Place,space,and Marketing Theory

Abstract

In this commentary, we discuss the concepts of place and space, and the development of a ‘spatial sensibility’ in the marketing discipline. Reviewing the way(s) in which place and space have been used in marketing (particularly in Marketing Theory), we identify two interrelated approaches: as (1) subject/object of research and as (2) context for research, and go on to discuss the main advancements in the field, key scholars to consider, and conclude by articulating a future research agenda—topics and questions requiring further understanding and development.

Introduction

Describing his adoptive home city, Italian writer Italo Calvino (for whom places—real and imagined—were an integral aspect of his work) states:

If one admits that a writer’s work can be influenced by the environment in which it is produced, by the elements of the surrounding scenery, then one has to admit that Turin is the ideal city in which to be a writer (Calvino, 2003: 6).

All writing (including from academe) ineluctably exists to some degree in space: as Calvino notes, writers’ location(s) in the world may (un)consciously influence their perspective—as can, in an academic context, the disciplinary ‘space’ in which researchers work. Here, marketing-related research endeavours regarding place and space is multidisciplinary, informed not only by the management literature but also by geography (e.g. Massey, 1991; Soja, 2009; Thrift, 2008; Westerholt and Levin-Keitel, 2025) and sociology (e.g. Fu, 2020; Lefebvre, 1991) among others. This, in turn, influences decisions regarding a possible ‘home’ for this work. In marketing, for authors with a ‘spatial sensibility’—whose research focuses on place and space—Marketing Theory is on the shortlist, as it regularly includes papers investigating and theorising concepts of place and space.

As we have noted elsewhere, ‘place’ is, as one of the 4Ps, an axiomatic principle of marketing, but this managerially oriented perspective can be broadened ‘to incorporate a more rounded understanding of the concept, and one which—perhaps inevitably—is informed by, and rooted in, other disciplines’ (Chatzidakis et al., 2018: 149). Cresswell states that place is not ‘a specialized piece of academic terminology…[but]…a word wrapped in common sense’ (2004: 1), going on to define a place in terms of ‘spaces which people have made meaningful…[and]…spaces people are attached to in one way or another’ (ibid: 7). In discussing the distinctiveness of place, Henderson (2009: 539-541) identifies three ‘arenas of discussion’:

(1) the idea that place, to be a place, necessarily has meaning—that is, place as a fundamental aspect of human experience whereby people demonstrate subjective and emotional attachment to particular place(s)—what Agnew termed ‘sense of place’, incorporating a more phenomenological perspective which ‘reinforces the social-spatial definition of place from the inside’ (1987: 27).

(2) place is a ‘becoming locale’—that is, temporal change as a constituent feature of place, whereby place ‘takes place ceaselessly’ and which ‘contributes to history in a specific context through the creation and utilization of a physical setting’ (Pred, 1984: 279).

(3) a decentred, global sense of place—that is, the continued role for place in an increasingly globalised world which may potentially eliminate place as a social-spatial reality. Here, Henderson cites Massey (1991), who promulgates an idea of place which stresses interconnections with other places: ‘place is not constituted by what is internal to it, but by its distinct lines of connection to other parts of the world. One place is different from another on the basis of its relations to the outside’ (2009: 540-1).

In contradistinction, if place is a location with meaning, then space is often regarded as a more abstract concept, as a realm without meaning, pre-existing and undifferentiated. Thus, ‘[p]laces have space between them’ (Cresswell, 2004: 8). Yet, spatiality is increasingly being addressed by marketing scholars, such as Coffin and Chatzidakis (2021) who explicate a more nuanced and complex rendering of space than its usual portrayal as ‘something anonymous’ (Visconti et al., 2010: 512) that forms either the background, setting, or the object, of consumption activity. This resonates with how geographers regard space. For example, Marxist geographer David Harvey (2006) posits a framework for understanding space as: absolute (i.e. space as a thing that exists independently); relative (i.e. defined by the relationship between objects, rather than as an empty container); and relational (i.e. as contained within objects or processes, with the implication that space is not just where things happen but is produced by the processes themselves). Gregory (2009a) outlines various ‘contemporary theorizations of space in human geography’ (also incorporating the temporal) relating to the integration, the co-production, the unruliness, and the porousness of time-space. This greater emphasis on space resonates with recent advances in theorising space within the marketing discipline (see for example, Castilhos and Dolbec, 2018; Chatzidakis et al., 2012; Cheetham et al., 2018; Coffin and Chatzidakis, 2021; Roux et al., 2018).

Indeed, Chatzidakis et al. note that ‘all consumption is in space and place’, and call for a ‘more nuanced insight into the structural, temporal, transformational and often taken-for-granted impact of space and place’ (2018: 152) on marketing thought. Subsequently, literature demonstrating a ‘spatial sensibility’ has increased significantly (not least in Marketing Theory) and, in a constructively critical way, we discuss advancements, key scholars to consider, and (fully acknowledging that more needs to be done) articulate a future research agenda—topics and questions requiring further understanding and development.

Advancements in the field

While acknowledging the spatial nature of all writing, for the specific purpose of reviewing the way(s) in which place and space have been used (particularly in this journal), we identify two interrelated approaches: as (1) subject/object of research and as (2) context for research.

Subject/object of research

Perhaps the most obvious manifestation is the literature investigating the marketing—and latterly, branding—of places. Since the early 1990s, place marketing/branding research has burgeoned with various reviews attesting to its multi-disciplinarity (see Gertner, 2011a, 2011b; Lucarelli and Berg, 2011; Ma et al., 2019)—with implications for the ontological and epistemological foundations of research inquiry (Lucarelli and Brorström, 2013). Lucarelli and Berg (2011) identify the predominant research method as the case study and critique a consequent tendency towards conceptual and theoretical generalisation potentially drawn from studies based on shallow empirical data. Gertner is highly critical, stating that scholars and practitioners ‘must make the essential move from a predominantly descriptive to a normative stage to allow the field to continue to grow’ (2011b: 125).

Such critique is possibly symptomatic of an emerging sub-discipline requiring further theoretical rigour. Indeed, from the early days of place marketing research, a critical perspective is apparent—perhaps arising from geographers’ suspicion of management/marketing? Place marketing researchers draw magpie-like on broader theory to inform their work—not only from other areas of marketing such as the service-dominant logic (e.g. Warnaby, 2009) and branding more generally (e.g. Dinnie, 2018; O’Malley et al., 2025), but from other management domains such as institutional theory (e.g. Sullivan et al., 2023), and indeed non-management disciplines such as sociology (e.g. Fu, 2020; Lefebvre, 1991; Warren, 2025).

We have argued that ‘markets for—and consumption of—goods and services are often explicitly contextualized using spatial criteria and dimensions’ (Chatzidakis et al., 2018: 150), and work addressing the definition/delineation of marketplaces/spaces is another manifestation of this ‘spatial sensibility’. In a marketing context, these marketplaces/spaces are manifest in multifarious ways, from the material such as retail environments and other servicescapes that are largely under the marketer’s control (e.g. Murakami Wood and Ball, 2013; Yakhlef, 2015) to more digital marketspaces (e.g. Zinkhan, 2005). Increasingly, various sub-disciplines (e.g. digital sociology, digital geography, and digital marketing) are proposing a digital reappropriation of place. As digital technology ‘bleeds’ across spatial contexts (Lundberg, 2025), Westerhope and Levin-Keitel (2025) contend that a better understanding of the dynamic interactions between the physical and virtual elements of place and space are valuable for promoting positive urban spatial design. Moreover, Canelas and Hoehnk (2025) conclude that the infusion of placemaking with digital technologies expose unfamiliar dimensions of the placemaking process, thus revealing further insights around how places are experienced and understood. Discussing the role of ‘place’ in organisation studies, Dacin et al. (2024) also suggest a shift in emphasis from physical to digital places and suggest a further movement to ‘polymorphic approaches to place’, acknowledging the multi-layered nature of places.

From a more phenomenological perspective, the recent emphasis on atmosphere(s) (e.g. Chatzidakis and Maclaran, 2023; Cheetham et al., 2025; Preece et al., 2022; Steadman and Coffin, 2023) offers another popular dimension to places and spaces as the subject/object of recent research.

Context for research

Our second approach acknowledges the relevance of place for organising/organisations. Dacin et al. state, ‘there is no shortage of articles that feature rich descriptions of place throughout the organizational literature’ (2024: 1192), often as specific contexts for managerial action. To help explicate this, we contrast the concepts of chorology (a.k.a. chorography) and geography.

Gregory (2009b) defines chorology as the study of the variation of the Earth’s surface. It constitutes an ideographic approach to space and place (concerned with a tendency to specify, and underpinning what would now be called ‘regional geography’). This contrasts with the more nomothetic approach of geography which relates to the world as a whole (Gregory, 2009c), in attempts at broader generalisation. In the context of marketing (and in Marketing Theory), the spatial contextualisation of research enquiry ranges across spatial scales, from musical performances in urban squares (Oakes and Warnaby, 2011); the garage (Hirschman et al., 2012); urban parks (Cheetham et al., 2018); to the nation state (e.g. Fagbola et al., 2023; Onyas, 2023).

Conceptions of place in the management literature are ever-expanding. We have mentioned Dacin et al.’s (2024) discussion of place as moving from physical to digital to polymorphic, but they identify other shifts in the conceptualisation of place. The first addresses the dynamism of place, positing that place is moving from stable (e.g. a local study context and/or as a passive container of action), to dynamic (i.e. experienced in different ways by people, and continuously (re)created by actions), to ‘both stable and dynamic’, which ‘enriches the discourse…by acknowledging that place is simultaneously stable and ever evolving’ (ibid: 1196). The second relates to place-based power relations, with the literature moving from a seeming neutral perspective to a more complex political understanding of place, and further to a fuller recognition and understanding of the complex interactions between place and power. As marketing’s ‘spatial sensibility’ develops, our understanding of the inter-dynamics of place and space (given that Dacin et al.’s ‘shifts’ resonate with geographers’ broader theorisations of space), and the managerial and consumption actions and behaviour occurring therein will inevitably increase.

Key scholars to consider

It would be impossible to do justice here to all key scholars who have advanced theory within place and space. Thus, our primary focus is on key marketing scholars and those who have published within Marketing Theory.

Key marketing scholars who foreground theory relating to the nature of place and space largely fall within the two main approaches discussed above. Here, early work contributes to what might be deemed as more traditional areas of marketing, that is, place marketing and/or place branding/promotion—albeit from a more critical perspective, given the journal’s aims and scope. Drawing attention to the complexity of place, Warnaby’s (2009) early article argues that the service-dominant logic of marketing could potentially offer a novel perspective through which to view the place marketing literature. Further, Kavaratzis and Hatch (2013) propose a dynamic view of place identity which involves interaction and dialogue between internal and external stakeholders, leading to a fuller appreciation of the dynamics of place brands. At the same time, Giovanardi et al. (2013) introduce scholars to the concept of brand ecology as a useful approach to help unpack the complexity of place brands, compelling marketing theorists to reconsider the relationship between place marketing and place branding approaches. Undeniably, these calls have been met progressively, as marketing scholars continue to advance place marketing, promotion, and branding theory by taking a more dynamic and performative approach (e.g. Andéhn et al., 2019; Dinnie, 2018; O’Malley et al., 2025; Warren, 2025).

Warnaby and Medway (2013) ask, ‘what about place?’, arguing that the place product should be regarded as a ‘dynamic concept, composed as much from changing and competing narratives in and over time, as it is from its tangible and material elements’ (ibid: 345), and discussing the power relations inherent in who gets to define place. Focusing on exclusion and place more specifically, Castilhos (2019) proposes three main elements of branded places; architecture and urbanism, brand narrative, and spatial governance, with a view to demonstrating how they produce physical, symbolic, and social boundaries between middle and lower-classes in urban spaces. With a view to kickstarting alternative theoretical avenues for marketing scholars interested in market system dynamics, Castilhos et al. (2017) conceptualise how various types of spaces (i.e. place, territory, scale, and networks combined with 12 space-based mechanisms) matter differently in the marketplace. Highlighting the broader inclusion-exclusion dynamics at play within spatial structures, Castilhos and Dolbec (2018) propose a spatial typology of space, featuring public, market, emancipating, or segregating space which are orchestrated by core oppositional dynamic forces (i.e. contestation vs consensus; participation vs subjugation) that shape and are shaped by the interplay among social actors and wider structures in society. Thus, a growing area of academic interest draws on spatial themes around power relations and market exclusion, disadvantage and/or vulnerability. For example, in their research on Exarcheia, an Athenian neighbourhood, Chatzidakis et al. (2012) draw attention to the particularity of the spatial contexts in which they occur and their political implications. Focusing on how vulnerability within social space is shaped and negotiated, Saatclioglu and Corus (2015) conceptualise spatial vulnerability and propose a framework to understand, critique, and transform socio-spatial disadvantages. Additionally, McEachern et al. (2024) build on Castilhos and Dolbec’s (2018) notion of segregating space to show how social supermarkets emerge as offering a type of transitional space between the segregating spaces of foodbanks and the market spaces of mainstream food retailers.

Echoing a wider spatial turn in the social sciences and humanities (Soja, 2009), Chatzidakis et al. (2016) point to a step change within the topic of space and place research, as marketing scholars were urged to adopt a more, dynamic, subject-approach to advance marketing theory. Recognising that further scope for a more overtly phenomenological and social-relational perspective within space and place existed, Chatzidakis et al. (2018) proposed a timely call for more spatially focused consumption research within marketing, unearthing a significant body of scholarly work around space and place.

Building on Hirschman et al.’s (2012) ethnographic study of American garages (where they develop a theoretical model of the roles that liminal spaces perform in the management of possessions and their meanings), Roux et al. (2018) extend such theorising, by viewing the sidewalk as a liminal space. Underpinned by both spatial and temporal dimensions, they identify four properties of the sidewalk: (1) as a liminal space for items that are torn between disposal and re-usage, (2) as a habitual space whose meaning is constantly negotiated between disposers and gleaners, (3) a place of illusion vis-à-vis the linear economy, and (4) a place of compensation for the failings of consumer society. Consequently, both sets of scholars advance marketers’ knowledge and understanding of transformation and liminality through the places in which these processes occur, as much as the people and possessions undergoing the transitions.

Knowledge of spatial transformation and temporality are also advanced by Bradford and Sherry (2018), who through the metaphor of ‘encompassment’ explore the dynamics of space-place transformations within the context of tailgating. Focusing on this form of temporary consumer encampment, three key architectonic pillars are proposed—chorography, conviviality, and community—to illustrate how brand communities transform public space into private place, and then into public place. Similarly, Vicdan and Hong (2018) draw on Soja’s (2009) spatial theory to advance marketing understanding around how different actors collectively create and transform space as well as illuminate how a transformed space influences the actions and practices of its actors.

Drawing on Thrift’s (2008) theory of practices which aims to shed light on the mundane, intangible, everyday practices, Hill et al. (2014) advocate for more theoretical advancements relating to place-as-context, encouraging marketing scholars to move away from visual and narrative methodologies to more non-representational perspectives such as affect, sensorial experiences, and atmosphere in consumption spaces. Inspired by non-representational theory, both Henshaw et al. (2016) and Canniford et al. (2018) theorise the embodied experience of space by focusing on the pervasive and affective role of smell upon space and place. Moreover, through a dynamic, kaleidoscopic lens, Cheetham et al. (2018) utilise both consumption and non-representational theory to provide a detailed explication of the urban park as a temporal, fluid, and adaptable experience in which the interactions between place, space, time, humans, and non-humans co-produce these locales as a meaningful consumption experience for its human co-participants, shedding light on the territorial movements incorporating de- and re-territorialisation processes as well as the performative and temporal nature around the consumption of urban parks.

Also contributing more recently to the consumption in—and of—places from a non-representational perspective is Steadman et al. (2021) who extend theory relating to the spatial, affective, and temporal aspects of atmosphere relating to consumers past memories, disrupted routines, and anticipations for the future. In so doing, they illustrate how places of consumption present ‘porous or leaky boundaries that are permeable to other spatialities and temporalities, with the image of place-as-colander thus more clearly emerging’ (ibid: 149). Building on Steadman et al.’s (2021) work, Preece et al. (2022) also focus on affective atmospheres of consumption spaces but take a more-than-representational approach, which helps to distinguish that ‘rather than blankets of affect that envelop consumers uniformly, atmospheres should be understood as relational forces which combine with social, spatial, temporal and embodied processes’ (ibid: 376).

Alongside current calls for methodological advances within marketing, atmospheres of consumption, and the role of embodiment, place and affect is likely to attract attention as a future research focus, as Steadman and Coffin (2023) and Rodner et al. (2023) call for a ‘fresh anthology of research to capture the relational heterogeneity of (affective) atmospheres’ in consumption spaces. Kapoor et al.’s (2025) recent research responds to such calls as they conceptualise threshold atmospheres (i.e. described as modulation, suspension, hauntology, and transformation) as affective atmospheres generated by moments of significant change.

Topics and questions requiring further understanding and development

We believe that marketing’s ‘spatial sensibility’ will continually develop and now offer some avenues for further research inquiry by marketing scholars, to facilitate further maturation within the marketing discipline.

The first relates to the further refining of the definition/delineation of place and space (both real and virtual) in a marketing context, which will inevitably continue to draw on other academic disciplines to provide theoretical underpinnings. Here, one concept with utility could be that of territory. In his discussion of a general science of territory and territorial phenomena (or territorology), Brighenti (2010: 61) argues that territory is ‘not an absolute concept. Rather, it is always relative to a sphere of application or a structural domain of practice’—in our case, marketing. Taking a broader definition than more stereotypical definitions of territory (traditionally imagined in terms of a distinct bounded space under the control of an entity), Brighenti posits that a territory is ‘better conceived as an act or practice rather than an object or physical space’ (2010: 53). While explored to some degree by Cheetham et al. (2018), further research into this broader understanding of territory could potentially open new conceptual avenues for not only spatial but also behavioural aspects of place and space for marketers.

Recent work has investigated the influence of temporality on place marketing/branding (e.g. Malone et al., 2026; Warnaby, 2024) but given Huyssen’s contention that ‘[a]s fundamentally contingent categories of historically rooted perception, time and space are always bound up with each other in complex ways’ (2003: 12), there is a need for more detailed exploration of spatiotemporal interactions in the context of marketing. Incorporating a temporal perspective, perhaps though more extensive use of longitudinal studies investigating ‘consumption in and of space and place’ (Chatzidakis et al., 2018) could be a fruitful avenue for future research.

Perhaps linked to this temporal dimension, another future research avenue could relate to processes of marketing in relation to place and space, with reference to the actors involved, and the extent of the power and agency they enjoy. Warnaby (2009) has noted that in a place marketing context, if places are ‘products’ to be marketed, then their governance/management structures are usually far more complex than more stereotypical marketing contexts. Furthermore (taking a territorological perspective), control over an area might involve a complex network of power relations: Brighenti and Kärrholm note that ‘territory defines spaces through patterns of relations’ (2020: 22). Given the potential multiplicity of stakeholders involved in the management/marketing of places, the potential for contestation is very real, and the role of activism has been explored in this (see Chatzidakis et al., 2012; Lloveras et al., 2018, 2020) and other journals (e.g. Chatzidakis, 2020, which also incorporates a temporal perspective).

Returning to the notion of ‘context for research’, it could be argued that much place and space research in the marketing discipline is focused on place (and how it is represented and interpreted from a human perspective), as opposed to a more overt spatial orientation. Regarding the latter, there is scope for more research on the digital, which is often metaphorically referred to in spatial terms and imagined in the abstract, but which has a real spatial presence with physical resource implications (e.g. the massive water usage of datacentres). More research into the effects of market-places and consumption-spaces on non-human actors could be another fruitful research avenue, perhaps informed by non-representational theory, which has had such an impact in the geography discipline. Furthermore, the geographical context for much of this research endeavour is on the Global North; the potential for research situated in, and addressing issues relating to, the Global South is huge.

There are undoubtedly other disciplines (e.g. architecture, neuroscience)—and contexts (e.g. spaces for non-humans—see Waverley, 2024)—for future research inquiry relating to place and space but whatever the direction(s) in which this research endeavour progresses, we are sure that Marketing Theory will continue to be in the vanguard and its scholars advance the field further for another 25 years!