The marketing discipline is entering its fifth era or stage of evolutionary development. It was (a) founded as a distinct discipline in Era I (1900–1920), (b) institutionalized in Era II (1920–1950) as the study of marketing systems (e.g., channels of distribution and the aggregate marketing system), (c) renewed in Era III (1950–1980) as a professional/managerial discipline, before it (d) fragmented in Era IV (1980–2020) into a loosely connected composite of four, separately institutionalized areas of study (i.e., consumer behavior, quantitative/modeling, marketing management/strategy, and macromarketing) (Hunt, 2018a, 2020a; Wilkie & Moore, 1999, 2003, 2006). Numerous commentaries conclude that the discipline now has a troubled evolutionary trajectory (e.g., Clark et al., 2014; Desai et al., 2012; Houston, 2016; Hunt, 2018a; Key et al., 2020; Lehmann et al., 2011; Moorman et al., 2019; Piercy, 2002; Reibstein et al., 2009; Sheth & Sisodia, 2006; Steenkamp, 2018; Varadarajan, 2010; Vargo, 2020; Webster & Lusch, 2013; and Yadav, 2010, 2020).

The discipline’s troubles are so serious that some scholars have initiated a conversation aimed at re-institutionalizing the discipline in Era V (2020-?) (e.g., Akaka et al., 2021; Ferrell et al., 2021; Hunt, 2020a; Key et al., 2021; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2021). Collectively, this conversation constitutes the key elements of a manifesto for renewing the marketing discipline in Era V and reversing the discipline’s troubled trajectory. This article contributes to the “manifesto conversation” by using the sociology of academic disciplines as a theoretical foundation for providing renewal insights. We (1) show how each of the discipline’s stages of evolutionary development was shaped by one key question, (2) analyze the discipline’s stakeholders in each era, (3) identify four key evolutionary developments in Era IV (1980–2020) that led to the discipline’s troubled trajectory, (4) show the importance of a mainstream central focus for developing a discipline’s sense of academic community, (5) discuss the manifesto conversation’s three major candidates for a central focus, (6) examine whether the discipline can renew itself in Era V (2020-?), and (7) provide a tentative prognosis for such a renewal.

Controversies have been ubiquitous in marketing’s development. Some of them have shaped the contours of the discipline’s evolutionary trajectory; others have not. The sociology of academic disciplines suggests that the controversies that ultimately shape disciplines’ evolutionary development often reflect a few fundamental issues or questions (Krishnan, 2009; Merton, 1973; Thackray & Merton, 1972). This is not to say that these discipline-shaping issues or questions explain all aspects of a discipline’s development; it is to say that their answers reflect or capture key aspects of its development.

This article provides insights that aim to stimulate further the manifesto conversation and its call for renewing the marketing discipline in Era V (2020-?). Understanding how to renew marketing in Era V requires understanding key aspects of the discipline’s preceding stages of development. To know where a discipline is going, one must know where it is; to know where a discipline is, one must know where it has been. Therefore, we first propose five fundamental questions, one for each of the five eras of the discipline’s development. These questions’ answers, we argue, have shaped (and are shaping) the discipline:

  • Shaping Era I (1900–1920):

    Is a discipline of marketing needed?

  • Shaping Era II (1920–1950):

    How should the discipline teach marketing?

  • Shaping Era III (1950–1980):

    What is the nature of professional marketing management, and how can marketing be studied and taught as a professional/managerial discipline?

  • Shaping Era IV (1980–2020):

    How did the marketing discipline become troubled?

  • Shaping Era V (2020-?):

    How can the marketing discipline be renewed and the troubled evolutionary trajectory be reversed?

We begin with the question that shaped the discipline’s founding. Table 1 complements our answers to the first four questions by detailing each era’s, (1) fundamental issues and developments (2) research orientations, (3) focal stakeholders, and (4) representative sources. Table 2 then details how the manifesto conversation can be used as springboard for renewing the marketing discipline and reversing its troubled trajectory in Era V.

Table 1 Eras in marketing’s evolutionary development: fundamental issues and developments, research orientations and focal stakeholders
Full size table

Era I (1900–1920): Is a discipline of marketing needed?

Although many areas of academic study have discipline-like manifestations, such as textbooks and conferences, only a few transition successfully into formal academic disciplines. Why? Merton’s (1973) seminal analysis of institutionalized academic disciplines—those areas of study that evolve successfully into long-standing areas of teaching and research, with specialized academic courses, research programs, and departments—maintains that a critical impetus is that a new discipline is needed by important stakeholders and its area of study is outside the scope of existing disciplines.

For example, how business schools became institutionalized is well-documented (Cheit, 1975; Hugstad, 1983; Hunt, 2007, 2020a; Kiernan, 1960; Low & Fullerton, 1994). The critical impetus was that business schools at the beginning of the twentieth century became needed because “the system of professional management [that] grew up with the railroads and public utilities…moved into manufacturing” (Cochran, 1957, p. 15; italics added). The rise of large manufacturing corporations resulted in apprenticeship programs no longer meeting firms’ requirements for professional managers. Corporations then turned to universities for new programs that would develop professional managers. Universities responded by developing business programs and schools (Hugstad, 1983).

In short, a critical impetus for business schools’ successful institutionalization was that they were needed by important stakeholders (i.e., large corporations and American universities) and business schools’ programs were outside the scope of existing disciplines (e.g., economics departments). In like manner, the marketing discipline became needed in Era I (1900–1920).

The need for a discipline of marketing

Manufacturing’s nineteenth century growth resulted in a concomitant expansion in the American economy’s distribution sector, which prompted the rise of new forms of retailing, such as department stores, chain stores, and mail-order retailers (Barger, 1955). Identifying the characteristics of the new forms of distribution and understanding their role in the economy became a major impetus for the area of study that came to be called “marketing.”

Shaw’s (1912) article, the first, truly marketing, academic journal article (Hunt, 2018a, 2018b), decries the “lack of systematic study of market distribution.” The lack stems from the fact that, historically, “the problems of production were sensed as the most pressing that faced society and…as a result we have built up a relatively efficient organization of production,” but “progress [in production] has outstripped the existing system of distribution” (p. 703). Why is studying distribution important to society? Shaw’s (1912, p. 705–6) answer was that “the chaotic condition of distribution…involves a tremendous social waste.”

The economics discipline could have emphasized studying distribution/marketing, but was ignoring it.1 Indeed, “economists had not been handling this topic, as…traditional economic theory had focused on production as the creator of economic value and had placed little emphasis on the services…provided through distribution” (Wilkie & Moore, 2003, p. 117). What is the growing distribution sector’s role in the economy, and how does it benefit society? The founders’ answer was that it provisioned society with goods that result in “the creation of time, place, and possession utility” (Weld, 1916, p. 5).

Therefore, the discipline that came to be called marketing was needed because (1) the distribution sector had grown rapidly, which made it important for society; (2) distribution’s role in creating time, place, and possession utility was poorly understood; (3) the economics discipline was ignoring distribution; (4) distribution was widely considered to be inefficient in performing its societal role; (5) society was considered to be a key stakeholder; and (6) large manufacturing corporations — another key stakeholder — needed to understand how to use new channels of distribution for reaching consumer markets.

Finally, the new business schools, themselves, were the fledgling discipline’s stakeholders. Marketing courses and departments “rounded out” the other functional areas of business (i.e., management, accounting, and finance). Thus, business schools needed the marketing discipline (Hugstad, 1983).

Era I (1900–1920) saw the discipline’s founding. Like business schools, the critical impetus was that it was needed by important stakeholders (i.e., society, large corporations, universities, and business schools) and marketing courses and programs were outside the scope of existing disciplines. The nascent discipline became fully institutionalized in Era II (1920–1950), when its discipline-shaping issue became determining the appropriate way to teach marketing.

Era II (1920–1950): How should the discipline teach marketing?

White (1935) and Cowan (1960) recount that the books most commonly used in marketing courses in Era I and early Era II were Shaw (1915), Weld (1916), and Butler (1917).2 All focused on marketing systems, and all gave prominence to understanding the new retail and wholesale institutions’ characteristics. However, the three books’ approaches differed.

Shaw’s (1915) principal stakeholder was society, and he argued that understanding marketing systems from society’s perspective required identifying the essential functions of “middlemen.” These functions, he proposed, were transportation, risk-sharing, finance, selling, assembling, assorting, and re-shipping. Weld’s (1916) principal stakeholder was also society, but he explicated marketing systems for specific goods, that is, agricultural commodities. In contrast, Butler’s (1917) principal stakeholder was corporate “marketing managers,” and he proposed that their major, unsolved problem was determining the best “trade channel” (p. 2) or “channel of distribution” (p. 106). Solving this problem required managers to understand the new forms of distribution, which his book detailed extensively.

Approaches to teaching marketing in Era II

Early in Era II, scholars recognized that Era I’s three books were only stopgaps; the discipline needed formal textbooks, especially for the introductory course. Scholars agreed that students should understand (1) the institutions that comprise marketing systems, (2) the types of systems required for different commodities, and (3) the essential activities or “functions” of marketing systems. Finally, they recognized the pedagogical imperative of having an effective organizing framework for communicating marketing knowledge to students.

Era II produced eight, significant, “principles of marketing” textbooks. All focused on the institutions, commodities, and functions of marketing systems. Also, because they viewed society as the principal stakeholder, all evaluated marketing systems’ societal efficiency. Each of the three most influential texts, Converse (1921), Clark (1922), and Maynard et al. (1927), used the functional approach as an organizing framework (Hunt & Goolsby, 1988). Although Era II produced many different lists of functions, Maynard et al.’s (1927) eight functions of marketing systems (i.e., buying, selling, transportation, storage, finance, risk bearing, market information, and standardization and grading) came to be the discipline’s standard, and devoting separate chapters to each function became the norm in Era II’s texts (Bartels, 1962). As Maynard et al.’s (1927, p. v) preface explains:

It has seemed desirable to use an approach which is predominately functional, as affording a comprehensive view of the subject… To avoid the abstractness which sometimes characterizes the functional method of approach, much illustrative material has been included in this volume… In this text, therefore, considerable matter on the marketing of specific commodities has been included and the various institutions engaged in distribution have been pictured in detail.

Era II’s (1920–1950) central focus and sense of community

Society was Era II’s principal stakeholder, and research on marketing systems provided the discipline with a mainstream, central focus and a strong sense of community (Hunt, 2020a; Wilkie & Moore, 2003). However, scholars did not view marketing managers as unimportant. Rather, the scholars viewed students’ knowledge of marketing systems as necessary for understanding marketing management in later courses, such as sales and advertising management (Bartels, 1962). In Era III (1950–1980), a discipline-shaping challenge for marketing arose from two critiques of university business education that concluded that business should be taught in a professional manner.

Era III (1950–1980): What is the nature of professional marketing management, and how can marketing be taught as a professional/managerial discipline?

In the 1950s, the Ford and Carnegie Foundations sponsored analyses of business education (Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959). Both reports condemned business education as entry-level vocational, descriptive, and nonrigorous. Both argued that business education should (1) require more economics, statistics, mathematics, and behavioral science and (2) be more professional/managerial:

Collegiate business education should educate for the whole career and not primarily for the first job. It should view the practice of business professionally in the sense of relating it to what we have in the way of relevant, systematic bodies of knowledge. (Gordon & Howell, 1959, p. 9; italics added)

In response, many marketing academics argued that the entire marketing program, especially the introductory course, should be taught from a professional/managerial orientation. One two-part question was paramount: What is the nature of professional marketing management, and how can marketing be studied and taught as a professional/managerial discipline? Fortunately for Era III’s academics, marketing practice in the early 1950s was already evolving toward reconsidering the responsibilities of the marketing department and making the manager’s job more professional.

Marketing practice and the professionalization of marketing management in Era III

In Era III, the concept of the marketing manager and the responsibilities of the marketing department changed dramatically as a result of the General Electric Company’s development of the marketing concept. GE’s 1952 Annual Report described an “advanced concept of marketing” that would:

introduce the marketing man at the beginning rather than at the end of the production cycle and would integrate marketing into each phase of the business. Thus, marketing, through its studies and research, would establish…what the customer wants in a given product, what price he is willing to pay, and where and when it will be wanted. Marketing would have authority in product planning, and production and scheduling, and inventory control, as well as the sales distribution and servicing of the product. (p. 21)

Readers should note carefully two things. First, as often commented on, GE’s marketing concept was consumer-oriented because it focused on analyzing consumers’ needs, wants, tastes, and preferences before developing new products. Second, and less-frequently noted, it also increased greatly the marketing department’s influence across multiple decision areas. By expanding marketing’s responsibilities, the marketing concept elevated marketing’s status and political influence within GE.3 King (1965) details how the marketing concept spread rapidly throughout the American economy. The diffusion implied not only an increase in the responsibilities assigned to the marketing department, but a greater professionalization of the job of marketing manager. Indeed, King (1965, p. 78) emphasizes that the marketing concept furthered greatly the view that marketing was approaching professional status.4

The nature of professional marketing management

Marketing academe embraced GE’s marketing concept as the centerpiece of marketing management and used it to develop a systematic way for studying and teaching marketing as a professional/managerial discipline (Hunt, 2018a, 2020a; Wilkie & Moore, 2003). Stated succinctly, the key steps were:

  • First, marketing academe accepted GE’s marketing concept and its implications that marketing departments should (1) have integrating responsibilities for many decision areas, and (2) develop research programs that identify appropriate “target markets” for developing new products.

  • Second, Neil Borden’s 1953 AMA Presidential Address proposed that the marketing manager’s job was to integrate the elements of a “marketing mix,” which included product planning, pricing, branding, channels of distribution, sales, advertising, packaging, and physical handling. (See Borden (1964) for a retrospection.)

  • Third, Wendell Smith (1956) argued that effective marketing required a strategy of market segmentation, which he based on Alderson’s (1937) argument that intra-industry demand was heterogeneous, not homogeneous.

  • Fourth, Wroe Alderson’s (1957) “competition for differential advantage” theory maintained that managers should develop strategies directed at market segments that would provide their firms with competitive (or “differential”) advantages over rivals.

  • Fifth, Alfred Oxenfeldt (1958) proposed that firms should compete by developing marketing strategies comprised of (a) target market segments and (b) custom-tailored marketing mixes. Thereby, Oxenfeldt joined the marketing concept with market segmentation and the marketing mix for the purpose of competing for competitive advantages.

  • Sixth, E. Jerome “Jerry” McCarthy (1960) developed his “4Ps” framework for teaching marketing as a professional/managerial discipline. It (1) incorporated GE’s marketing concept, (2) put consumers at the center of strategy, (3) simplified Borden’s mix to just product, price, place, and promotion, (4) adopted Alderson’s competition for differential advantage, (5) stressed the importance of Oxenfeldt’s conceptualization of marketing strategy as developing mixes for market segments, and (6) recognized environmental constraints.

Era III’s (1920–1950) central focus and sense of community

McCarthy’s (1960) pedagogically effective, professional/managerial framework was so successful that it “swept the field” (Shaw & Jones, 2005, p. 257). Textbooks in the 1960s and 1970s adopted similar frameworks. There were a few revisions of Era II’s marketing systems-oriented texts, but by 1980 even these were out of print (Hunt & Goolsby, 1988).

In Era III, the marketing discipline was renewed, with (1) marketing practice as its primary stakeholder and (2) the discipline’s mainstream, central focus of studying and teaching professional/managerial marketing providing it a strong sense of community (Hunt, 2020a). Era III’s changes were tied directly to firms increasing the responsibilities of marketing. Indeed, “it is fair to say that the concept of the ‘marketing manager’ with responsibility for integrating pricing, promotion, product, and channels of distribution decisions, was virtually invented in the 1950s” (Hunt & Goolsby, 1988, p. 42).

The discipline changed dramatically again in Era IV (1980–2020). Commentaries note that it became troubled. How the troubled trajectory evolved is the era’s discipline-shaping question.

Era IV (1980–2020): How did the marketing discipline become troubled?

Marketing began Era IV (1980–2020) as a healthy, vibrant discipline, with a strong sense of community. Its primary stakeholder was marketing practice, and its mainstream, central focus was conducting social science research that focused on professional marketing management. It had a significant, secondary focus on studying marketing systems, which came to be called “macromarketing,” whose primary stakeholder was society (Fisk, 1981; Hunt et al., 2021; Hunt, 1976a). However, by Era IV’s end the discipline was troubled.

All disciplines evolve, and Era IV’s discipline-shaping question concerns how the discipline evolved to such a troubled state. What were the major, evolutionary developments? The manifesto conversation has identified numerous factors. We propose that four, unplanned, evolutionary developments are key factors: (1) the discipline’s fragmentation and subsequent loss of community, (2) the evolution of the discipline’s largest sub-field of study, (3) the discipline’s reliance on borrowed concepts, frameworks, and theories, and (4) the focus of the discipline’s doctoral programs.

Fragmentation and loss of community

Wilkie and Moore (1999, 2003, 2006) document the evolutionary developments in Era IV that led to a “fragmentation of the mainstream.” The discipline has “seen such a splintering…that virtually every research area is now running its own course and…there is no ‘mainstream’ of academic thought any longer” (Wilkie & Moore, 2006, p. 226). The discipline has lost what it had in Era III: a mainstream, central focus of research.

Thackray and Merton’s (1972, p. 473) sociological work concludes that a mainstream, central focus of research provides a discipline with a “cognitive identity” that furthers its sense of community, its “sense of common orientation and purpose.” When a discipline has a strong sense of community, scholars feel they are part of a common enterprise; they identify with the discipline. The evolutionary fragmentation of the mainstream during Era IV has significantly impaired the discipline’s sense of community.

For example, Era III’s academics would often self-identify with the marketing discipline and then note that their research interests lay in areas such as consumer behavior or research methods. In contrast, Era IV’s academics often seem to self-identify with, for example, consumer psychology or modeling and then note secondarily that their departmental homes are in marketing. Consequently, Wilkie and Moore (2003, p. 116) lament, the “central coherence for the field of marketing is being lost.” Marketing has lost a major requirement for its being a distinct, academic discipline: It no longer has a mainstream, central focus, which has impaired the discipline’s sense of community, its sense of common orientation and purpose. Academic disciplines without a mainstream, central focus and a strong sense of community have long been recognized to experience significant problems (Krishnan, 2009; Thackray & Merton, 1972). Marketing’s evolution to such a discipline constitutes a major factor that underlies its troubled trajectory. A second development concerns the discipline’s largest sub-field of study.

The discipline’s largest sub-field of study

During Era III, marketing scholars researched numerous areas of study that were the discipline’s sub-fields (e.g., marketing strategy, pricing, channels of distribution, retailing, buyer behavior, promotion, macromarketing, theory, history, and research methods). In Era IV, the discipline evolved into a loosely connected composite of four, major, separately institutionalized sub-fields of study: consumer behavior, quantitative/modeling, marketing management/strategy, and macromarketing (Hunt, 2020a; Wilkie & Moore, 2003).5 These sub-fields constitute research “silos.” Unlike a cohesive discipline that has a central focus and a strong sense of community, members of marketing’s sub-fields tend to stay within their silos (Wilkie & Moore, 2003, p. 135).

In terms of how doctoral students self-identify, the discipline’s largest sub-field is consumer behavior, which constitutes about half of all students and, therefore, about half the discipline’s new entrants (Houston, 2016; Pew & Zamudio, 2020). Unfortunately, the sub-field has evolved in a manner that results in problems.

Consumer behavior’s evolution

In the 1950s and 1960s, the marketing concept’s stress on understanding buyer behavior to inform new product development increased greatly the importance of studying the buyer behavior aspects of consumer behavior. That is, “consumer behavior [research] focused on consumers as buyers and hence emphasized consumer behavior as buyer behavior” (MacInnis & Folkes, 2010, p. 900). CB became a major sub-field of the discipline, and the study of why people buy what they do, where they do, when they do, and how they do became one of the discipline’s “fundamental explananda” (Hunt, 1983).

However, Sheth and Gardner (1982) and Wilkie and Moore (2003) point out that the CB sub-field in the 1970s began focusing increasingly on research that was neither buyer behavior nor, more generally, marketing oriented. Thereafter, CB began pulling away from the discipline, becoming “more like an academic college of thought in itself rather than a school of marketing thought” (Shaw & Jones, 2005, p. 263), more like a “stand alone discipline, with a focus on behavioral science instead of marketing” (Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2021, p. 435). A chronology of significant steps in the pulling away includes (1) the 1970 founding of the Association for Consumer Research (ACR), (2) the 1974 decision to launch the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) as an interdisciplinary journal, rather than a marketing journal, (3) the mid-1980s gradual acceptance of the position that “consumer behavior should not be a sub-discipline of marketing” (Belk, 1986, p. 423), (4) the mid-1980s defining of CB in a nonmarketing manner, that is, as “the study of consummation in all its many aspects” (Holbrook, 1987, p. 128), and (5) the increasing number of CB articles that are not marketing-oriented.

As it has evolved, the CB area of study has significantly separated itself from the discipline. As JCR, the premier CB journal, describes itself, it is an interdisciplinary, not a marketing, journal. The Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP) is also not a marketing journal, but a psychology journal sponsored by the Society for Consumer Psychology. From 2000 to 2020, whereas “marketing” appears in the abstracts of the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, AMS Review, the Journal of Marketing, and the Journal of Marketing Research, 87%, 49%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, it appears in only 13% of JCR abstracts and 12% of JCP abstracts.6

The preceding indicates that Belk’s (1986) argument seems to have prevailed: the CB area has evolved in such a manner that, to a significant extent, it has separated itself from marketing and is no longer a sub-field of the discipline. Indeed, Simonson et al., (2001, p. 262–3) lament that a major factor that impedes consumer research’s “search of identity” is that consumer researchers are “marketing professors in schools of business.”

Era IV’s doctoral students will shape the marketing discipline in Era V (2020-?). The CB area is the largest “silo” housed within marketing departments. Disciplines become troubled when their major sub-fields evolve in such a manner that they, to a significant extent, no longer identify with their historical, “parent” disciplines. So it is in all disciplines; so it is in marketing.

The focus on borrowed concepts, frameworks, and theories

Although marketing has long borrowed from other disciplines, when its central focus shifted to professional marketing management in Era III, its key concepts, frameworks, and theories were “indigenous” (Akaka, et al., 2021; Hunt, 2020b; Rust, 2006) to marketing. They were developed in marketing practice and academe for marketing practice and academe. Examples include the marketing concept, the marketing mix, the “4 Ps,” market segmentation, the target market, marketing strategy, and competition for differential advantage. Indeed, MacInnis (2011), p. 151 notes that marketing in Era III produced an “astounding number of fundamental and interesting constructs, theories, domains, and procedures.”

In Era IV, the discipline evolved into one that primarily borrows concepts, frameworks, and theories from other disciplines (Varadarajan, 2020; Vargo & Lusch, 2008; Zeithaml et al., 2020). For example, the Merwe et al. (2010) study of the ten most frequently used theories that motivate marketing articles over ten years (1993–2002) finds not a single theory that is marketing-indigenous.7 Lehmann et al. (2011) note that marketing’s evolution to a theory-importing discipline contributes to it becoming “marginalized”. For example, Clark et al. (2014) find not only that marketing is the least influential of the four major business disciplines, but its influence is declining sharply. A major reason for the decline is its emphasis on empirically testing borrowed theories. Why should, for example, management scholars cite empirical works in marketing that merely apply their own theories in a different context?

Examining marketing articles that are, indeed, highly cited provides further evidence for the importance of indigenous conceptual work. For example, Zeithaml et al. (2020) find that the ten most frequently cited articles ever published in the Journal of Marketing focus on developing marketing’s indigenous concepts, frameworks, and theories.8 Not a single article examines empirically a borrowed framework. In short, even though marketing evolved into a theory-importing discipline in Era IV, its most influential articles focus on marketing-indigenous, conceptual work.

Healthy academic disciplines have indigenous, conceptual works that both organize their current knowledge-content and point out ways to further advance their disciplines. Marketing’s ever-increasing stress on borrowed theories in Era IV contributes significantly to its troubled trajectory. As Zeithaml et al. (2020, p. 32) aptly put it, “Marketing scholars can continue on the well-worn road of largely testing or extending theories by borrowing from allied disciplines, or we can challenge ourselves to [develop indigenous concepts, frameworks, and theories that] make a significant difference in the lives of managers, public policy officials, and/or consumers.” Assuredly, they are correct.

The focus of the discipline’s doctoral programs

Era III’s journals exhibited a shift toward both social/behavioral science research methods and management science/modeling. Consistent with its journals, Era III’s doctoral programs also increased their emphasis on social/behavioral science research methods and management science/modeling. The increase was important because “everything that happens in a discipline has a direct pathway that intersects with doctoral programs” (Yadav, 2020, p. 57).

Doctoral programs in Era IV

Early in Era IV, the AMA sponsored two evaluations of the discipline, (1) the Effectiveness of Research and Development for Marketing Management (ERDMM) (Myers et al., 1980) and (2) the Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought (Monroe, 1988). ERDMM totally neglected issues related to doctoral programs. One reason for the neglect is that ERDMM viewed marketing practice as the discipline’s only stakeholder:

[T]he objectives of knowledge generation in our field should be to improve marketing management practice. Thus, even basic research if it is to be considered ‘effective’ should, over the long run, contribute something to improved decision making or other aspects of marketing practice. (Myers et al., 1979, p. 22)

In contrast, the 1988 Task Force argued that the discipline has several stakeholders, including (1) academic constituents, (2) managers of enterprises, (3) public policy makers, (4) special interest groups, and (5) customers (Monroe, 1988). Furthermore, its report devoted a full section to doctoral programs.

Yadav (2020) discusses the two AMA reports, the numerous commentaries that conclude that the discipline is troubled, and he faults, specifically, marketing’s doctoral programs. Further, Yadav (2020, p. 61) recommends that “doctoral programs should prioritize the addition of a well-designed course on theory construction.” As to the lack of a mainstream, central focus and its subsequent loss of community, he maintains that “doctoral programs must prioritize the placement of marketing seminars during the first year…[because this is] when they are being socialized into our discipline…when they begin to frame what it means to be a marketing academic” (p. 61). The early socialization of doctoral students, he argues, will help address “the issue of disciplinary identity,” its loss of community. A third, potentially existential, issue Yadav (2020, p. 60) addresses is that doctoral programs lack an “immersion in the substantive richness in our field”:

It is not uncommon to see a [doctoral] curriculum in which students may have only one marketing seminar. The rest of the coursework is typically packed with non-marketing (and non-business) courses, mostly in methodology, economics, or other social sciences.

As doctoral programs evolved in Era IV, a serious-for-the-discipline situation is all too common: a doctoral student’s educational background includes (1) a nonmarketing, nonbusiness undergraduate degree, (2) a nonmarketing, nonbusiness master’s degree, and (3) only one doctoral seminar in marketing. Consequently, a student’s entire, formal knowledge of the discipline comes from a single seminar, a situation that exists in no other business discipline. Therefore, it is embarrassing to report, Yadav (2020, p. 60; italics added) recommends: the discipline should “add marketing to marketing doctoral programs.”

A discipline’s doctoral programs must produce graduates who know the discipline’s theoretical, empirical, and historical knowledge-content because disciplines reproduce themselves only through their doctoral programs. Disciplines failing to reproduce themselves face extinction. “Doctoral education in marketing is failing to present sufficient history, scope, and perspective upon which future scholars can build the cumulative thought about marketing as a field” (Wilkie & Moore, 2003, p. 135).

The consequences of the discipline’s evolution in Era IV

Collectively, Era IV’s (1) fragmentation, loss of central focus, and loss of community, (2) problems with its largest sub-field of study, (3) reliance on borrowed concepts, frameworks, and theories, and (4) doctoral programs’ focus on nonmarketing topics have resulted in significant, potentially existential, problems for the marketing discipline. Specifically, the discipline-shaping question that the problems raise for Era V (2020-?) is whether the discipline can be renewed and the troubled trajectory reversed.

Era V (2020-?): How can the marketing discipline be renewed and the troubled evolutionary trajectory be reversed?

The manifesto conversation claims that the marketing discipline should renew itself and reverse its troubled trajectory in Era V (2020-?). However, though can renew does not imply should renew, should renew implies can renew. Therefore, can disciplines renew themselves? Gardner’s (1965) seminal work theorized that societies can—and should—develop capabilities for renewing themselves. Following Gardner’s (1965) lead, the works of Day and Moorman (2010), Moorman and Day (2016), and Hunt and Madhavaram (2020) explicate in detail the position that—like societies—individuals, organizations, and institutions can have capabilities for renewal. So also, we argue, academic disciplines can have such capabilities.

A discipline’s renewal capability springs from its human resources (e.g., its scholars and stakeholders) and institutional resources (e.g., its journals and professional associations). Over its one hundred-plus year history, the marketing discipline’s human and institutional resources have exhibited an extraordinary capability for disciplinary renewal. For example, recall that the discipline renewed itself as a professional/managerial discipline in Era III. Therefore, as to whether the discipline can renew itself in Era V, both renewal-theory and renewal-empirics provide important grounds for optimism.

Furthermore, recall that Era I’s discipline-shaping question was whether a discipline of marketing was needed. As the discipline enters Era V, is the discipline of marketing still needed? We argue that the answer is “yes.” Firms, both for-profit and nonprofit, still have marketing problems that academic researchers can and should address, and firms still have a need for new marketing personnel. Similarly, students still look to the discipline as a means for preparing them for marketing careers. Also, business schools still need a marketing discipline: without marketing departments they would fail to provide the full complement of courses for a degree in business.

Moreover, society still lacks an adequate understanding of marketing’s economic role. Society also needs to know the consequences, both favorable and unfavorable, that marketing has on society. That is, society still needs a discipline that conducts research on what was called “marketing” in Era II and then became “macromarketing” in Era III (Hunt et al., 2021). The subjects historically associated with the discipline are still needed by its stakeholders in Era V.

The preceding notwithstanding, the manifesto conversation points out that marketing’s singular focus on CB research topics that are “not well linked to marketing practice, marketing institutions, or even general consumer welfare…has been concurrent with marketing’s loss of ownership of distribution, pricing, and strategy” (Key et al., 2021, p. 451). Regaining ownership of the subjects historically associated with the discipline would further its renewal.

In conclusion, the marketing discipline in Era V can renew itself; its one hundred-plus year history suggests that it has the capability to renew itself; and the discipline is still needed by its stakeholders. Also, the manifesto conversation to date is beginning to make progress in formally acknowledging and addressing the four major problems that resulted in the discipline’s troubled trajectory in Era IV. For example, Key et al., (2021, p. 448, 452) find that marketing “stand[s] at an existential crossroad in the history of the field” and propose a specific agenda for change that constitutes a “return to fundamentals.” For trajectory-reversal and renewal, they recommend that marketing departments should (1) focus on hiring marketing PhDs, (2) increase the number of marketing-centric seminars in doctoral programs, and (3) decrease the emphasis placed on journal rankings in the faculty evaluation process.

In addition to this return to fundamentals, using Table 2, we lay out an initial roadmap for how the marketing discipline can renew itself by providing a brief summary of (1) the factors contributing to the troubled trajectory, (2) the foundational lessons that can be learned from the previous eras, (3) works of the manifesto conversation that indicate early signs of renewal, and (4) exemplars of future research areas for trajectory-reversal. In particular, for the marketing discipline’s renewal, the foundational lessons from the previous eras suggest research on and/or regarding four areas that are not mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive: (1) comprehensive theoretical frameworks, (2) stakeholder relevance/engagement; (3) organizing/integrative frameworks for marketing knowledge; and (4) theory development for marketing phenomena. We elaborate briefly on these four areas and focus here on the major theoretical frameworks that emerged from the manifesto conversation as the candidates for the marketing discipline’s mainstream, central focus.

Table 2 Toward a manifesto for renewing the marketing discipline and reversing its troubled evolutionary trajectory
Full size table

Comprehensive theoretical frameworks

In order to alleviate the marketing discipline’s fragmentation, comprehensive theoretical frameworks/views–that integrate the roles of sub-fields and detail the roles of sub-field specific methods for appropriately addressing substantive marketing problems–are needed. Developing such frameworks can facilitate both relating the knowledge from different sub-fields for marketing and for guiding future research. Indeed, comprehensive theoretical frameworks that integrate research developed within and across different sub-fields can help develop robust foundations for researching and solving substantive marketing problems. For example, future research could focus on developing a comprehensive theoretical framework for marketing as a central, multi-directional boundary-spanning function. Further, given the role that marketing can play in solving society’s problems, comprehensive theoretical frameworks/views that can better explain and predict marketing’s social impact are needed.

Stakeholder relevance/engagement

As depicted in Table 1 on marketing’s evolutionary development across the different eras, different sets of focal stakeholders–to varying degrees–are shown to affect and/or be affected by marketing. To reverse the marketing discipline’s troubled trajectory, the marketing research should focus strongly on stakeholder relevance/engagement. Among other things, this calls for (i) returning to the roots of macromarketing as a domain in which marketing impacts society, (ii) reengaging marketing academics from different sub-fields toward silo-integrating, mutually-reinforcing research, and (iii) systematic examination of marketing’s role in effectively catering to multiple stakeholders. There is burgeoning evidence that the marketing discipline is already heading in this direction. For example, consumer-based marketing strategy research is an effort for reconciling the separation of consumer behavior from marketing. Lastly, there is also emerging evidence on the renewed focus and commitment of institutional resources–journals and professional associations–on research that can integrate the disciplinary silos toward effective marketing knowledge development for the discipline’s stakeholders.

Organizing/integrative frameworks for marketing knowledge

The foundational lessons from marketing’s evolutionary development reveal the heightened need for developing organizing frameworks for marketing-relevant knowledge developed in the different sub-fields and integrative frameworks that bring together knowledge from within and across different sub-fields to provide foundational structures for mid-range marketing theories. For example, organizing frameworks can be centered on knowledge flows among different sub-fields to develop implications for strategic marketing. Similarly, on the foundations of marketing theory and thought, organizing frameworks can be developed for teaching marketing as a scholarly discipline to marketing doctoral students. Further, utilizing cross-sub-disciplinary research, integrative, mutually-reinforcing frameworks can be developed for better explanation and prediction of marketing phenomena concerning different stakeholders. For example, future research could look into developing an integrative framework for how strategic marketing solutions for resolving society’s problems can build brand equity and corporate reputation.

Theory development for marketing phenomena

Concepts, theories, and frameworks are important for the practice of marketing. However, in addition to testing and extending theories from allied disciplines in specific marketing contexts, focus should be renewed on developing organic/indigenous marketing theories for explaining and predicting marketing phenomena. There is emerging evidence of indigenous theory development in marketing. Further, focus should also be on (i) customization of and/or value addition to borrowed theories for unambiguous explanation and prediction of marketing phenomena and (ii) engaging the different marketing stakeholders and/or theory evaluation tools to critically evaluate borrowed theories to derive specific insights for the marketing discipline. Again, there is emerging evidence on how deliberate and critically-evaluated importing of theoretical insights can advance marketing theory. Accordingly, future research should focus both on (i) multi-method, theories-in-use approaches to develop indigenous marketing theory and (ii) evaluating and/or customizing theories imported from other disciplines to advance marketing theory.

Next, we turn to the three major theoretical frameworks that the manifesto conversation has proposed to date as candidates for the marketing discipline’s mainstream, central focus: (1) Akaka et al. (2021, p. 378) argument that service-dominant logic is “toward a general theory of markets,” (2) Parvatiyar and Sheth’s (2021, p. 437–8) “general framework of integrative marketing,” which they propose can “tie in the various subdisciplines of marketing into an integrative whole,” and (3) Hunt’s (2013, p. 292) resource-advantage (R-A) theory, which he argues “provides the foundations for a general theory of marketing.”

Three candidates for the marketing discipline’s central focus

Space constraints dictate that a complete review of each of the three theoretical frameworks cannot be included here. Instead, we provide a brief summary of each candidate, sources for further reading, and suggestions for the candidates’ evaluation.

Service-dominant logic

Service-dominant (S-D) logic traces to Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) award-winning article that argues that the marketing discipline is evolving from a goods-dominant logic to an S-D logic. Discussions, commentaries, and symposia on the article have been so numerous that it has been identified as one of the ten most highly cited articles ever published in the Journal of Marketing. Their article uses a “foundational premises” approach for developing the S-D logic theoretical framework (Hunt, 2020b).

The original article identified eight foundational premises as essential for understanding S-D logic. Later publications (i.e., Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Vargo & Lusch, 2008, 2016) (1) revise the lexicon of their foundational premises, (2) expand the number from the original eight to eleven, and (3) identify the following five premises as having axiom status:

  • Service is the fundamental basis of exchange.

  • Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always including the beneficiary.

  • All social and economic actors are resource integrators.

  • Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.

  • Value cocreation is coordinated through actor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements.

What, then, is the argument that S-D logic is a candidate for the mainstream, central focus of the marketing discipline? That is, how could S-D logic be considered the foundational framework that structures or organizes the marketing discipline? We argue that S-D logic could be considered as providing the central focus of the discipline on the grounds that (1) S-D logic is a theoretical framework that identifies the essence of how markets work and (2) all of marketing (the gerund form of market), in one way or another, focuses on how markets work. That is, “a theory of marketing explains how markets work” (Alderson, 1965, p. 23). S-D logic aims to do so.

General framework of integrative marketing (GFIM)

Over five decades ago, Howard and Sheth (1969) argued that a general theory of buyer behavior should integrate constructs and propositions into a consistent whole. Later, Sheth and Sisodia (1999) argued that marketing is a contextual discipline that has evolved as a result of changing historical contexts. Now, Parvatiyar and Sheth’s (2021, p. 433) general framework of integrative marketing (GFIM) identifies four major contexts “to which the discipline is adjusting: (1) changing demographics; (2) digital economy; (3) emerging markets; and (4) globalization.” GFIM (see Fig. 1 in Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2021, p. 438) aims to integrate major schools of current marketing thought and highlight the importance of the four major contexts.

GFIM is a firm-level marketing framework that focuses on (1) market selection, (2) market development, and (3) market activities, which are argued to be three “core marketing functions.” The core marketing functions are influenced significantly by the firm’s market orientation and marketing resources. In turn, the outputs of the firm’s core marketing functions are (1) customer value, (2) societal value, and (3) marketer value. Finally, two sets of exogenous contexts impact the core marketing functions. The first set encompasses (1) technology, (2) competition, and (3) public policy. The second set includes (1) economic conditions, (2) geo-demographics and culture, and (3) globalization.

What is the argument that GFIM is a candidate for the mainstream, central focus of the marketing discipline? Parvatiyar and Sheth (2021, p. 443) argue that the model presents a case for it being viewed as integrating the elements of “the most dominant marketing thinking,… market orientation, R-A theory, and service-dominant logic.” Furthermore, it provides a set of fifteen guidelines for “future theory development” (p. 442). As El-Ansary (1979, p. 406) argued in the very first AMA marketing theory conference, a general theory of marketing that structures the marketing discipline should integrate the components of marketing thought. GFIM aims to do so.

Resource-advantage (R-A) theory

Resource-advantage (R-A) theory is a theory of competition that traces to the work of Hunt and Morgan (1995). It is an interdisciplinary theory in the sense that it has been developed in the literatures of several different disciplines: marketing, management, economics, ethics, law, supply chain management, and general business. (See Hunt (2013) for examples of articles in each discipline.) The theory’s foundational premises are:

P1

Demand is heterogeneous across industries, heterogeneous within industries, and dynamic.

P2

Consumer information is imperfect and costly. (Here, R-A theory uses “consumers” in its broadest sense, which includes business and other buyers.)

P3

Human motivation is constrained self-interest seeking.

P4

The firm’s objective is superior financial performance.

P5

The firm’s information is imperfect and costly.

P6

The firm’s resources are financial, physical, legal, human, organizational, informational, and relational.

P7

Resource characteristics are heterogeneous and imperfectly mobile.

P8

The role of management is to recognize, understand, create, select, implement, and modify strategies.

P9

Competitive dynamics are disequilibrium-provoking, with innovation endogenous.

We argue that R-A theory could be considered as providing the central focus of the discipline on the grounds that Hunt (2010, 2013) develops five, detailed arguments for R-A theory being toward a general theory of marketing. Stated in brief, the first argument is that R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing (“GTM”) because (a) marketing takes place within the context of competition, (b) a GTM should be consistent with the most general theory of competition, and (c) R-A theory (which incorporates neoclassical theory as a special case) is the most general theory of competition. Second, R-A theory is toward a GTM because it provides a theoretical foundation for normative marketing strategy (e.g., market segmentation theory). Third, R-A theory is toward a GTM because it accommodates and extends key concepts and generalizations from Alderson’s (1937, 1957, 1965) theory and integrates them into a broader theoretical framework.

Fourth, R-A theory is toward a GTM because the Value Delivery Framework, a B2B marketing framework developed by the Institute for the Study of Business Marketing, assumes that the process of competition within which B2B marketers compete is actually the very process of competition described by R-A theory (see Hunt, 2013). Fifth, R-A theory is toward a GTM because “not only does R-A theory and the IMP theoretical structure have numerous commonalities, but also, R-A theory, by means of its concept of ‘relational resource,’ provides a foundation for the IMP theoretical structure, with its commitment to the importance of relationships” (Hunt, 2013, p. 292). Marketing needs a theory of competition because of the deficiencies of neoclassical theory (Alderson, 1937), and “a theory of marketing explains how markets work” (Alderson, 1965, p. 23). R-A theory is a marketing theory of competition, and it explains how the process of competition works within markets and, in turn, provides an integrative theoretical foundation for marketing strategy in both B2B and B2C markets.

The manifesto conversation’s evaluation of the three candidates

Having identified and briefly summarized three viable candidates for the marketing discipline’s central focus, the manifesto conversation’s next step is to evaluate them in detail. Such an evaluation might start with whether the three are collectively exhaustive. Are there other viable candidates? For example is market orientation a viable candidate? Second, are the three mutually exclusive? Does adopting one imply the rejection of the others? Is it possible that the best central focus for the discipline might be some combination of the three? If so how would they be combined? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of such a combination? Third, do the three candidates provide comprehensive views of marketing that integrate insights from different sub-fields? Do the three candidates provide foundations for developing organizing frameworks that incorporate marketing-relevant knowledge from different sub-fields? Are the three candidates appropriate for developing mid-range marketing theories? How will the candidates fare if evaluated with the fundamental explananda of marketing framework–i.e., the explanation and prediction of the behaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellers, the influence of institutional framework, and the consequences of society of the behaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellers, and the institutional framework? The candidates for the discipline’s central focus should be carefully and extensively evaluated by the manifesto conversation. The preceding suggestions represent a place to start.

Conclusion

Marketing was (1) founded as a distinct discipline in Era I, (2) institutionalized as the study of marketing systems in Era II, and (3) renewed itself as a professional/managerial discipline in Era III, before it (4) became fragmented into a loosely connected composite of four, separately institutionalized areas of study in Era IV. As numerous commentaries note, marketing is entering Era V (2020-?) with a troubled trajectory.

Four major problems have contributed significantly to the discipline’s troubled trajectory: (1) the discipline’s fragmentation, which has resulted in its loss of a mainstream, central focus and its sense of community, (2) the evolution of the discipline’s largest sub-field of study, consumer behavior, to significantly separate itself from marketing, (3) the discipline’s reliance on borrowed concepts, frameworks, and theories, and (4) the focus of the discipline’s doctoral programs on nonmarketing subjects. The problems, though significant, are solvable. Table 2 details how the discipline can begin to address the fundamental issues that have contributed to the discipline’s troubled trajectory. Drawing from foundational lessons gleaned from previous eras and the early signs of renewal encompassed in the manifesto conversation, Table 2 lays out exemplars of research areas that marketing scholarship can pursue.

As to a prognosis for Era V (2020-?), readers should note that the marketing discipline did not become troubled because it followed a faulty master plan. Rather, it evolved to its current, troubled state. Similarly, the discipline’s trajectory will not be reversed in Era V because it uses its resources to execute well some detailed master plan. Its evolutionary reversal will be scholar-by-scholar, reviewer-by-reviewer, editor-by-editor, journal-by-journal, doctoral program-by-doctoral program, and professional association-by-professional association.

The manifesto conversation has identified the major factors leading to the marketing discipline’s troubled trajectory, shown that the marketing discipline can renew itself in Era V (2020-?), and begun the process of recommending an agenda for trajectory reversal. The question now is will the discipline evolve in such a manner in Era V (2020-?) that its troubled trajectory is, indeed, reversed? Will it develop a mainstream central focus that restores the discipline’s sense of community? Will it revitalize the study of buyer behavior and foster the development of more marketing-oriented, consumer behavior research? Will it develop indigenous marketing concepts, frameworks, and theories that can more effectively guide research that is relevant to significant marketing problems? Will it re-insert the marketing discipline’s theoretical, empirical, and historical knowledge-content into its doctoral programs so that the discipline can reproduce itself?

In short, what is the likelihood that the marketing discipline will successfully use its human and institutional resources to reverse its troubled trajectory, renew itself, and meet its responsibilities to its stakeholders? We remain guardedly optimistic that the answer is yes, but we also acknowledge that such a renewal effort might fail. Therefore, we encourage all marketing academics, practitioners, journals, and professional associations to join the manifesto conversation. In this regard, forward-looking professional associations, such as the Academy of Marketing Science, and forward-looking journals, such as AMS Review can play—and, no doubt, will play—key roles in successfully renewing the marketing discipline in Era V (2020-?).

Endnotes

1In Era I (1900–1920), “distribution” and “marketing” were viewed as roughly synonymous (Hunt, 2018a). Clearly distinguishing “distribution” from the broader term “marketing” occurred in the early 1930s (Clark, 1933, p. 8).

2Shaw’s (1915) book was an expanded version of his earlier article, that is, Shaw (1912).

3As Jones and Tadajewski (2011, p. 468) point out, the idea that firms should analyze consumers’ needs, wants, tastes, and preferences before developing new products was clearly advocated in marketing by White (1927). However, the idea did not receive widespread acceptance in marketing practice and academe until General Electric promoted it in the 1950s.

4See Brown (1948) for an early articulation of the requirements for the practice of marketing to achieve professional status.

5“Marketing management/strategy” is a broad, umbrella term that, in common use, includes such diverse sub-fields as services marketing, relationship marketing, social marketing, and others. Consumer behavior, quantitative/modeling, and macromarketing are institutionalized through the Association for Consumer Research, INFORMS Society for Marketing Science, and the Macromarketing Society, respectively (Wilkie & Moore, 2003).

6The reason that we do not do a search for “marketing” in the full text of the articles is that such a search will also pull in “marketing” in the titles of the authors. The search’s purpose is not to argue that marketing authors do not publish in JCR and JCP. Rather, it is to argue that most of the content of the articles is not marketing-oriented.

7The ten leading theories were agency theory, attribution theory, exchange theory, game theory, information theory, organization theory, prospect theory, resource theory, transaction cost theory, and utility theory.

8The rank order of the ten most frequently cited articles ever published in the Journal of Marketing is Morgan and Hunt (1994), Parasuraman et al. (1985), Zeithaml (1988), Vargo and Lusch (2004), Keller (1993), Zeithaml et al. (1996), Narver and Slater (1990), Cronin and Taylor (1992), Kohli and Jaworski (1990), and Dwyer et al. (1987).