Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of progress in the development of a definition of marketing

  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study evaluates progress in developing a definition of marketing. A survey of marketing educators, managers, scholar-experts and students was conducted to determine elements important in a definition of marketing, a ranking of popular definitions of marketing and an evaluation of the definitions based on relevant criteria. All categories of respondents ranked the 1985 AMA definition of marketing as the definition that best represents the discipline of marketing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alderson, Wroe 1957. Marketing Behavior and Executive Action. Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1965.Dynamic Marketing Behavior. Homewood, Ill. Richard D. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and Miles W. Martin. 1965. “Toward a Formal Theory of Transactions and Trasvections.”Journal of Marketing Research 2 (May), 117–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “AMA Board Approves New Marketing Definition.” 1985.Marketing News. March 1: 1.

  • Bartels, Robert 1974. “The Identity Crisis in Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 38 (October): 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, Richard P. 1974a. “Marketing as an Organized Behavioral System of Exchange.”Journal of Marketing 38 (October): 77–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1974b. “What Is a Marketing Relationship?.”Der Market 51: 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1975a. “Marketing as Exchange.”Journal of Marketing 39 (October): 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1975b. “Social Exchange in Marketing.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 3 (Fall). 314–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1976. “Science, Politics, and the Social Construction of Marketing.” InMarketing: 1776–1976 and Beyond. Ed. K.L. Bernhardt. Chicago: American Marketing Association: 586–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1977. “Is All Social Exchange Marketing? A Reply.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 5 (Fall). 315–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1978. “Marketing as Exchange.”American Behavioral Scientist 21 (March–April): 535–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1979. “Toward a Formal Theory of Marketing Exchanges.” InConceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Eds. O.C. Ferrell, Stephen W. Brown and Charles W. Lamb, Jr., Chicago. American Marketing Association, 431–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1986. Principles of Marketing Management.Chicago, IL:Science Research Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, Eric, Roger Kerin, and William Rudelius. 1986.Marketing. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, Louis E. and David L. Kurtz. 1986.Contemporary Marketing. Hinsdale, IL, Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carman, James W. 1973. “On the Universality of Marketing.”Journal of Contemporary Business 2 (Autumn): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Definitions 1960. “Marketing Definitions: A Glossary of Marketing Terms.” Chicago: American Marketing Association. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Ernest F, C.L., Abercrombie, and J. Michael Rayburn. 1986. “Problems with the AMA’s New Definition of Marketing Offer Opportunity to Develop an Even Better Definition.”Marketing Educator 5 (Spring). 1 and 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggert, Robert J. 1974. “Eggert Discusses Additional Goals for This Administration, Seeks Help in Defining Marketing.”Marketing News September 15: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekeh, Peter P. 1974.Social Exchange Theory: The Two Traditions. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press: Chap. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O.C., and J.R. Perrachione. 1980. “An Inquiry Into Bagozzi’s Formal Theory of Marketing Exchange.”Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Eds. Charles W. Lamb and Patrick M. Dunne. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 158–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homans, George C. 1974.Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. Rev. Ed. New York. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Shelby D. 1983.Marketing Theory. Homewood, Ill: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and Larry Chonko. 1984. “Marketing and Machiavellanism.”Journal of Marketing 48 (Summer): 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1976.Marketing Theory. Columbus, Ohio: Grid Publishing, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, Philip and Sidney J. Levy. 1969. “Broadening the Concept of Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 33 (January): 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, Philip “A New Form of Marketing Myopia: Rejoinder to Professor Luck.”Journal of Marketing 33 (July).

  • — and Gerald Zaltman. 1971. “Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change.”Journal of Marketing 35 (July) 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1972. “A Generic Concept of Marketing.”Journal of Marketing 36 (April): 46–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1984.Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning and Content. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Ed. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, William 1985. Personal Correspondence in Reply to the Expert Survey.

  • Levi-Strauss, Claude 1969.The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston. Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Sidney J. and Gerald Zaltman. 1975.Marketing and Conflict in Society. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, David J. 1969. “Broadening the Concept of Marketing Too Far.”Journal of Marketing 33 (July): 53–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1974. “Social Marketing: Confusion Compounded.”Journal of Marketing 38 (October): 70–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luck, David J. 1986. Personal Correspondence in Reply to the Expert Survey.

  • Lusch, Robert 1984. Memo to AMA Definition of Marketing Committee, April 4th: 1.

  • McCarthy, E. Jerome 1981.Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marketing Staff of the Ohio State University 1965. “Statement of Marketing Philosophy.”Journal of Marketing 29 (January). 43–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, William G. 1974. “Conceptual Conflicts in Marketing.”Journal of Economics and Business 26 (Winter).

  • Peter, Paul J. and Jerry C. Olson. 1983. “Is Science Marketing?.”Journal of Marketing 47 (Fall): 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pride, William, and O.C. Ferrell 1977.Marketing: Basic Concepts and Decisions, Boston.Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robin, Donald E. 1978. “A Useful Scope for Marketing.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 6 (Summer): 228–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M University, Wingsville, USA

    O. C. Ferrell

  2. Memphis State University, Memphis, USA

    George H. Lucas

Authors
  1. O. C. Ferrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George H. Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ferrell, O.C., Lucas, G.H. An evaluation of progress in the development of a definition of marketing. JAMS 15, 12–23 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722167

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722167

Keywords

Search

Navigation