Abstract
Marketing is a relatively young discipline and mainstream marketing education pays little attention to the discipline's development and history. While on the sidelines of the discipline there has been some criticism of the lack of a historical understanding of marketing's development, marketing too often produces theory without appropriate regard to past marketing theory. This paper considers the case of the `most important' paper on marketing theory in 2004 with reference to a leading marketing writer from the 1950s and 1960s. It finds support for the argument that the 2004 paper brings little novelty over the 1965 book to which it is compared.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
