Scholarly Research in Marketing: Exploring the “4 Eras” of Thought Development William L. Wilkie and Elizabeth S. Moore Today’s body of marketing thought is expanding geometrically, pushing frontiers in numerous domains—quantitatively, behaviorally, strategically—with much enhanced technology and on an increasingly globalized basis. As this pushes forward on many fronts, however, it is also worthwhile to ask what is in danger of being left behind. What is the benefit, if any, of discerning the roots of this field? On the basis of an extended look across the last century of marketing thought, this article paints a wide-ranging portrait of (1) the general course that has been taken by the body of marketing thought over its “4 Eras” and (2) how the treatment of societal dimensions of marketing has fared during each period. On the basis of these findings, the authors pose several key issues for further consideration by interested thinkers concerned with the progress of marketing scholarship. [Note to readers: This article is the second report from an changes during this time. A rich body of marketing literature extended, multiyear project in which we have been attempting to has been developed. However, all scholars should recognize explore the nature and scope of our academic field of marketing. that an examination only of today’s research cannot come The initial article, “Marketing’s Contributions to Society,” close to capturing the total expanse of thought in the mar- appeared in the millennium Special Issue of the Journal of Mar- keting domain. This point is especially clear when it is rec- keting (1999). We originally conceived of the historical analysis presented here as serving as a useful background for that article, ognized that the focus of today’s academic field of market- but it quickly spiraled far beyond the bounds of a mere section ing is squarely on firms and household consumers and that there. We therefore set it aside until that article was completed few people, even in the mainstream of marketing thinking, and then returned to this topic with alacrity. Several years later, have deeply considered marketing from a broadened, more we are pleased with the education we have received throughout aggregate perspective. However, across the span of the last this process. However, this very education has also caused us to century, many interesting insights on the field of marketing become increasingly puzzled by certain aspects of our modern have been developed. Beyond this, many interesting insights academic condition in the marketing field. For example, it is into marketing’s broader relationships with society have clear that our field has been benefiting from increasing research also been developed. This article explores the advances that specializations. However, this powerful force has apparently not have occurred across this time. been accompanied by public discourse within the community of scholars as to whether we are headed toward a point wherein a Rather than a steady, cumulative advance of a unified central coherence for the field of marketing is being lost. body of marketing thought, the past century has experienced Although we do not discuss it much directly in this article, we periodic shifts in dominance of prevailing modes of think- view this as an important latent dimension for future considera- ing. Table 1 outlines what we consider the “4 Eras of Mar- tion on a broad scale. More pointedly for this article, there is lit- keting Thought” since the field’s formal beginnings.1 As we tle question that some higher levels of marketing analysis, such will discuss, distinct issues and approaches affected main- as those reflecting larger views of the aggregate marketing sys- stream marketing thinking during these times and very tem, have been recently disappearing from the priority perspec- much affected interest in and treatment of marketing’s rela- tives of most modern marketing researchers. Thus, the primary tionship to its society. goal for this article is to address a broad range of thoughtful Table 1’s first row, “Pre-Marketing,” is included to people in the field with a piece that will engage interest and stimulate further thought about the scope of the field and its acknowledge that considerable thought about marketing- undertakings. It is not written with the didactic intent of advising related phenomena was available prior to the formal begin- readers what should be done, but it is meant to stimulate con- nings of this field of study. From the time of the ancient templation and discussion about the more valuable options for Greeks through the time of the great economists of the progressing. Thank you for your attention to it.] 1700s and 1800s (including Smith, Malthus, Jevons, Ricardo, Mill, and Marshall), the concepts of markets, mar- he academic field of marketing formally began ginal analysis, value, production, humans as social and eco- shortly after the turn of the last century and is now nomic entities, competition, and the role of governments Tabout 100 years old. Both the real world of marketing had already been raised and extensively debated (e.g., Dixon and the real world of society have undergone massive 2002; Shaw 1995). As of the turn of the twentieth century, therefore, the area that would become “marketing” was WILLIAM L. WILKIE is the Aloysius and Eleanor Nathe Professor of firmly ensconced within the field of economics. Marketing, and ELIZABETH S. MOORE is Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Notre Dame. The authors thank the fol- lowing people for their provision of significant background insights and information: Stephen Greyser, Thomas Klein, Daniel 1Table 1’s four time periods, era names, and descriptions represent our LeClair, Angela Lyzinski, Robert Nason, and Ross Rizley. The conclusions based on the study of many primary books and articles pub- authors also express their appreciation for the significant editorial lished over the years. Of special note, however, is that in the early stages of improvements suggested by the three anonymous JPP&M reviewers. the project, we obtained considerable guidance from Robert Bartels’s (1988) The History of Marketing Thought. Vol. 22 (2) 116 Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Fall 2003, 116–146 Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 117 Table 1. The “4 Eras” of Marketing Thought Era Distinctive Characteristics “Pre-Marketing” • No distinguishing field of study; issues are embedded within the field of (Before 1900) economics. I. “Founding the Field” • Development of first courses with “marketing” in title. (1900–1920) • Emphasis on defining purview of marketing’s activities as economic institution. • Focus on marketing as distribution. II. “Formalizing the Field” • Development of generally accepted foundations or “principles of marketing.” (1920–1950) • Establishment of knowledge development infrastructure for the field: professional association (AMA), conferences, journals (Journal of Retailing and Journal of Marketing). III. “A Paradigm Shift—Marketing, • Growth boom in U.S. mass market and marketing body of thought. Management, and the Sciences” • Two perspectives emerge to dominate the marketing mainstream: (1) the (1950–1980) managerial viewpoint and (2) the behavioral and quantitative sciences as keys to future knowledge development. • Knowledge infrastructure undergoes major expansion and evolution. IV. “The Shift Intensifies—A Fragmentation • New challenges arise in business world: short-term financial focus, downsizing, of the Mainstream” globalization, and reengineering. (1980–present) • Dominant perspectives are questioned in philosophy of science debates. • Publish-or-perish pressure intensifies on academics. • Knowledge infrastructure expands and diversifies into specialized interest areas. Meanwhile, business was changing the day-to-day life of The remainder of this article deals with the formal body society by investing in basic industries that fueled the of thought from the time the academic field of marketing growth of the United States. Key issues were presenting began. As our exploration deepened, it became increasingly themselves through the sheer energy and size of productiv- clear that marketing thought has been simultaneously ity gains brought by the Industrial Revolution (e.g., the 20 responsive to the exigencies of its times, yet also highly years from 1880 to 1900 alone brought the invention of volitional in terms of the topics and approaches chosen for electricity, aluminum, the steam engine, automobile, tele- development. Thus, for each era in this article, we will dis- phone, phonograph, rechargeable battery, tractor, cellulose cuss how knowledge development reflected (1) the impact film, and various types of electric motors; Desmond 1986). of external societal events and (2) the orientations and pref- During this time, societal issues were of considerable impor- erences of that era’s prevailing marketing thought leaders. tance, as economists had long viewed the development of We address the “4 Eras” in chronological order. Within public policy as a central focus of their endeavor. For exam- each, we first explain why it is significantly distinguishable ple, some “robber barons” found that they could amass even with respect to marketing thought in general, and then we greater profits by using questionable business methods. specifically review how broader societal issues were treated These included illegally gaining control of land and raw during that time. materials, ridding themselves of competitors