Four fundamental issues serve to establish the identity of the field of marketing, distinguish it from other fields and disciplines, and compel further research inquiry. These issues ask (1) How do customers and consumers really behave? (2) How do markets function and evolve? (3) How do firms relate to their markets? and (4) What are the contributions of marketing to organizational performance and societal welfare? These issues also serve as the organizing framework for this special issue
Although the questions posed by these fundamental issues are durable, new answers will need to be sought to accommodate the following trends and disruptions that are shaping the direction of marketing: (1) the connected knowledge economy; (2) globalizing, converging, and consolidating industries; (3) fragmenting and frictionless markets; (4) empowered customers and consumers; and (5) adaptive organizations. These new directions challenge academic marketing to provide meaningful measures, inferences, and calibration; understand functional interfaces; and rethink the role of theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AchrolRavi S. and KotlerPhilip (101999), “Marketing in the Network Economy,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 146–63.
2.
AldersonWroe (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior.Home-wood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
3.
ArndtJohan (1979), “Toward a Concept of Domesticated Markets,” Journal of Marketing, 43 (Fall), 69–75.
4.
ArthurW. Brian (1996), “Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (July/August), 100–111.
5.
BagozziRichard P. (1974), “Marketing as an Organized Behavioral System of Exchange,” Journal of Marketing, 38 (October), 77–81.
6.
BassFrank and WindYoram (1995), “Special Issue on Empirical Generalizations in Marketing,” Marketing Science, 14 (3), G1–236.
7.
BiggadikeE. Ralph (1981), “The Contributions of Marketing to Strategic Management,” Academy of Management Review, 6 (4), 621–32.
8.
BuchananLauranne (1992), “Vertical Trade Relationships: The Role of Dependence and Symmetry in Attaining Organizational Goals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (February), 65–75.
9.
CyertRichard and MarchJames (1992), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business Books.
10.
DayGeorge S. (1997), “Strategies for Surviving a Shakeout,” Harvard Business Review, 75 (March/April), 92–104.
11.
DeightonJohn (1996), “The Future of Interactive Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 74 (November/December), 4–15.
12.
DeshpandéRohit (1998), “1998–2000 Research Priorities,” presentation, MSI Trustees’ Meeting, From Here to ‘00: Putting Our Priorities to Work. Phoenix, AZ (November).
13.
FarleyJohn U. and LehmannDonald (1986), Meta Analysis in Marketing: Generalization of Response Models.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
14.
HaeckelStephen (101999), Adaptive Enterprises: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
15.
HuntShelby D. (1983) “General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 9–17.
16.
HuntShelby D. (1994), “On Rethinking Marketing: Our Discipline, Our Practice, Our Methods,” European Journal of Marketing, 28 (3), 13–25.
17.
KellyKevin (1997), “New Rules for the New Economy: Twelve Dependable Principles for Thriving in a Turbulent Economy,” Wired, 5 (September), 141–43, 186–91.
18.
KerinRoger A. (1996), “In Pursuit of an Ideal: The Editorial and Literary History of the Journal of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (January), 1–14.
19.
KotlerPhilip and LevySidney (1969), “Broadening the Concept of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 10–15.
20.
MelaCarl, GuptaSunil, and LehmannDonald (1997), “The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (May), 248–61.
21.
MontgomeryCynthia A. (1995), Resource-Based and Evolutionary Theories of the Firm.Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
22.
MontgomeryDavid B. and SilkAlvin J. (1972), “Estimating Dynamic Effects of Market Communications Expenditures,” Management Science: Applications, (June).
23.
MontgomeryDavid B. and SrinivasanV. (1994), “An Improved Method for Meta Analysis with Application to New Product Diffusion Models,” Research Paper No. 1310.Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
24.
PorterMichael (1980), Competitive Strategy.New York: The Free Press.
25.
PrahaladC.K. (1995), “Weak Signals Versus Strong Paradigms,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (August), iii–vi.
26.
RumeltRichard P., SchendelDan E., and TeeceDavid J. (1994), Fundamental Issues in Strategy.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
27.
SongX. Michael and BenedettoC.A. Di (1996), “Perceived Global Pioneering Advantage Principles: A Nine Country Empirical Investigation and Strategic Implications,” working paper, Michigan State University.
28.
TapscottDon (1997), “Strategy in the New Economy,” Strategy & Leadership, 25 (November/December), 8–14.
29.
TeeceDavid J. (1998), “Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: The New Economy, Markets for Know-How, and Intangible Assets,” California Management Review, 40 (Spring), 55–79.
30.
WebsterFrederick E.Jr. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (October), 1–17.
31.
WebsterFrederick E.Jr. (1997), “The Future Role of Marketing in the Organization,” in Reflections on the Future of Marketing, LehmannDonald and JoczKatherine E., eds. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 39–66.
32.
WeinerEdith and BrownArnold (1995), “The New Marketplace,” The Futurist, (May-June), 12–16.
33.
WindYoram (1978), “Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (August), 317–37.
34.
WoodruffRobert B. (1997), “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2), 139–53.
