide insights into
customer potential, share of wallet, attrition, cross selling and the lifetime
value of a customer. The analysis of large volumes of data offers the
capability of giving results that are statistically significant representations of
the populations from which they are drawn (e.g. Koslowsky 1999; Pearce
1997). O’Malley, Patterson and Evans (1997), for example, in their survey of
UK retailers found an overwhelming use of databases particularly in the
areas of site assessment and trade area analysis. Most of the respondents
used a combination of databases to support their decision-making activities.
Further evidence of a greater scientific approach is provided by the
Marketing Metrics research project, sponsored among other organisations by
the Chartered Institute of Marketing. It set out in 1997 to look at real-world
marketing performance assessment and has sought to develop a culture in
which marketing effectiveness is measured as objectively as possible. Placing
a value on brand equity as an outcome is one such approach (Ambler 1998).
The desire for accountability in the private and public sectors has fuelled a
desire for objective standards of measurement. It has been pointed out, for
example, by Beenstock (1998) that the desire to develop objective methods of
brand valuations in companies’ balance sheets will become much greater in
the UK with the enforcement of Financial Reporting Standards 10 and 11.
In his introduction to the Oxford volume Theories of Explanation, Joseph
Pitt (1988, p.6) claims that, “What is crucial is the insight that the kind of
knowledge science produces... permits the development of explanations, and
it is those explanations that are the real payoff.” Innovation and creativity are
required to keep up with the fast pace of business today. It is through the
reconciliation of both scientific and artistic approaches, that true creativity is
gained (Campbell 1975).
Has the cycle of marketing evolution embarked on a backward journey to
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
179
its origins? Current scepticism about scientific, rules-based approaches to
marketing is frequently informed by reference to simpler historical systems
of exchange. Indeed, the origins of many “new” marketing ideas have
frequently been acknowledged by their proponents. It is, for example, clearly
stated by Peppers and Rodgers (1995) that their vision of a one-to-one future
is based on the pattern of exchanges commonly found among small traders
in previous decades.
The Perspective of Time: Historical Antecedents of New Marketing
Marketing as a recognised discipline of study is relatively new, having
emerged during the 1960s. The reasons for its emergence are clear enough to
see - increasingly competitive markets called for sellers to put more effort
into the process of selling relative to the effort that buyers were required to
expend in the process of buying. From its inception, the discipline of
marketing has been dominated by a set of values that are American in origin
(Dholakia et al. 1980), but have since permeated western economies. Despite
its new found status from the 1960s, the philosophies of marketing have a
long heritage and numerous scholars have described activities in ancient
history which have resemblance to modern theories of marketing (e.g. Orlin
1970; Larsen 1976; Aubet 1987). The very long history of marketing is
acknowledged in most introductory marketing texts. Moore and Lewis (1998)
described the Assyrian international trade organisation of the second
millennium B.C.. Early rulers, such as Ilu-shuma and his son Erishum I
(c.1939-1900 B.C.), did much to exploit the commercial potential offered by
the geographic location of Ashur and its supply of tin. It has been noted that
the Old Assyrian commercial expansion of this age had many characteristics
of what we would today describe as marketing, including market
segmentation, targeting, distribution and communication (Larsen 1976, p.
86). Models of trading by these ancient civilisations were subject to their own
social construction and they would probably be able to construct similar
paradigms if presented with contemporary marketing issues, despite
changes in the economic, social and technological environment.
Many apparently “new” phenomena in marketing have quite clear
historical antecedents. What is today called relationship marketing has been
noted as the customary practice of small traders in pre-modern marketing
times (Peppers and Rodgers 1995). Clegg (1956) noted the complex networks
of commercial relationships that existed between traders in Victorian
England, bearing many resemblances to strategic alliances. There is a
fundamental familiarity between some of the business practices of ancient
civilisations and those practised today. The Ancient Sumerian society’s
values mirror topical marketing themes pertinent to the formation of
relationships; the elements of trust, loyalty and reciprocity were evident in
180
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
their co-operation with neighbours and strangers in the trading of goods,
despite the fact that they could not immediately appreciate the benefits of
their actions.
The ancient Egyptians imported timber for boat building from Syria and
Lebanon, copper from Cyprus, tin from Asia and/or Europe, raw materials
such as plants from Africa and the Far East for the production of medicine
while they exported yarn, fine linen cloth, glass bottles, vases, embroidered
work and paper to Europe (Trigger et al. 1983). These civilisations were
constantly developing, innovating and flourishing and the “learning
organisation” epitomises this culture contemporarily. Today, organisational
culture and learning have become one of the most active research areas in the
marketing discipline (Slater and Narver 1995).
Marketing practices may change, but the philosophy is more enduring. In
the evolution of modern-day marketing thought, it may seem that ideas have
a habit of going round in circles. One of the earliest advocates of marketing,
Drucker, noted in 1954 that ‘Marketing was not really a separate
management function, but rather a whole business as seen from the
customer’s point of view’ (Drucker 1954). Fifty years later, new marketing
paradigms essentially appear to be re-iterating this fact.
The Perspective of Place: International Comparisons
What is often described as “new” marketing in western countries represents
firmly established practice in many cultures. A marketing philosophy has
been associated with eastern cultures, most especially with Japanese
marketing practices, where it has been observed that the marketing mix
approach never took hold to the extent that it has in the west (Genestre et al.
1995; Kotler and Fahey 1982; Doyle et al. 1992). Genestre, et al. (1995), wrote
that “Japanese marketing management has been described as the classic
textbook case of applying the marketing philosophy - carefully studying
customer wants and needs in international markets, developing products
incorporating desired features and putting effective marketing programmes
in place to support them”.
The concept of relationship marketing is presented as new in western
countries, but has substantial precedent in China in the form of guanxi.
Relationship marketing in ancient China depicted interpersonal relationships, which over time have become more focused on the organisational level
in the form of guanxi, meaning “relationship” (Tsang 1998). Campbell wrote
that “the belief that mind and matter were separate and had nothing to do
with each other, may have been a factor in the coming to birth of the
principle of objectivity which was considered to be Western in character,
whilst the Easterners considered both mind and body to be one and the
same” (Campbell 1975, p. 12). SME’s have possessed relationships similar to
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
181
that of guanxi, which is usually considered at the individual level although it
exists at the organisational level (Tsang 1998) and ganqing, which is a
measure of the emotional commitment of the parties involved. Trust, face or
public image and credibility according to Tsang (1998) are also important
“ingredients” of guanxi, mirroring the constructs discussed in contemporary
debate about relationship marketing.
The Chinese are said to be naturally good at business. A related
explanation is that Chinese have learnt to live frugally, to plough profits back
into their businesses, to plan more for the long-term, and to sacrifice profit
today for market share in the future. With economic prosperity in many
Asian countries, there is a tendency to reinterpret their cultures as being
somehow development promoting and pro-entrepreneurial (Billig 1994). The
traditional formula for success among the overseas Chinese has emphasised
the entrepreneurial spirit, family businesses with autocratic and paternalistic
leadership and guanxi (personal relationships). Decision-making processes
and a lack of bureaucratic regulation give a competitive advantage when
quick responses or deal-making skills are critical. In modern western
language, this would be interpreted as the discovery of flatter organisational
structures, empowerment and efficient consumer response (Drucker 1988;
Kanter 1989; Randolph 1995; Kurt Salmon Associates 1993).
It has been noted that much of the recent obsession with developing
shared values among an organisation’s employees has clear antecedents in
large Japanese organisations (Wagner and Hollenbeck 1995). Their cultural
emphasis on loyalty is prevalent in work environments in the form if the
“nenko” system and loyalty and respect for others in the form of “oyabunkobun” which reflects the family relationship. Wagner and Hollenbeck (1995)
also note that new managers in Japan attend entering classes in order to
acquire a generalist’s view of the history and culture of the organisation
being joined. When this process has been completed, they have learned the
importance of followership or tsukiai (Atsumi 1979).
By looking east, marketers may find practices that look remarkably like
big new ideas currently being hailed in the west. By analogy, a New Yorker
arriving in remote Africa where a new branch of McDonalds has just opened
might wonder what all the local excitement is about.
The Perspective of Place: Evidence of New Marketing in Small and
Medium Size Enterprises
The originality of new marketing paradigms may be questioned by many
owners of small and medium sized enterprises who have shown less
inclination to use the scientific approaches of their counterparts in larger
organisations. Brian Aldiss, the British science-fiction writer once said,
“Science fiction is no more written for scientists than ghost stories are written
182
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
for ghosts”. There is an apparent opinion that historically, marketing
theories have not been embraced by marketing practitioners; most especially
within SMEs, yet small businesses survive and grow and compete in the
marketplace.
Mitchell (1998) stated that for SMEs, working with a small number of
customers, operating locally or with few distribution outlets - marketing’s
essential task of winning and keeping customers necessarily takes a very
different form and may not even be seen as marketing at all. For example, in
his study of ‘hidden champions’ - smaller firms which quietly excel - Simon
noted that most don’t have marketing departments or staff with ‘marketing’
job titles. Yet, he notes, proportionately more employees in these firms
regularly spend more time with their customers than their larger rivals.
While the hidden champions are not marketing professionals, ‘they are
closeness-to-customer professionals’ (Simon 1996). Cavanagh and Clifford
(1986) on smaller companies stated that they had a “sheer dedication to
serving customers better than anyone else”. In many instances small business
owners perceive marketing as being purely “selling, advertising or
promotion” (Patten 1989). Leppard’s study into why there was a widespread
resistance to strategic marketing planning showed that “acceptance of
marketing planning is largely conditioned by the stage of development of the
organisation and the behaviour of the culture carriers” (Leppard 1987).
Stanworth and Gray (1991) pointed out that in small businesses one person is
directly involved in every decision - from everyday issues such as customer
enquiries, financial control and production matters, to less recurrent
problems such as employee recruitment and rent reviews. Their research
emphasised that small business owner-managers are “generalists” and it
would be totally wrong to suggest that they should become “marketing
specialists”. This means that complex theories or sophisticated formal
processes are inappropriate for small businesses - they would not achieve
any greater understanding of the markets in which small businesses operate.
This observation seems quite consistent with new marketing ideas that all
individuals within an organisation should be boundary-spanners and
perform the role of “part-time marketers” (Gummesson 1999).
Goodwin stated that consumers today are being “bombarded by
confusion marketing” and “whereas we have all become accustomed to the
sharpest, fastest-moving marketing ideas coming from small, entrepreneurial
companies, it is clear that the giants of UK industry have caught up and are
rivalling these smaller companies” (Goodwin 1998, p. 15).
The
entrepreneurship of the small business is being rediscovered in large
corporations. Vandermerwe and Birley (1997), spoke of the Corporate
Entrepreneur, stating that the typical “bureaucratic” executive can be
expected to behave entrepreneurially, that corporations are transforming “so
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
183
as to own customers”, to attack “problems creatively” and that entrepreneurs
can today be expected to be able to manage the large corporation too.
SMEs have been noted for traditionally undertaking processes that are
today considered novel by their larger competitors. For example a small
greengrocer is likely to have had direct contact with customers; personally
knowing them; had a mental profile of each customer; and knew the market’s
needs and satisfied them on time and to customers’ specification. Out of this,
mutually beneficial relationships developed (Peppers and Rodgers 1995;
Kahil and Harcar 1995). Larger firms have tried hard to create similar
conditions for themselves, and when they have been achieved may think
incorrectly that they have discovered a “new” way of doing business.
The Perspective of Role: The Influence of Personal Perspective
Another line of enquiry to explain proclamations of “new marketing” may be
to examine the role of individuals who make such proclamations. Ylva
Eggehorn once said “Our position determines what we see”. There are many
historic cases of individuals who have escaped from their mundane lives to
see the “promised land”. The Bhuddist temple of Borobudur provides a
useful analogy. A series of friezes on the lower levels of the temple depict
labourers working hard in fields with their minds focused clearly on the
technical task in hand. Ascent of the temple is likened to the process of
growing up and sees the focus of the friezes changing, until at the top of the
temple the wise old man sits with a view over everything around him.
This contrast between the narrowly focused practitioner and the visionary
leader has been referred to in many marketing related analogies. It has for
example been noted in the context of developing staff motivation within the
people-intensive services sector that the situation is analogous to a
stonemason and a cathedral - the leader has the vision of the cathedral while
the stonemason initially sees only individual bricks. Smith and Saint-Onge
(1996) refer to Henry Adams who said of the stonemason: “He does not say
“I’m carving a stone” but rather “I’m building a cathedral”. Similarly, The
Buddha (Siddhartha Gotama) once said, “Drillers shape holes, bow makers,
arrows, carpenters shape wood and the wise shapes himself”.
It has been noted that an important characteristic of a chief executive is to
have a “helicopter view” (Starkey 1998; Dobbins and Pettmann 1997; Chan
1997), allowing him or her to see the connections within a complex
environment, which may be absent from individuals who have a specified
role within a management hierarchy. Creativity and vision have been seen as
important characteristics of business leaders (Hamlin et al. 1997; Kaye and
Dyason 1999), with leaders such as Richard Branson, Benjamin Rosen
(Compaq) and Ferdinand Peich (Volkswagen) being attributed with a
184
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
helicopter vision. The process of developing this helicopter vision is related,
among other things, to an individual’s exposure to stimuli and the resources
and expectations of their role. It follows that the way an individual sees the
world is likely to change as their career develops and what may be thought
of as a new paradigm may rather be a re-assimilation of cues based on
accumulated knowledge and contemporary role expectations (Dobbins and
Pettmann 1997). An individual’s role also comes with a set of responsibilities
and accountability. Proclaiming an idea without having the responsibility for
implementing it involves relatively little risk on the part of the proclaimer.
Academics and writers who talk about new marketing paradigms may have
the independence to think the unthinkable and this independence has
resulted in much high quality “blue sky” research which may find no
immediate use within commercial organisations. However, academics are
not held to account if their ideas do not work, unlike managers of businesses
who are accountable to boards of directors and shareholders for results
(Davis and Moe 1997; Burns 1989).
Is Marketing
Development?
Academia
Leading
or
Following
Current
Are academics using their opportunities for free and creative thinking to
develop useful knowledge and frameworks? Are they simply following
reality or overlooking the long traditions on which new marketing is based?
Henry Ford once said “Do not search for the faults, search for the cure”; - are
marketers becoming good at providing an analysis of historical weakness,
but short on providing solutions which can be operationalised?
The need to understand the interface between academia and practitioners
has been highlighted by the American Marketing Association, which
acknowledged the importance of educators in developing new thinking
(American Marketing Association 1988). It noted that academics bear a heavy
responsibility for defining and shaping what is known about marketing. The
contribution of academics to marketing knowledge has been acknowledged
in a number of fields, for example the conceptualisation and measurement of
service quality (Parasuraman, et al. 1988). In other areas it has been noted that
academics have lagged significantly behind practitioners, especially in some
applied subject areas such as direct marketing (Nadherny 1998).
There is also the question of whether academics’ personal backgrounds
influence the way they see marketing. In many cases, a lack of recent
experience with business may imply that some academics learn from
academic articles without the benefit of historical personal experience of
implementing marketing activities. Previous research has indicated the
diverse background of marketing academics. McDonagh highlighted the fact
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
185
that since “most powerful marketing academics are predominantly logical
empiricists...marketing will remain a one sided discipline which is
continually criticised not only by those in other academic disciplines but also
by marketing practitioners themselves” (McDonagh 1995, pp. 676). It was
noted above that academics are typically not accountable for their actions,
which allows an independence of thought, but may also cause a
disengagement from the reality of implementation.
If small businesses have in fact been practising many aspects of “new”
marketing, but not in the way presented by traditional marketing academics,
where does this leave the role of business schools? One view is that business
schools should operate more theoretically than at practitioner level, in order
to find new solutions to problems (Wills 1976). On the other hand, it was
recognised by Leppard and McDonald (1991) that the abstractions of
academia have created an unbridgeable gap for practitioners in industry.
These barriers can take the form of perceptual, cultural, intellectual,
expressive, emotional and environmental barriers (Boydell 1977).
Conclusions
Very little in marketing theory can be considered to be completely new.
Unlike researchers in the natural sciences, who are continually isolating
previously unrecognised genes or extending our understanding of living
organisms, marketers have made relatively few genuinely new discoveries.
Genetic engineering, the development of digital television and pentium
processors cannot be compared to the “discovery” of a “new” relationship
marketing paradigm, whose antecedents can be quite clearly traced.
Could there be a case that in the absence of genuinely new opportunities
for discovery, marketers resort - wittingly or unwittingly - to re-circulating
old ideas as though they were new? The management of change is a vital
management function and marketing academics have contributed towards
an understanding of factors underlying change in the business environment
and responses to that change. Academics’ freedom from day to day financial
accountability has given an impartiality and credibility that may be missing
from practising managers who have an explicit or hidden agenda for change.
However, “No change” limits the potential for academics to contribute
towards academic debate, and as with popular journalism, “no change” may
not be considered newsworthy. By implication, the evolution of new ideas is
essential for academics to achieve a position as promulgators of useful
information. Marketing academics and practitioners have written of many
“big new ideas” which have created considerable interest but eventually
faded into oblivion when it was realised that the ideas were basically old
ideas presented in new language and still subject to the weaknesses which
186
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
had caused failure in the past. “Total Quality Management” and
“Management by Objectives” typify this life cycle of ideas.
This paper began with three propositions stating that the validity of new
marketing ideas can be assessed in terms of three phenomena: time, place
and role. From the review of literature reported here, it does indeed appear
that statements about paradigm shifts must be considered in the context of
the perspective of the person making such claims. Educators and
practitioners express their differing philosophies due to their discordant
backgrounds and cultures, which shape their opinions and personalities.
Talk of paradigm shifts is pertinent to the individual, their social conditions
and their motivations. This paper has suggested that believers will be those
who can associate their time, place and role with the statements being made
about the current state of the marketing discipline through socialisation. One
cannot understand the goals of people without understanding their social
relations just as one cannot understand cultural institutions, practices and
values divorced from individual motivation (Westen 1985). It is implicit in
new marketing ideas that there is no such thing as objective truth, but all
observations of reality are subject to the observer’s interpretation of that
reality (Bauman 1998).
The debate about whether marketing is going through a paradigm shift
will probably be as inconclusive as such perennial debates as those between
the power of nature versus nurture or between science and religion. In both
these cases, argument is frequently used to support an established political
position (for example with regard to issues of gender equality or education
policy) and the position of a proponent is likely to be recognised in
evaluating their argument. It would seem remarkable that debate about
marketing paradigm shifts has taken place with relatively little attention
given to the positions of those advancing a proposition. This paper has
suggested that a good basis for evaluating claims of new marketing
paradigms is to ask about the role and position that the claimant is coming
from.
Finally, this paper has emphasised the social construction of marketing
paradigms and the difficulty of separating objective reality from personal
interpretation. This paper cannot claim to be free of bias, which is inherent in
such interpretation of reality and is just as likely to reflect the background of
the authors as claims of new marketing paradigms reflect the respective
authors’ backgrounds. This paper has presented our construction of
marketing phenomena based on the time, place and role that we currently
occupy and these may change with the passage of time. Many may not agree
with our construction, but we invite colleagues to openly discuss new
marketing ideas with an explicit recognition of their own personal
perspective.
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
187
References
Ambler, T. (1988), “Why is Marketing Not Measuring Up?”, Marketing,
September 24, pp. 24-25
American Marketing Association (1988), “Developing, Disseminating and
Utilising Marketing Knowledge”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.
1-25
Atsumi, R. (1979), “Tsukiai - Obligatory Personal Relationships of Japanese
White-Collar Employees”, Human Organization, Vol. 38, pp. 63-70
Aubet, M. (1987), The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade,
trans. Turton, M., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Baker, M.J. (1991), The Marketing Book, 2nd edition, Oxford, Heinemann
Bauman, Z. (1998), Postmodernism and its Discontents, London, Polity
Beam, H.H. and Carey, T.A. (1989), “Could You Succeed in Small Business”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 65-69
Beenstock, S. (1998), “Raising Brands’ Stock in the City”, Marketing,
November 26, pp. 26-28
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R.A. (1996), “Learning the capabilities needed to
implement strategic change”. In: Blackwell Cases in Human Resource and
Change Management (Ed.), Storey, J., Oxford, Blackwell
Bennett, A.R. (1997), “The Five V’s - A Buyer’s Perspective of the Marketing
Mix”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 15, Nos. 2-3, pp. 151-157
Billig, M.S. (1994), “The Death and Rebirth of Entrepreneurism on Negros
Island, Philippines: A Critique of Cultural Theories of Enterprise”, Journal
of Economic Issues, Vol. 28, No. 3, September, pp. 659-79
Boydell, T. (1977), BACIE Conference, July, London
Brady, J. and Davis, I. (1993), “Marketing’s Mid-Life Crisis”, The McKinsey
Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 17-28
Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London
Brown, S. (1997), “Sixty-Six and All That”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.
31, Nos. 9-10, pp. 639- 654
Burgin, V. (1986), The End of Art Theory: Criticism and Postmodernity,
Basingstoke, Macmillan
Burns, P. (1989), “Objective Setting”, Business Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 7580
Campbell, A. (1975), The Mechanics of Enlightenment, An Examination of the
Teaching of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, London, Victor Gollancz Ltd.
Cavanagh R.E. and Clifford, D.K. (1986), The Winning Performance, London,
Sidgwick and Jackson
Chan , A. (1997), “Corporate Culture of a Clan Organization”, Management
Decision, Vol. 35, Nos.1-2, pp. 94-100
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing,
188
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
Heinemann, Oxford
Clegg, P. (1956), A Social and Economic History of Britain 1760-1955, London,
Hassap
Collier, D. (1991), “New Marketing Mix Stresses Service”, Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 42-45
Curtis, J. (1999), “Cards Versus Cuts in the Loyalty War”, Marketing, Oct 7,
pp.37-39
Davis, S.M. and Moe, K. (1997), “Bringing Innovation to Life”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, Nos. 4-5, pp. 338- 62
Dholakia, N., Firat, F. and Bagozzi, R. (1980), “The de-Americanization of
marketing thought: in search of a contextual basis”. In: Theoretical
Development in Marketing (Eds) Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M., Chicago,
American Marketing Association, pp. 25-29
DiMaggio, Paul J. (1988), “Interest and agency in institutional theory”. In:
Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment (Ed.)
Zucker, L., Cambridge, MA, Ballinger, pp. 3-21
Dobbins, R. and Pettmann, B. (1997), “Self-Development: The Nine Basic
Skills for Business Success”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 16,
Nos. 7-8, pp. 517-668
Doyle, P., Wong, J. and Saunders,V. (1992), “Competition in Global Markets:
A Case Study of American and Japanese Companies in the British
Market”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 419- 43
Drucker, P. (1954), The Practice of Management, New York, Harper and Row
Drucker, P. (1988), “The Coming of the New Organization”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 45-53
Genestre, A., Herbig, P. and Shao, A. (1995), “What Does Marketing Really
Mean to the Japanese?”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 13, No. 9,
September, pp. 16-28
Gofton, K. (1999), “Data Firms React to Survey Fatigue; A Recent Mistake
Over Lifestyle Questionnaires has Forced Marketers to Seriously ReEvaluate Their Approach to Customers”, Marketing, April 29, pp. 29-31
Goodwin, F. (1998), “Simplicity Ends Confusion”, Marketing, June 11, p. 15
Grant, J. (1999), The New Marketing Manifesto; The 12 Rules for Building
Successful Brands in the 21st Century, Orion Business
Gronröos, C. (1997), “From Marketing Mix to Relationship MarketingTowards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing”, Management Decision, Vol. 35,
No. 3, pp. 322-40
Gummesson, E. (1994), “Making Relationship Marketing Operational”,
International Journal of Services Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 5-20
Gummesson, E. (1997), “Relationship Marketing as a Paradigm Shift: Some
Conclusions from the 30R Approach”, Management Decision, Vol. 35, Nos.
3-4, pp. 267-73
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
189
Gummesson, E. (1999), Total Relationship Marketing, Butterworth Heinemann,
London
Hamlin, B., Reidy, M. and Stewart, J. (1997), “Changing the Management
Culture in One Part of the British Civil Service Through Visionary
Leadership and Strategically Led Research-Based OD Interventions”,
Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 233-52
Handelman, J.M. and Arnold, S.J. (1999), “The Role of Marketing Actions
With a Social Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 3, July, p. 33
Jencks, C. (1987), Postmodernism: The New Classicism in Art and Architecture,
London, Academy Editions
Kahil, O. and Harcar, T. (1995), “Relationship Marketing and Data Quality
Management”, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 2633
Kandampully, J. and Duddy, R. (1999), “Relationship Marketing: A Concept
Beyond The Primary Relationship”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
Vol. 17, No. 7, pp. 315-323
Kanter, R. M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Kaye, M. and Dyason, M. (1999), “Customer Value-Driven Strategies”, Total
Quality Management, July, pp. 594
Knox, S. (1998), “Loyal to the Core”, Campaign, July 3, pp. 30-32
Koslowsky, S. (1999), “Reducing Your Risk: What’s Happening in Retail
Database Marketing”, Direct Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 9, January, pp. 40-44
Kotler, P. and Fahey, L. (1982), “The World’s Champion Marketers: the
Japanese”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 2, pp. 3-13
Kurt Salmon Associates (1993), “Efficient Consumer Response: Enhancing
Consumer Value in the Grocery Industry,” Food Marketing Institute Report
9-526, Washington, DC, Food Marketing Institute
Larsen, M. (1976), The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies, Copenhagen,
Akademisk Forlag
Leppard J.W. and McDonald, M. (1991), “Marketing Planning and Corporate
Culture: A Conceptual Framework Which Examines Management
Attitudes in the Context of Marketing Planning”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 213-235
Leppard, J.W. (1987), Marketing Planning and Corporate Culture, M.Phil Thesis,
Cranfield Institute of Technology.
McCarthy, E.J. (1964), Basic Marketing, A Managerial Approach, Homewood, IL,
Irwin
McCloskey, D. (1985), The Rhetoric of Economics, Madison, University of
Wisconsin Press
McDonagh, P. (1995), “Radical Change Through Rigorous Review? A
190
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
Commentary on the Commodification of Marketing Knowledge”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 11, No. 7, October, pp. 675-679
Mitchell, A. (1998), “Concentrate on How to Serve Your Existing Customers
Better”, Management Today, January, pp. 84-86
Moore, K. and Lewis, D. (1998), “The First Multi-Nationals: Assyria Circa
2000BC”, Management International Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 95-108
Murphy, C. (1998), “Tesco Customer Numbers Rocket”, Marketing, October
29, p. 6
Murray, J.A. and O’ Driscoll, A. (1997), “Messianic Eschatology: Some
Redemptive Reflections on Marketing and the Benefits of a Process
Approach”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, Nos. 9-10, pp. 706-20
Nadherny, C.C. (1998), The “New Frontier” Direct Marketer, Direct
Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 22-27
Nencel, L. and Pels, P. (Eds)(1991), Constructing Knowledge: Authority and
Critique in Social Science, London, Sage
Nickels, W.G. and Jolson, M.A. (1976), “Packaging- The Fifth P in the
Marketing Mix”, Advanced Management Journal, Winter, pp. 13-34
Nilson, T.H. (1995), Chaos Marketing, London, McGraw-Hill Book Company
O’Malley, L. and Patterson, M. (1998), “Vanishing Point: The Mix
Management Paradigm Re-Viewed”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.
14, pp. 829-851
O’Malley, Patterson, M. and Evans, M. (1997), “Intimacy or Intrusion? The
Privacy Dilemma for Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 541-559
O’Shaughnessy, J. (1997), “Temerarious Directions for Marketing”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, Nos. 9-10, pp. 677-705
Orlin, L. (1970), Assyrian Colonies in Cappodocia, The Hague, Mouton
Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A MultipleItem Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 12-41
Patten, D. (1989), Successful Marketing for the Small Business, London,
Routledge
Pearce, M. (1997), “The True Science of Nurturing”, Marketing, July 31, pp.
S06-9
Peppers, D. and Rodgers, M. (1995), “A New Marketing Paradigm: Share of
Customer Not Market Share”, Planning Review, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 14
Pitt, J. (1988), Theories of Explanation, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Platten, D. (1986), “Postmodern Engineering”, Civil Engineering, Vol. 56, No.
6, pp. 84-6
Randolph, W. A. (1995), “Navigating the Journey to Empowerment”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 19-32
Reneghan, L. P. (1981), “A New Marketing Mix for the Hospitality Industry”,
The Social Construction of New Marketing Paradigms
191
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, August, pp. 31-36
Rosneau, P.M. (1992), Postmodernism and the Social Sciences, Princeton,
Princeton University Press
Salaman, G. (1996), “Change and continuity”. In: Blackwell Cases in Human
Resource and Change Management (Ed.) Storey, J., Oxford, Blackwell
Scott, W. R. (1987), “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, December, pp. 493-511
Simon, H. (1996), “You Don’t Have to be German to be a ‘Hidden
Champion’”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 1-12
Slater, S.F and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Marketing Orientation and the Learning
Organisation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 4, pp. 63-74
Smith, P.A.C. and Saint-Onge, H. (1996), “The Evolutionary Organisation:
Avoiding the Titanic Fate”, The Learning Organisation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 421
Soja, E.W. (1989), Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical
Social Theory, London, Verso
Stanworth, J. and Gray, C. (Eds) (1991), Bolton 20 Years On: The Small Firm in
the 1990s, London, Paul Chapman Publishing
Starkey, K. (1998), “What Can We Learn From The Learning Organization?”,
Human Relations, Vol. 51, No. 4, April, pp. 531-47
The Times (1999)a, “Ryanair Shareholders Reduce Their Stakes Through
Public Offerings”, May 29, p. 26
The Times (1999)b, “Unilever to Purge Three Out of Four Brands”,
September 22, p. 29
Trigger, B., Kemp. B. and Trigger, B. (1983), Ancient Egypt: A Social History,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Tsang, W.K. (1998), “Can Quanxi be a Source of Sustained Competitive
Advantage for Doing Business in China”, The Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 12, No. 2, May, pp. 64-74
Tylee, J. (1998), “Heinz Gets Burnt in Customer Magazine Market, Campaign,
June 5, p. 14
Vandermerwe, S. and Birley, S. (1997), “The Corporate Entrepreneur:
Leading Organisational Transformation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30,
No. 3, pp. 345-352
Van Waterschoot, W. and Van den Bulte, C. (1992), “The 4P Classification of
the Marketing Mix Revisited”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 4, October,
pp. 83-94
Wagner, J.A. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (1995), Management of Organizational
Behavior, 2nd edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall
Waterman, R.H. (1988), The Renewal Factor, Bantam
Westen, D. (1985), Self and Society, Narcissism, Collectivism, and The
Development of Morals, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
192
Adrian Palmer and Sharon Ponsonby
Wills, G.S. (1976), Business School Graffiti, Bradford, Yorks, MCB Books
Wierenga, B. and Van Bruggen, G.H. (1997), “The Integration of Marketing
Problem-Solving Modes and Marketing Management Support Systems”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 3, July, pp. 21-38
Wilson, R. and Gilligan, C. (1997), Strategic Marketing Management, London,
Butterworth-Heinemann
About the Authors
Adrian Palmer is Professor of Services Marketing at Gloucestershire Business
School, Cheltenham, UK.
His previous research into buyer seller
relationships has been published in the European Journal of Marketing, Journal
of Marketing Management, Journal of Services Marketing and Journal of Strategic
Management. Prior to joining academia, he held marketing management
positions within the travel and tourism sector.
Sharon Ponsonby works at the University of Ulster, Magee College,
Northern Ireland, in the School of International Business. Her research
interests include strategic marketing management, services marketing,
buying behaviour, airline marketing strategy and customer value
management.