William L. Wilkie and Elizabeth S. Moore
Executive Summary
Over the last several years, it has become increasingly evident that there are significant issues in need of discussion within the college of marketing. This essay raises several of these in the context of the official definition for the field issued by the American Marketing Association (AMA) in 2004. The authors address three essential issues: (1) problems that are inherent in the AMA's 2004 definition, (2) the need for aggregate and systemic perspectives in our conception of the marketing field, and (3) positive developments with regard to a review and prospective revision of the current definition.
The essay begins with a brief history of the AMA's definition of marketing and how it has changed over time. The first formal AMA definition was developed in 1935. It was periodically reviewed and maintained for the next 50 years. In 1985, and then again in 2004, it was modified. Examination of these three definitions reveals a narrowing of focus over time. The first AMA definition focused significant attention on the distribution functions of marketing. It was pluralistic and systemic and thus readily translatable to more aggregated issues, such as competition, system performance, and consumer welfare. The 1985 change was a significant one, turning attention squarely toward the manager's tasks. The 2004 definition not only extended this managerial dynamic but went on to delimit marketing to a singular focus on the individual organization.
Although the authors agree that the conception of marketing as a strategic activity within an organization is a reasonable view for marketing managers to take, and for academics to use when appropriate, the 2004 effort is actually a definition of "marketing management," not of the entire field of marketing. There are substantial costs to such a conceptual limitation for the field. Important broader questions can go unasked (because they are outside the purview of a single firm), and this narrow conception may foreclose other worthwhile directions for thought development.
The authors discuss their concerns in terms of six limitations of the 2004 definition that arise from failing to recognize marketing's larger system qualities in the world. These definitional limitations include (1) a lack of apparent interest in assessing marketing's impacts on the world, (2) the failure to recognize the competitive nature of the marketing system, (3) the failure to address major societal and public policy issues, (4) a failure to keep the marketing system's interactions with consumers in mind, (5) an inadvertent understatement of the scope and importance of marketing, and (6) a potentially suppressive effect on scholarly inquiry in the marketing and society area. The authors discuss each of these issues and their implications for the field in some detail and suggest that a larger conception of the field of marketing is needed.
Then they consider how marketing might be conceived in a more aggregate sense. To capture the totality of an entire society, they propose and explore the concept of an aggregate marketing system (AGMS), a huge, powerful, yet intricate and complex operation that serves the needs of its host society. The AGMS is recognized as different in each society, an adaptive human and technological institution reflecting the idiosyncrasies of the people and their culture, geography, economic opportunities and constraints, and sociopolitical decisions. The authors discuss the primary actors within the AGMS and then examine marketing's systemic properties with an illustration highlighting the structured activities and infrastructure operating to bring something as simple as a breakfast meal to 100 million households each morning. This shows how the AGMS concept can open several vistas for investigation, particularly by fostering recognition of natural relationships within the complexity of a society and its development.
In the final section of the article, the authors consider some key requirements for a definition of the field. They note that there are three contending perspectives that vary in their breadth and essence. The article closes with a discussion of the future and some positive developments that are already underway. Most notably, in 2007, the AMA convened a committee to review the official definition, and revisions are currently being considered by the AMA leadership.
Biography
William L. Wilkie is Aloysius and Eleanor Nathe Professor of Marketing at the University of Notre Dame. His research centers on marketing in society and consumer behavior. Professor Wilkie has received the American Marketing Association's highest recognition, the Distinguished Marketing Educator Award. At Notre Dame, he has received a special President's Award and the BP/Amoco Outstanding Professor Award, as voted by the graduating seniors of the College. Dr. Wilkie has served as president of the Association for Consumer Research and on the editorial boards of Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. One of his articles has been named a citation classic in the social sciences by the Institute for Scientific Information. Before Notre Dame, he served on the faculties at Purdue, Harvard, and Florida, as an in-house consultant at the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, and as Research Professor at the Marketing Science Institute. Professor Wilkie's undergraduate degree is from Notre Dame. His graduate work was at Stanford, where he was a fellow in the Stanford-Sloan Executive Program and earned his MBA and PhD.
Elizabeth S. Moore is an associate professor and Notre Dame Chair in Marketing at the University of Notre Dame. She received her PhD in Marketing from the University of Florida. Professor Moore's research interests include marketing and society issues, the effects of advertising on children, and intergenerational family studies. Her research has appeared in Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Macromarketing, as well as other books and proceedings. Professor Moore's research has been recognized with outstanding article awards in Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, and at the national conference of the American Marketing Association. She currently serves on the editorial board for Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. Professor Moore has testified on children and marketing issues at the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Institute of Medicine.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 26, No. 2, Fall 2007
View Table of Contents