Shelby D. Hunt
Executive Summary
How should the concept "marketing" be defined? At the outset of this discussion, it is important to note that definitions are "rules of replacement." That is, a definition means that a word or group of words (the "definiens") is proposed to be truth-functionally equivalent to the word being defined (the "definiendum"). Good definitions exhibit inclusivity, exclusivity, differentiability, clarity, communicability, consistency, and parsimony. That is, good definitions should (1) include all phenomena that should be "taken in," (2) exclude all phenomena that should be left out, (3) differentiate the definiendum from other (often closely related) terms, (4) define the term clearly, (5) communicate well the term's meaning to its intended audience(s), (6) be consistent with the meanings of other important terms, and (7) be no longer than necessary to accomplish Criteria 1–6.
In 2004, the American Marketing Association (AMA) adopted the following definition: "Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its stakeholders." In 2007, an AMA committee recommended a new definition to the AMA board of directors, which states, "Marketing is the activity, conducted by organizations and individuals, that operates through a set of institutions and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging market offerings that have value for customers, clients, marketers, and society at large."
Does the 2004 definition include/exclude appropriate phenomena? Does it clearly differentiate marketing from other concepts? Does it communicate well with its intended audiences, for example, with marketing practitioners, marketing academics, students, and the general public? Does the AMA committee–recommended, revised 2007 definition (hereafter, the 2007 definition) address the problems of the 2004 definition? This essay develops a framework for approaching these questions, and offers some tentative answers. The framework can be referred to as the "responsibilities framework."
The foundational premise of the responsibilities framework is that people most closely associated with marketing, whether they are practitioners or academics, desire that (1) marketing practice be viewed as a profession and (2) the marketing academic discipline be viewed as a professional discipline. Accordingly, the AMA mission statement states that it is "a professional association for individuals and organizations involved in the practice, teaching, and study of marketing," and it launched its professional certified marketer program in 2000. Such efforts notwithstanding, it is probably true that none of the various and remarkably heterogeneous occupations associated with marketing (e.g., sales, advertising, brand/product management, marketing research, retail management, wholesale management, distribution management, marketing management) has reached—or been accorded by society—the status of "profession." Likewise, although numerous marketing academics advocate that marketing should be taught and researched as a profession, it is still unclear as to what the admonitions "teach marketing as a profession" and "research marketing as a profession" specifically imply.
If one or more of these occupations became a profession, what characteristics would it have? Note that the words "professor" and "profession" have the same Latin etymological root, professio. Just as professors profess, so do members of professions. What do members of professions claim when they profess? Foremost, they profess to have mastered a complex body of knowledge, based on systematic theory, that requires formal, advanced education. They further profess that their knowledge is useful for solving certain clients' problems. By virtue of their professed superior knowledge, professionals can, if they choose to do so, take advantage of their clients. Consequently, the underlying values embodied in the organizational cultures of all professional associations—such values customarily formalized in codes of ethics—emphasize the responsibility of professionals to avoid conflicts of interest in servicing the genuine needs of their clients. Lacking professionals' knowledge, clients must be able to trust them. In exchange for status, authority, and autonomy (enforced by self-regulation), the implicit (and sometimes explicit) social contract between society and each profession requires that professionals act in a fiduciary manner toward their clients. It is unsurprising, then, that the AMA's code of ethics indicates that the association is committed to promoting the highest standard of professional norms and values for its members.
If members of professions have fiduciary responsibilities toward their clients, what do such responsibilities imply for academics' teaching and research? Consider the nature of research in schools of law, medicine, and engineering. Just as consumer goods' manufacturers view wholesalers and retailers as intermediate customers for their goods, schools of law, medicine, and engineering—professional schools all—view practicing lawyers, physicians, and engineers as intermediaries. They are intermediate clients for legal, medical, and engineering scholarship because the ultimate client for a truly professional discipline is always society and its needs. For law, it is society's need for a just legal system. For medicine, it is society's need for health care. For engineering, it is society's need for buildings, bridges, highways, and machines that are safe, functional, efficient, and economical. What societal need does marketing fulfill? The author suggests that it is society's need for high-quality products and services that are reasonably priced, responsibly promoted, and conveniently available.
If marketing practice is to be (or become) a profession, and the marketing discipline is to be (or become) a professional discipline, what are the implications for teaching and researching marketing? The responsibilities framework implies that marketing academe has certain responsibilities to (at least) four stakeholders: the academy, society, students, and practice.
As to the 2004 definition, this essay concludes that if marketing practice is to be viewed as a profession, if marketing should be taught and researched in the manner of a professional discipline, and if the AMA is meant to be considered a professional association, it is sorely deficient and should be revised. However, the committee-recommended 2007 definition is a positive step toward viewing marketing as a profession. That is, it can contribute to the goal of practicing, teaching, and researching marketing in a professional manner.
Biography
Shelby D. Hunt is Jerry S. Rawls and P.W. Horn Professor of Marketing at Texas Tech University. He is a past editor of Journal of Marketing (1985–1987) and the author of numerous books, including Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing (M.E. Sharpe, 2002), Controversy in Marketing Theory: For Reason, Realism, Truth, and Objectivity (M.E. Sharpe, 2003), and A General Theory of Competition: Resources, Competences, Productivity, Economic Growth (Sage Publications, 2000). One of the 250 most frequently cited researchers in economics and business (Thompson–ISI), he has written numerous articles on competitive theory, strategy, macromarketing, ethics, relationship marketing, channels of distribution, philosophy of science, and marketing theory.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, Fall 2007
View Table of Contents