MARKETING THEORY:

THE PRES~ITSTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT

Zohrab S. Demirdjian
Sout.heastern Louisiana University

Abstract The Broadening Controversy

Amidst controversies surrounding recent concepts and Since Kotler and Levy's seminal 1969 article, new wine
t.heory in the discipline, how does marketing theory has been fermenting, straining the discipline's old
measure up in terms of mat.urity? Such an assessment cont.ainers (boundaries) (Kotler and Levy. 1969, pp •. l0-
is long overdue. A periodic appraisal of the state- 15). Marketing theory has been subjected to "broad-
of-the art in marketing theory is an essential, if not ening" and "deepening" processes (Enis, 1973, PP• 57-
indispensable condition for the maturing of the disci- 62).
pline. Evaluat.ed against four major stages of theory
development, marketing theory appears to have accom- As a consequence of the broadening controversy, two
plished no more or less than its sister disciplines in schools of thought have emerged about marketing theory
social sciences. A cramp in the progress of maturity since the late sixties: the expansion and the tra-
has been contributed by some methodological and atti- ditional schools. The subscribers to the former can
tudinal problems which may be overcome by adopting be labeled the "expansionists." These advocate the
some objective perspectives t.oward marketing theory in enlargement of the scope of marketing to apply the
general,- thus expediting its further development. discipline's technology to non-business organizations
as well, such as to hospitals, charitable organizations,
religious institutions, etc.; and they consider mar-
Introduction keting to be a social process (Kotler and Levy, 1969,
pp. 10-15; Sweeny 1972).
One needs but a. brief glimpse into the history of sci-
ence to see how every discipline had to experience The adherents of the second school of thought can be
growing pains as it went through different stages to- called the "traditionalists" for they argue in terms
ward maturity (Taton 1958; Woodbridge 1929; Kuhn 1952). of keeping the "traditional" or "normal" bou.~daries
As a younger member of social sciences, marketing is of the discipline (Luck 1969, pp. 53-54; Tucker 1974,
no exception. pp. 30-35). They argue that while marketing technology
may be applied to non-economic fields, the substance
Presently, the marketing discipline is undergoing vast of marketing should be its economic mission, and thus
changes; its growing pains are in the form of pres- they consider marketing to be primarily a business
sures from conflicting opinions concerning its nature activity. While the broadening controv~rsy deals with
and scope. We have controversy in marketing concepts, the "marketing concept," the second controversy centers
which are the building blocks of theories (Zaltman et. on the"general theory" of marketing.
al., 1973, p. 19); also, ~e have controversy in ma--
keting theory, which is the backbone of a discipline. The General Theory Controversy

In the face of recent developments in marketing thought The most recent controversy in marketing theory cen-
and theory, a periodic inventory of the intellectual tered on Bartels' general theory. Bartels proposed a
progress in marketing is desirable for two main fac- unified theoretical structure for marketing and labeled
t.ors: one is to assess where we stand in terms of it. "The General Theory of Marketing" (Bartels, 1968,
achievements to serve as a guide for future directions; pp. 29-33). Thegeneral theory was built on seven sub-
the other factor is to find out what errors have been theories. Hunt discounted Bartels' general theory as
committed in the advancement of the discipline, in or- being a nontheoretical structure by contending that
der to avoid them in the future. " ••• the seven component subtheories are not theories,
and thus the collection of seven comnonents c~~ot. be
After having briefly stated two major controversies in referred to as a 'general' theory of- marketing" (Hunt,
marketing concepts and theory, the pu.~ose of this pa- 1971, pp. 65-68).
per is first to assess the present stage of develop-
ment in marketing theorz; then to discuss several of the Hunt's criticism of the "general theory" invited
obstacles which have deterred some rapid progress in Pinson, Angelm~, and Roberto to respond to Hunt
it; and, finally, to present some pers~ectives which (Pinson et. al., 1972, pp. 66-69). The three authors
are deemed amenable to furthering theory in this field presented a note in an attempt to show that Hunt's cri-
of study. ticism of Bartels was based unon inadeauate evaluation
criteria. The main issue rev;lved on Hunt's "lawlike
generalization" criterion which" . . . always specifies
Controversies in MarketL~g a relationship between variables" (Hunt, op. cit., p.
Concepts and Theory 65). They contended that Hunt did not clarify how to
recognize a lawlike generalization, and they demon-
Current literature manifests the existence and strated that his criticism was not valid (Pinson et.
continuance of two major controversies surrounding al., p. 67).
"the broadening concept" of marketing and the "gen~
eral theory" of marketing. Each of these controver- More recently, Pinson, Angelmar, and Roberto's comment
sies is briefly stated in the following sections. brought Hunt to his defense in his note "Lawlike
Generalization and Marketing Theory" (Hunt 1973, pp.
69-70). He a~ed that Bartels' general theory did not
contain lawlike generalization and therefore "it is
neither a theory of marketing nor a 'general' theory

328
o:t: ma:ke"ting" (Htint, p. 70). marke"ting theory measure up against the four stages
of theory development? For half a century nov.~, mar-
While a large part of the intellectual energy is being keting scholars have been gathering and classifying
~irected toward the controversy of expanding or keep- data on markec;ing phenomena by following specific ap-
ing the boundaries of the discipline, and whether or proaches Y~ovn as functional, commodity, institutionab
not the "general theory" is valid, it is worthwhile to and decision-making or managerial.
appraise the present stage of development of marketing
theory in general. The functionalists have attempted to formulate mar-
ke"ting theory through analyzing, describing, and clas-
sifying the major functions of marketing (buying, sell-
The Current Stage of Development ing~ transportation, etc.). ~he "commoditists" viewed
in Marketing Theory marketing in terms of the distribution of a specific
commodic;y or product group (the "product flow ap-
To assess the present stage of marketing theory, a proach"); by describing what is being done to a com-
framework is adopted. This framework was developed by modity in the "flow," they attempted to establish the
A. Cornelius Benjamin in his book, An Introduction to foundations of marketing theory.
the Philosonhy £!Science (Benjamin~937). A theory-
may develop through four stages: Complementary to the functionalist approach, "the insti-
tutionalists have tried to build marketing theory
The first stage is called the preparatory through describing the nature and activities of various
stage. At this stage, theory is still em- facilitating agencies and middlemen involved in dis-
bryonic, and the science from which the tributing the products. More specifically, the insti-
theory is to emerge is still at the descrip- tutionalists attempted to describe how each inter-
tive level. The main thrust at this stage mediary performed the functions listed in the func-
is directed at gathering data and classi- tional approach. Finally, the managerialists have em-
fying them. At this level, there are no phasized management functions applied to marketing
theories or even hypotheses, but a founda- (planning, organizing, controlling, e"tc.). Attempts
tion is being laid to build upon a theoreti- have been made to found and advance marketing theory by
cal structure. analyzing and describing the role of the manager as a
problem-solver and decision-maker.
The second stage is characterized by the re-
cognition of the insufficiency of mere de- Thus, marketing theory has gone through the firsc
scription. The realization that although a stage, for it now has a wealth of data gathered and
certain phenomenon is adequately described, classified by scholars subsc~ibing to different ap-
c;here is still a great need c;o explain it. proaches.
The mai;:: effort is to derive explanatory
conceptions from the data through two most It is also safe to say that marketing theory has gone
important techniques of abstraction and through the second sc;age. Marketing scientists are
conc~e"tion. aware of the insufficiency of mere description of the
data gathered. Paul D. Converse's article of 1945 set
The third stage is marked by attempts to in- the ball rolling on the development of the science of
crease the content of the explanatory entity markec;ing (Converse,l945, pp. 14-23). A development
in such a way as to permit the deduction of the reflecting such an awareness is the formation of the
propositions already known to be verified. Marketing Science Institute in June, 1962, with the
These propositions are deliberately put to use dedication to the development of Marketing Science.
ina different explanatory entity. In doing so, Increasing numbers of companies are making huge contri-
the scientist has the opport~~ity to extend butions (earmarked for basic research in marketing) to
the applicability of these known propositions universities and other research institutions. One of the
in the context of new conceptualizations. reasons for the formation of the American Marketing
Association was to advance science in marketing.
The fourth stage, into which the third merges
imperceptibly, is earmarked by attempts to in- An examnle of the endeavor to extend from mere descriP-
crease the content of the explanatory en~ity tive data which is obvi'Ously given, into the ex- -
in a manner to permit the deduction of pro- planation of something which is less obviuusly given
positions not yet known to be true. That is to is Howard and Sheth's theory of buyer behavior (Howard
say, the propositions descriptive of data are and Sheth 1968, p. 471). In this theory they not only
still to be discovered. At this stage the describe the variables, but also attempt to explain
development of theory matures; only in this their interactions and interrelacionships. Thus, be-
stage theory has become a genuine theory in havior is described and explained.
fulfilling its predictive function (Benjamin,
pp. 214-217). There is enough evidence to supporc; the contention that
marketing theory may have entered the third stage, in
There is no denying the fact that a theory which has which propositions already known to be verified permit
undergone some verification is preferable to a purely deductions to increase the explanatory power of a
speculative one because" . • . inadequacies in the theory. For instance, the proposition of "automatic
theory can be detected only by examining the predic- response" based on learning theory has already been
tions in the light of the facts" (Lachman, 1956, p. 60). verified in the field of psychology. However, it is
However, a theory does not cease to be scientific if also used for verification within the context of other
it has not been verified. In this paper " • . • by theories of consumer behavior in order to enhance their
theory is meant an explicit and coherent system of explanatory power.
variables and relationships with potential or actual
empirical foundations, addressed to gaining under- Finally, marketing theory is on the trieshold of the
standing, prediction, and control of an area of phe- fourth stage. In this stage, theory permits deduc-
nomena" (Kotler 1971, p. 7). tions of propositions no"t yet known to be true. Stage
four is hard to attain for marketing processes are
Now that the framework has been laid down, how does " . . . dynamic, non-linear, lagged, stochastic, inter-

329