Relationship Marketing Theory - Literature review Example

Over the past decades marketing, as a concept, has undergone numerous re-definition and development processes, culminating, not only in the evolutionof several sub-fields but in pedagogical controversy over the fundamental definitional parameters of the term. Brownlie and Saren (1992) attest to the veracity of the aforementioned in their contention that scholars have "challenged the marketing concept" (34) and that others have effectively declared its demise. The scope of the existent body of literature on marketing, the wide range of academic and trade journals devoted to an exploration of the marketing concept and strategies, and the countless volumes of pages published each year on the topic, effectively disprove the latter statement, the fact is that the rapidity of the evolutionary process experienced within the field of marketing and by the marketing concept itself, have furnished fertile grounds for a conceptual and ideological debate. Within the parameters of the aforementioned debate, two questions impose themselves. The first relates to whether the controversy is reflective of disagreement over the marketing concept and the functions embraced therein, and the second to whether the evolution of the marketing concept has been such that a disconnect between the original function and intent of marketing and its current purposes and ends has developed. Through a discursive analysis of three articles on the marketing concept and the evolutionary process experienced, this essay shall attempt to answer these questions. Brownlie and Saren In their discussion on the marketing concept, Brownlie and Saren (1992) undertake a historical analysis of the term. Proceeding from the premise that marketing's contemporaneous definitional parameters and associate functions have significantly transcended its original definition and associate functions, the authors maintain that the referenced gulf functions as the space within which controversy rages. In order to understand this argument, it is contingent upon us to offer a critical summary of the article. As stated by the authors, "the marketing concept has a long and distinguished lineage and is widely acknowledged as the cornerstone of the discipline" (Brownlie and Saren, 1992, p. 34). Even prior to its pedagogical evolution some four to five decades ago, marketing was a fundamental componential element of the business process insofar as it functioned as the only existent strategy for the assessment of market/consumer demands and the means by which responses to these demands were publicised or brought to consumer/market attention. In other words, and as may be inferred from the article, marketing evolved in conjunction with modern business. As may be discerned from the above, the importance of marketing to business, or the existent co-dependent relationship they shared, is a widely acknowledged and incontrovertible fact. To this extent, one may determine the presence of a consensus regarding the importance of marketing to business and, additional agreement regarding the basic function and purpose of marketing. In its most simplistic terms, marketing is the strategy by which a business communicates with its external environment with the supposed intention of popularising the business and its products/services and, consequently, enhancing its market share. While consensus exists around the basic definition and function of marketing, the evolution of the concept has complicated the issue insofar as it has rendered the concept and he practice far more complicated than initially envisioned. As Brownlie and Saren (1992) assert, over the years, marketing has "has developed a sophisticated array of technologies for describing and analysing markets and the interfaces between them and the organisation" (37) has formulated the performance standards by which an organisation can be judged and has developed a methodology for enhancing competitiveness. It has extended beyond its original concern of analysing a market and enhancing communications between a business and its external environment and has evolved into a strategic ideology for the articulation of a strategy for the attainment of market dominance and the formulation of a best business practices guideline. In other words, marketing has evolved into a complex strategy for operation within and dominance over a market as opposed to its earlier function of being a medium for business to market, and market to business communication. The complex evolution of the term has, as earlier noted by the authors, led to the formulation of a set of guidelines for the attainment of market domination and effective and efficient organisational performance. Within the context of the stated aim, or the evolutionary parameters of the concept, controversy was bound to arise over both strategies for the implementation of the mentioned recommendations or the value of doing so. For example, current marketing methodologies emphasise the exigencies of strategically assessing a market for determination of both its current and potential future needs but, as the authors ask, what exactly is meant by a strategic assessment of a market and what exactly must be assessed The point here is, and as Brownlie and Saren (1992) quite explicitly state, that marketing has evolved into an ideology and a theory, a subject of pedagogical inquiry and controversy, as opposed to its earlier function as a practical strategy for business operation and survival within a market. Moller and Halinen Largely concurring with Brownlie and Saren's (1992) remarks on the remarkable conceptual and theoretical evolutions the have occurred within the marketing field over the past decades, Moller and Halinen (2000) seek to examine the phenomenon of theory formation within the discipline, with particular focus on the sub-field of relationship marketing. Explaining the rationale governing their selection of relationship marketing (RM) as opposed to any other subfield the authors quite simply state that the choice was virtually imposed upon them by the popularity of RM. In other words, the contemporaneous or hot' (29) nature of RM determined selection. However, when reading the article and especially in light of the fact that it both explores the evolution of a particular subfield and examines the polemic and theoretical debate surrounding RM, one realises that the discussion sheds light on evolutionary developments and conceptual and theoretical controversies surrounding the concept of marketing discipline itself and practically any other subfield within. As earlier stated, developments within the discipline, primarily focusing on the evolution and formulation of strategies for the establishment of a more effective relationship and communication mechanism between a business enterprise and its external environment, has significantly complicated the discipline. For example, the authors mention that within the parameters of an increasingly complex and expansive market, multitudinous marketing theories have evolved with the understanding being that forms must deploy the strategies and tools suggested by several, if not all, of them if they are to acquire an accurate understanding of the environment in which they operate. In other words, and as a response to the perceived complexity of the market, marketing scholars and practitioners have recommended the deployment of an amalgamated marketing strategies, as which borrows from the tools and precepts of several theories, as opposed o a specific strategy or approach. The above stated appears logical and based on a realistic assessment of the requisite response to an increasingly fluid, mercurial, complex and growing market. However, when referencing the polemics surrounding relationship marketing and its presentation as a novel marketing theory which quite possibly function as a more effective alterative to the operative general marketing theory, the authors seem to insinuate that evolutions within he discipline have unnecessarily complicated it. In making the case for unnecessary complication or, at least, giving readers that impression, Moller and Halinen (2000) argue that relationship marketing does not constitute a general marketing theory and is, in fact, itself comprised of two separate, although somewhat interdependent marketing theories. These are market-based and network-based relationship marketing. From the perspective of the most basic of definitions, the latter focuses on the fortification of the relationship between the organisation and its consumer-base and the former between the firm and its external environment. While both ultimately aim towards s the constructive contribution to organisational performance and the concomitant expansion of its market shares, the fact is that fundamental differences exist, imposing upon firms the added challenge and responsibility of managing each of these marketing processes separately. In other words, the increasing complexity of the marketing concept has complicated the very practice of organisational and business management. Levitt Levitt (1960) adopts a markedly different approach to the previously reviewed articles. Instead of tracing the history of the marketing concept in order to illustrate the extent to which the concept has evolved into a sophisticated set of theories and strategies for business success, he pinpoints the failures of marketing strategies to accurately gauge market trends and developments thereby endowing organisations, not just with the tools for competitive survival but for expansion and development. Drawing upon numerous examples of marketing's failure to accurately assess trends and consumer demands, Levitt's paper reads as an argument for the evolution of the discipline and the exigencies of articulating and devising tools, techniques and strategies for successful operation within dynamic and mercurial markets. From Levitt's perspective, marketing has not endowed business firms with the capacity or the tools to assess potential developments within the market or even to accurately assess current demands. Within the context of the stated failure, traditional growth industries have often suffered downfalls. The former, as may be inferred from the article, is largely a consequence of a persistent failure to factor in R&D into market analysis and business decisions. On the basis of the stated, and possibly due to the fact that this article was written two to three decades prior to the earlier reviewed ones, the focus is upon the failure of the marketing concept to evolve in direct response to expanding market requirements and needs. In other words, a gap between the evolution of the market and the business environment, on the one hand, and the marketing discipline on the other, is highlighted and presented as a highly problematic obstacle to organisational growth and expansion. Accordingly, the short-sighted nature of marketing and its limited capacity to assess future trends on the basis of ongoing R&D has functioned as the primary factor behind the downturns suffered by numerous growth industries and forms therein. It is as such that the imperatives of a more evolved and theoretically developed marketing discipline are articulated. Discussion and Concluding Remarks As may be determined from the presented overview, Moller and Halinen (2000) largely concur with Brownlie and Saren's (1992) previously stated assessment regarding the revolutionary developments which have occurred within the marketing discipline and which, as a result, have significantly complicated the process. While one cannot deny the fact that the evolution of the marketing concept has partially been imposed upon academicians and practitioners by the increasing complexity of the market place itself, the ever changing and fluid nature of consumer demands and the continually escalating intensity of market competition, one cannot deny that the concept of marketing has been unnecessarily complicated. That, however, does not imply that complication has forestalled the capacity of marketing strategies to positively contribute to firm performance and expansion. In direct comparison to the above stated, Levitt presents an effective argument for the evolution of the marketing concept. By reviewing the costs of the discipline's failure to gauge the market and assess potential developments and current demands, Levitt effectively, albeit indirectly, demonstrates that the overall benefits of the evolution of the concept have been worth the cost incurred and the concomitant management complexities which arose as a result. References Brownlie, D. & Sraen, M. (1992). The Four P's of the Marketing Concept: Prescriptive, Polemical, Permanent and Problematical. European Journal of Marketing, 26(4), pp. 34-47. Levitt, T. (1960). Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 45 -56. Moller, K. & Halinen, A. (2000). Relationship Marketing Theory: Its Roots and Direction. Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 29-54. Read More