Vol. 24 (1) Spring 2005, 121–126 Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 121

A Perspective on the Evolution of MarketingManagement

Frederick E. Webster Jr.

Frederick E. Webster Jr. is Charles Henry Jones Professor of Man-agement, Emeritus, Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College (e-mail: Frederick.Webster@Dartmouth.edu).

As a field of study, marketing has not always beenviewed from a management perspective. At differentphases in its evolution, marketing thought leaders have

variously emphasized commodities, institutions, functions,markets, consumers, management of firms, and society atlarge. Wilkie and Moore (2003) identify four eras of mar-keting thought development:

Era I: Founding the Field, 1900–1920.Era II: Formalizing the Field, 1920–1950.Era III: A Paradigm Shift—Marketing, Management, and theSciences, 1950–1980.Era IV: The Shift Intensifies—A Fragmentation of the Main-stream, 1980–Present.

In the academic arena as reflected in its literature over thepast three decades or so (late Era III into Era IV), marketinghas trended from a managerial focus to an analytical one,two perspectives that need not be but often are, in fact, incompetition. There is evidence that marketing has lost itsimportance and relevance as a management function inmany companies (Day and Montgomery 1999; Lehmann2003; Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2003). Perhaps mar-keting thought development has lagged behind shifts in themarket environment and has become less relevant for man-agers, particularly those who are responsible for strategyand general management. Most recently, however, market-ing thought leaders have pointed the way toward acustomer-oriented, service-dominated concept of marketingas the definition, development, and delivery of customervalue that focuses on marketing as a set of business pro-cesses rather than as a separate management function(Haeckel 1999; Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 2001;Vargo and Lusch 2004; Webster 1992, 2002).

Marketing as ManagementA distinct view of marketing as a management discipline(rather than an economic activity) emerged in the 1950s(Drucker 1954; McKitterick 1957), though marketing man-agement had certainly been evolving as a practice for sometime, with origins as a form of support for the sales function.This transition was marked by two major developments:first was the perspective of the marketing concept as a man-agement philosophy emphasizing customer orientation, andthe second was the integration of quantitative methods andbehavioral science into the marketing discipline. Two sig-

nificant environmental trends drove this transition, one inthe marketplace and one in education.

In the economic and social environment, the post-WorldWar II marketplace offered huge business opportunities thatwere created by pent-up demand, rapidly increasing con-sumer affluence (with commensurate economic and politicalpower), and the dramatic development of television as alow-cost mass medium (Cohen 2003). Although the conceptof market segmentation had appeared many years before asa means to improve marketing efficiency and effectiveness,the practice gained widespread acceptance in this hyperac-tive market environment, stimulated by the publication ofSmith’s (1956) article. Marketing strategy came to relyincreasingly on statistical analysis of market research data.Market segmentation strategy was entirely consistent withthe philosophy of customer orientation.

Among the most notable developments at the beginningof Era III were the publication of several important state-ments of the marketing concept (Borch 1959; Drucker 1954;Keith 1960; Levitt 1960; McKitterick 1957), the growth ofmarketing staffs (for market research, product planning,advertising, and so on) to support sales operations in manycompanies, the continued development of the product- orbrand-management form of organization, and the appear-ance of several pathbreaking texts with a managerial focus(Alderson 1957; Davis 1961; Howard 1957; Kotler 1967;McCarthy 1960). These managerial texts (especiallyMcCarthy’s) produced a consensus definition of marketingstrategy decisions as the four Ps: product, price, promotion,and physical distribution. As Day (1992, p. 324) observed,“In retrospect, the 1960s were the era of marketing’s widestinfluence and greatest promise.”

Marketing Management as an OptimizationProblemOf equal importance as environmental forces, two path-setting studies of business education (Gordon and Howell1959; Pierson 1959) advocated a shift from a narrow voca-tional and skills emphasis to a deeper and more rigorousanalytical approach based on quantitative analysis and thebehavioral sciences. Among the early results for marketingof this initiative were the publication of such bellwethertexts as Mathematical Models and Methods in Marketing(Bass et al. 1961), Quantitative Techniques in MarketingAnalysis (Frank, Kuehn, and Massy 1962), Marketing: Con-tributions from the Behavioral Sciences (Zaltman 1965),and Management Sciences in Marketing (Montgomery andUrban 1969).

Although these two lines of development—the marketing(management) concept and quantitative analysis—can beidentified as equally important and influential at the outset

122 Evolution of Marketing Management

of Era III, they have developed in a very different fashion.Rigorous analytical methods proved to have greater appealto many marketing educators than the “softer” and moreconceptual approaches of customer orientation and the mar-keting concept and their managerial and organizationalimplications. With the active support of their colleagues ineconomics and finance, the dominant culture in most lead-ing business school faculties, marketing academics eagerlyadopted a price–theory-based view of marketing manage-ment as essentially an optimization problem (Anderson1982). Allocating resources until marginal returns wereequal across spending opportunities, if only the analystcould accurately estimate the demand curve, could optimizeeach of the four Ps.

Aided by the availability of large-scale computers andincreasingly large and reliable databases, marketing schol-ars were strongly encouraged by the academic culture toemphasize empirical data, quantitative methods of dataanalysis, and mathematical modeling in their research. Thisbias was reflected naturally in the evolution of the editorialdirection of established journals such as Journal of Market-ing and the development of new vehicles such as Journal ofMarketing Research and, later, Marketing Science, a spin-off from Management Science, in which much marketingwork was published in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Rise and Fall of the StrategicPlanning Empire

On the general management and business policy side of theacademic field, the area of formal strategic management wasemerging (Ansoff 1965). An important element of thisapproach was the famous DuPont model of management,which was based on return on investment, by which largecompanies could be effectively controlled through the care-ful allocation of financial resources across strategic businessunits (SBUs) competing for these limited funds. A centralfeature of most of these formal strategic planningapproaches was the “product portfolio,” a matrix thatdepicted firms’ SBUs on two dimensions: their position rel-ative to those of competitors (market share) in their respec-tive markets and the rate of growth in those markets. Returnon investment became the dominant criterion for evaluatingbusiness performance and for budgeting expendituresincluding marketing. Attributing revenue and profit resultsto marketing expenditures is known to be especially difficultbecause of multiple causation, lagged effects, and similarmeasurement and estimation problems.

By the mid-1970s, the discipline of strategic planning wasin full bloom, evidenced by the proliferation of corporatestrategic planning departments. It was not uncommon forthe corporate marketing function to merge formally intostrategic planning, seeking two benefits: to make the mar-keting concept and customer orientation strategically opera-tional and to make strategic planning more customerfocused and market driven. Several excellent marketingstrategy texts appeared at this time (e.g., Abell and Ham-mond 1979) along with several articles that explored therelationship between marketing and corporate strategy (e.g.,Anderson 1982). Many key concepts from marketing, suchas customer orientation, market segmentation, and position-

ing, were adopted and promoted aggressively by the strate-gic management field (Day 1992). The Strategic Manage-ment Journal appeared in 1980, edited by Dan Schendel atPurdue, who had earned his doctorate in Marketing atStanford.

These trends prompted Biggadike (1981) to contend thatwith their bias toward marketing tactics and optimization,marketers were unlikely to use their tools and concepts toaddress strategic management issues because of their orien-tation to methodological rigor. Biggadike questionedwhether marketers were interested in raising their level ofaggregation to the business unit or industry level and to theirtime horizon over the long run, and he concluded that itwould be up to strategic management students to make thetransfer of marketing concepts and methods to strategicissues. That appears to be what happened.

By the early 1980s, however, formal strategic planning asan activity at the corporate level was in decline, and moststrategic planning departments were being dismantled(Kiechel 1982). The bureaucratic strategic planning processhad proved to be an expensive undertaking in managementtime and organizational and administrative costs, oftencausing serious lags in responding to a changing marketenvironment (“paralysis by analysis”). Measurement prob-lems in making operational such central constructs as mar-ket share and the definition of “served market” also provedto be difficult and a continuing source of disagreement anddebate between corporate analysts and SBU-level manage-ment (Day 1977; Day and Montgomery 1983; Kiechel1981).

In many companies, responsibility for marketing strategywas delegated to SBU managers. Corporate marketingdepartments were also widely downsized or eliminated,which left little or no customer advocacy or marketing man-agement competence at the top level of the organization,unless the chief executive officer happened to come fromthat background (Webster, Malter, and Ganesan 2003). Partof the rationale for eliminating marketing as a corporatefunction was embedded in the fundamental assertion of themarketing concept that customer orientation should pervadethe organization and, according to Drucker (1954), thus wasnot a separate function at all but rather the entire business asseen from the customer’s point of view. As Day (1992, p.323) notes, “Paradoxically, the deeper marketing is embed-ded within an organization and becomes the defining themefor shaping competitive strategies, the more likely is the roleof marketing as a distinct function to be diminished.”

Although strategic planning departments at the corporatelevel have disappeared, the discipline of strategic manage-ment and the related field of strategic management consult-ing have continued to have the ear of practicing managers.Today, it is a literature more widely read and valued bymanagers than the marketing literature, evidenced by thelarge number of management subscribers compared withthose of the marketing journals. Throughout the 1970s and1980s, the marketing discipline continued to emphasize thedevelopment of enhanced methodological sophisticationand analytical rigor, whereas the strategic management jour-nals were more likely to report interesting, new conceptualdevelopments and (perceived) best business practices.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 123

An American Marketing Association Task Force on theDevelopment of Marketing Thought (Churchill et al. 1988)highlighted the importance of the academic journals in thefield and how they had evolved toward more rigor and anemphasis on methods. These positive achievements weresaid to be counterbalanced by a lack of articles written in aform accessible to marketing students and executives, byfewer integrative and conceptual articles, and by a paucityof articles advancing new ideas and approaches to market-ing problems.

Marketing journals appeared to have assumed an attitudethat managerial relevance was inconsistent with academicrigor and, equally problematic, that conceptual knowledgewas less valuable than methodological and empiricalknowledge. It was noted that Journal of Marketing in par-ticular had been explicitly repositioned in the 1970s todeemphasize managerial relevance in favor of articles that(quoting the editor then) were “truly scholarly” and pro-vided “a new theoretical, methodological, or substantivecontribution to the field.” This was a marked departure fromthe traditional mission of Journal of Marketing to publishimportant articles that would serve both business and acad-emic readers. Today, there appears to be a general aware-ness that marketing scholarship had moved too far in thedirection of methodological sophistication and analyticalrigor applied to narrowly defined problems with limitedmanagerial relevance. Recent Journal of Marketing editorshave emphasized the need for both managerial relevanceand analytical rigor and an editorial goal of appealing toboth the business and the academic communities.

The Changing Role of MarketingThere is no question that marketing management has expe-rienced significant changes during Era IV: “A Fragmenta-tion of the Mainstream.” Among the many environmentalforces that have reshaped the marketing function within thefirm during the past two decades are as follows:

•Evolution from bureaucratic to more flexible organizationalforms;

•Rapid diffusion of computer and telecommunications technol-ogy, including the Internet;

•Dominance of large, low-cost retailers in most productcategories;

•The stock-market boom of the 1990s, followed by a dramaticdecrease in stock prices;

•Continued emphasis on quarterly earnings per share as a mea-sure of business performance and company value;

•Globalization and increased competitive pressures; and•Outsourcing of many parts of value-creation and value-deliveryprocesses.

As corporate structures have moved away from central-ized bureaucratic control to a stronger emphasis on SBUsand strategic partnering, marketing at the corporate level hasbecome much less important. Either marketing managementresponsibilities have been shifted outward to the field salesorganization or into SBUs, or they have simply been elimi-nated as a distinct activity. Marketing communications dol-lars have been reallocated to short-term price incentives andother sales promotional activities and to the selling function,

to support increased field sales effort and larger discounts toincreasingly powerful resellers (Webster, Malter, and Gane-san 2003). For example, the product-level brand manage-ment function in many consumer packaged-goods compa-nies has been redefined and relocated to the field salesorganization, with primary responsibility for working withmajor resellers on in-store promotional activities, ratherthan to the traditional roles of brand development in whichconsumer advertising is heavily used. At the corporate level,remaining marketing management positions tend to focus onglobal brand strategy (across SBUs and geographies) andmarketing communications. Product and pricing strategy,sales management, and channel strategy and managementare SBU-level responsibilities, often with a relatively short-term, tactical focus. Innovation for long-range productdevelopment tends to lose priority.

The Relationship Between Marketing andSellingThe proper relationship between selling and marketing hasalways been a problem both for companies and for the mar-keting discipline. Are they distinct functions, or is sellingpart of marketing? We know that marketing originated as aform of support for sales force management, including thedevelopment of promotional materials and sales tools, theuse of market research to plan and control field sales activ-ity, and the development of strong brands to support thetrade channels and related selling effort. However, it was acentral part of Drucker’s (1954) thesis that marketing ismore than selling and is distinct from it.

Over time, sales management emerged as a separate fieldof study within the marketing discipline and was a majorfocus of academic research from the 1950s to the 1980s(see, e.g., Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1981; Davis 1957;Davis and Webster 1968; Webster 1983). A significantamount of the mathematical modeling of marketing activi-ties that was published in the 1960s and 1970s addressedfield sales management issues, such as call frequency, thedesign of sales territories, sales force size, sales compensa-tion plans, and assignment of individual sales representa-tives to specific territories (Bagozzi 1979; Bass et al. 1961;Frank, Kuehn, and Massy 1962; Webster 1983).

Some observers estimate that as much as 80% of the totalmarketing communications budget is now spent on selling(including trade discounts in some cases), leaving only 20%for advertising and other communication and consumersales promotion activities. Surprisingly, even as marketingdollars have shifted from other activities to the field salesforce operation, academic interest in sales management hasall but disappeared. Just as sales and marketing are distinctmanagement activities in many companies, so it appears thatmany academics do not think of sales management whenthey think of marketing.

Sales promotions, narrowly defined as short-term pricereductions and other incentives such as additional merchan-dise, special packaging, or rewards for frequent patronage,have become a principal marketing tool, often accountingfor the lion’s share of the consumer-marketing budget.There is a wide range of practice pertaining to the account-ing for sales promotion expenditures: Are expenditures sim-

124 Evolution of Marketing Management

ply reductions in price that should be deducted from top-linesales revenue, or should they be a separate expense itemwithin marketing or sales? There are two major attractionsof sales promotions for marketers: First, they can producemore or less immediate results, thus enhancing short-termrevenues and related measures of business performance.Second, these results can be tracked and measured relativelyeasily using point-of-purchase sales tabulations and otherdatabases that are now widely available from retailers andservice organizations.

Given the academic field’s interest in empirical data,combined with the development of sophisticated statisticalmethodologies and database owners eager to maximize thevalue of their investments in these data, it is no surprise thatsales promotion has become perhaps the most widely andrigorously studied area of marketing in recent times (Blat-tberg and Neslin 1990; Neslin 2002). There is undoubtedlya reinforcing feedback effect on the widespread use of salespromotion as a marketing tool, as managers under pressureto measure the effectiveness of their expenditures to supporttheir budget requests allocate additional resources to theareas in which they can track and report results with a rea-sonable degree of validity and reliability. The large, low-cost retailers have the ability to control access to the neces-sary data and thereby gain additional power in theirrelationships with their suppliers, thus diminishing the rela-tive power of the manufacturer and the manufacturer’sbrand while delivering lower prices to the consumer.

The Conflict of the Marketing Concept andCorporate CharterAt the core of current trends in the role of marketing man-agement in the firm is the overwhelming emphasis on short-term measures of business performance, most especiallyreturn on investment, equity, or assets employed; quarterlyearnings per share; and the resultant trend in the stock price(Hayes and Abernathy 1980). Most managers have a signif-icant portion of their total compensation tied directly to suchmeasures in the form of stock options and bonuses.

Corporate charters in the United States, as mandated bystate legislation, have stated since the earliest days of suchcharters that the purpose of the corporation, and the princi-pal duty of its directors and managers, is to protect and max-imize the value of the firm for its owners, the shareholders.From the dawn of the marketing concept, it was clear thatthere were countervailing forces to customer orientation andthat this new management philosophy was often supportedby words but not deeds. Early studies (e.g., Bell and Emory1971; McNamara 1972) identified several barriers, includ-ing an emphasis on financial performance measures andresistance from managers in other functions who wereaccountable to stakeholders other than the customer. It iscertainly no surprise that the chief executive officer is likelyto place shareholders’ interests first, ahead of those of thecustomer, unless he or she has given considerable thought tothe proposition that the long-term value of the business isultimately a function of customer satisfaction and repeatpatronage.

Strengthening the Managerial View ofMarketingMarketing needs new conceptual models that articulateclearly and with more relevance for the current managementenvironment the basic argument of the marketing concept:Customer orientation and value delivery must be at the coreof the firm if the firm is to maximize long-term value for itsowners and its other constituencies, partners in the value-delivery process.

Research with chief executives and marketing officersprovides some guidance for strengthening marketing’s con-tribution within the firm and for defining academic researchpriorities (Webster 2002; Webster, Malter, and Ganesan2003). With or without a change in corporate charters, mar-keting managers must develop better measures of marketingproductivity that are tied to the financial systems and goalsof the company. The measurement issue is one of severalthat must be aggressively addressed by solid conceptualdevelopment and rigorous empirical work if marketing is to“regain its seat at the table,” in the words of one chief mar-keting officer. A recent issue of Journal of Marketing (Octo-ber 2004), cosponsored by the Marketing Science Institute,has a special section of articles that both conceptually andempirically address this fundamental challenge. There aresome encouraging developments in relating marketingexpenditures to marketplace outcomes and, in turn, relatingoutcomes to financial measures on the profit-and-loss state-ment and on the balance sheet.

Also needed is more attention to product managementand fundamental innovation in truly new products and ser-vices rather than to incremental product improvements toachieve short-term bumps in revenue. The risks, therequired investments, and the potential rewards of trueinnovation are both greater and more difficult to assess thanare the mere modifications in the product offering. Thesemajor strategic decisions need more careful study andthought from academic researchers. The answers to theseimportant strategic questions are not likely to be found byanalyzing a statistical database or running a controlledexperiment or computer simulation with student subjects inthe university laboratory.

The development and measurement of brand equity hasreceived a good share of the strategic marketing manage-ment attention in the past several years (Keller 2003). It is agood example of an area in which marketing scholars andmanagers have found a productive intersection of interest.However, many issues of strategic brand managementremain to be solved, and it must remain a top research andmanagement priority. To illustrate what is possible, at theNovember 2004 meeting of the trustees of the MarketingScience Institute, Hewlett-Packard executives described asophisticated approach to measuring the impact of branddevelopment expenditures on their financial statements.

ConclusionFor the marketing educators eager for a rejuvenation of amanagerial point of view within the field, there is cause forcautious optimism. The issue of the decline of relevance andthe relative lack of attention to important areas of marketing

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 125

strategy, such as new product development, channel strat-egy, and sales force management, is increasingly recog-nized, discussed, and written about by marketing thoughtleaders. Fundamentally new paradigms of marketing man-agement are being offered that shift the core focus of thefield from firms to customers, from products to services andbenefits, from transactions to relationships, from manufac-turing to the cocreation of value with business partners andcustomers, and from physical resources and labor to knowl-edge resources and the firm’s position in the value chain.Properly developed and communicated, this new conceptu-alization has the potential to bridge the gap between man-agers and scholars, to integrate rigor and relevance, and toreinvigorate a managerial view of marketing. The biggestchallenge in the future, as in the past, will be meaningfulcommunication among marketing scholars, marketing man-agers, and general managers so that rigorous work becomesmore relevant while the practical becomes more analyticaland marketing decisions become better informed by bettermarketing science (Lehmann 2003).

ReferencesAbell, Derek and John S. Hammond (1979), Strategic Market

Planning: Problems and Analytical Approaches. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive Action.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Anderson, Paul F. (1982), “Marketing, Strategic Planning, and theTheory of the Firm,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (April), 7–23.

Ansoff, H. Igor (1965), Corporate Strategy: An AnalyticalApproach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Bagozzi, Richard P., ed. (1979), “Sales Management: New Devel-opments from Behavioral and Decision Model Research,” MSIReport No. 79-107. Cambridge, MA: Marketing ScienceInstitute.

Bass, Frank M., Robert D. Buzzell, Mark R. Greene, WilliamLazer, Edgar A. Pessemier, Donald L. Shawver, AbrahamShuchman, Chris A. Theodore, and George W. Wilson, eds.(1961), Mathematical Models and Methods in Marketing.Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Bell, M.L. and C.W. Emory (1971), “The Faltering MarketingConcept,” Journal of Marketing, 35 (October), 37–42.

Biggadike, Ralph E. (1981), “The Contributions of Marketing toStrategic Management,” Academy of Management Review, 6(October), 621–32.

Blattberg, Robert C. and Scott A. Neslin (1990), Sales Promotion:Concepts, Methods, and Strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Borch, Fred J. (1959), “The Marketing Philosophy as a Way ofBusiness Life,” in The Marketing Concept: Its Meaning to Man-agement. New York: American Management Association, 1–6.

Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Robert A. Garda, Shelby D. Hunt, andFrederick E. Webster Jr. (1988), “Comments on the AMA TaskForce Study,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (October), 26–31.

———, Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker (1981), Sales ForceManagement. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Cohen, Lisabeth (2003), A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics ofMass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.

Davis, Kenneth R. (1961), Marketing Management: Text andCases. New York: The Ronald Press Company.

——— and Frederick E. Webster Jr. (1968), Sales Force Manage-ment: Text and Cases. New York: The Ronald Press Company.

Davis, Robert T. (1957), The Performance and Development ofField Sales Managers. Boston: Harvard Business School, Divi-sion of Research.

Day, George S. (1977), “Diagnosing the Product Portfolio,” Jour-nal of Marketing, 41 (April), 29–38.

——— (1992), “Marketing’s Contribution to the Strategy Dia-logue,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20 (Fall),323–29.

——— and David B. Montgomery (1983), “Diagnosing the Expe-rience Curve,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Spring), 44–58.

——— and ——— (1999), “Charting New Directions for Market-ing,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 3–13.

Drucker, Peter F. (1954), The Practice of Management. New York:Harper & Row Publishers.

Frank, Ronald E., Alfred A. Kuehn, and William F. Massy (1962),Quantitative Techniques in Marketing Analysis. Homewood, IL:Richard D. Irwin.

Gordon, Robert and James Howell (1959), Higher Education inBusiness. New York: Columbia University Press.

Haeckel, Stephan H. (1999), Adaptive Enterprise: Creating andLeading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Hayes, Robert H. and William J. Abernathy (1980), “ManagingOur Way to Economic Decline,” Harvard Business Review, 58(July–August), 67–77.

Howard, John A. (1957), Marketing Management: Analysis andPlanning. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Keith, Robert J. (1960) “The Marketing Revolution,” Journal ofMarketing, 24 (January), 35–38.

Keller, Kevin Lane (2003), Strategic Brand Management, 2d ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kiechel, Walter, III (1981), “The Decline of the ExperienceCurve,” Fortune, (October 5), 139–46.

——— (1982), “Corporate Strategists Under Fire,” Fortune,(December 27), 34–39.

Kotler, Philip A. (1967), Marketing Management: Analysis, Plan-ning, and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lehmann, Donald R. (2003), “The Relevance of Rigor,” MSIReport No. 03-105. Cambridge, MA: Marketing ScienceInstitute.

Levitt, Theodore (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard BusinessReview, 38 (July–August), 45–56.

McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960), Basic Marketing: A ManagerialApproach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

McKitterick, John B. (1957), “What Is the Marketing ManagementConcept?” in The Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Action,Frank M. Bass, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association,71–82.

McNamara, Carleton P. (1972), “The Present Status of the Mar-keting Concept,” Journal of Marketing, 36 (January), 50–57.

126 Evolution of Marketing Management

Montgomery, David B. and Glen R. Urban (1969), ManagementScience in Marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Neslin, Scott A. (2002), Sales Promotion. Cambridge, MA: Mar-keting Science Institute.

Pierson, F.C. (1959), The Education of American Businessmen.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, Wendell (1956), “Product Differentiation and Market Seg-mentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies,” Journal of Mar-keting, 20 (July), 3–8.

Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq Shervani, and Liam Fahey(1999), “Marketing, Business Processes, and ShareholderValue: An Organizationally Embedded View of MarketingActivities and the Discipline of Marketing,” Journal of Market-ing, 63 (Special Issue), 168–79.

Vargo, Stephen L. and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to aNew Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 68(January), 1–17.

Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1983), Field Sales Management. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

——— (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corpora-tion,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (October), 1–17.

——— (2002), Market-Driven Management, 2d ed. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.

———, Alan J. Malter, and Shankar Ganesan (2003), “Can Mar-keting Regain a Seat at the Table?” MSI Working Paper No. 03-113. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Wilkie, William L. and Elizabeth S. Moore (2003), “ScholarlyResearch in Marketing: Exploring the ‘4 Eras’ of ThoughtDevelopment,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22 (Fall),116–46.

Zaltman, Gerald (1965), Marketing: Contributions from theBehavioral Sciences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.