Is Marketing A Science?

Introduction The debate on whether marketing is a science or an art commenced with the publication of Converses article in 1945. The debate got more intensive in the 1950s. Bartels (1951) assessed the current state of marketing research and the nature of scientific endeavour. He concluded that while there was some evidence of the use of the scientific method in marketing, the disciplines manifest lack of theories, principles and laws meant that it did not yet qualify as a science. in his own words, he avers that, ...There seems to be little evidence to support the claim that all is needed is time and patience until there will emerge the new and shining science of marketing There is a real reason, however, why the field of marketing has been slow to develop a unique body of theory. It is a simple one: marketing is not a science. It is rather an art or a practice, and as such more closely resembles engineering, medicine and architecture than it does physics, chemistry or biology. It is the drollest travesty to relate the scientists search for knowledge to the market research mans seeking after customers. In actual practice many and probably most of the decisions in the field resemble the scientific method hardly any more closely than what is involved in reading a road map or a time table ( pp. 287-91). According to Buzzell, R.D. (1963) for a discipline to qualify as science it should meet the following four standards, it should be: a classified and systematized body of knowledge, organized around one or more central theories and a number of general principles, usually expressed in quantitative terms,

knowledge which permits the prediction and, under some circumstances, the control of future events.

Marketing Scientific Theories

"Is science marketing?" is a question posed by Paul P.J & Olson C, J. (1983). Their effort was to look at a possible way of appropriating marketing theories to scientific pedestals. They argue that successful theory is one that is treated seriously and studied by a significant portion of a research community. Practitioners may even employ such theories as frameworks for analyzing important problems. In other words, a successful theory is-one that has been adopted by a substantial market segment, just as is the case of a successful consumer good. We argue that to successfully achieve an adequate level of adoption, scientists must (at least implicitly) develop and carry out a marketing strategy to promote their theories. In this section, we consider some of the concepts and strategies involved in this process. First, we describe scientific theories in terms of the four basic elements of the marketing mix-product, channels of distribution, promotion, and price. Then we discuss the idea of market segmentation for theories. Finally, we consider the marketing objectives for scientific work. Theories as Products In the broadest sense, the major products of science are ideas. Scientific ideas consist of invented constructs and hypothesized relationships among them. A system of such ideas about a phenomenon may be called a substantive theory. Scientists also create ideas about methods of obtaining, analyzing, and interpreting data. These are methodological theories of measurement, sampling, and data analysis. Regardless of the type of idea or theory, it should not be forgotten that the entire theory product is invented or constructed by one or more scientists, just as ideas for consumer products are invented or constructed. Like ideas for consumer products and the products themselves, substantive and/or methodological theory products must also be marketed. At some point in the development of a theory the scientist usually produces a manuscript that describes the idea. The manuscript may also present empirical data that illustrate the idea and/or provide tentative support. A manuscript is a tangible representation of the invented system of ideas. Marketing a theory as a tangible manuscript is both easier and more effective than promoting an intangible set of ideas, for at least four reasons: potential adopters can easily store the theory product for use (study) at a more convenient time. because the manuscript is always available, potential adopters can reexamine and reflect on the theory and possibly come to appreciate its value.
2

 the relative permanence of a manuscript allows wider dissemination of the theory to a secondary, pass-along audience (e.g., students). a tangible manuscript may be used to establish the scientist/marketer as the inventor of the theory or as the first to borrow the theory from another area and apply it in a new field. Over its life cycle a theory may undergo a number of modifications in response to a variety of potential marketing problems. Customer complaints regarding measurement difficulties or lack of conceptual clarity, and competitive theory products marketed by other scientists, are among the many problems a new theory may face in trying to capture a viable market share of scientists. Perhaps the most serious problem occurs when a test of a theory fails to predict adequately. This means that the theory is not meeting the needs of the largest segment of researchers-those concerned with prediction and methodological and empirical rigor. If the research community cannot be convinced that the empirical test procedures were faulty, either the inventor scientist or another scientist who has adopted the theory may change specific characteristics of the theory product in response to such problems. However, the modified theory is seldom renamed, as this might lose loyal customers. Product Attributes. As with consumer products, several key attributes of a theory have a large effect on marketing success. A major characteristic concerns the topic, issue, problem, or phenomenon that is addressed. A theory may concern an issue of major importance, a "big" problem, or a relatively "small" issue of little theoretical or practical importance (Olson 1982). In some ways it may be easier to market the latter type of theory. For instance, the most widely adopted theories tend to be those that are easiest to understand and research empirically, especially in long periods of normal science (Kuhn 1970). If research on a theory requires special equipment (e.g.. polygraphs for the study of brain waves) or special subject populations (e.g., managers or purchasing agents), that theory is not likely to be widely researched. In contrast, theories that are easily researched with conventional measurement procedures (e.g., self-report rating scales) and easily accessible samples (e.g., students) are more likely to achieve higher adoption rates. A second important attribute of a theory concerns the professional credentials and status of the inventor or the borrower. Scientists who are well known and respected, based on their previous

contributions to a field, have better chances of successfully introducing new theories than do less well-known researchers. Third, theories that are borrowed and adapted from more established, familiar fields seem to be more easily marketed than theories gleaned from unconventional areas or that are constructed "from scratch. Fourth, theories which contain familiar, common, everyday concepts, words, meanings, and relationships (e.g., needs, attitudes, personality) may be easier to market successfully than theories which require learning new words, meanings, and relationships (e.g., shaping, aesthetic response, semantic relatedness, coherence analysis, negative reinforcement). Fifth, theories that are consistent with current political and social values are easier to market (Barnes 1977, Gould 1982). The sixth (and purposefully last) product attribute is the preliminary empirical evidence that can be marshaled to support a theory. Strong empirical support is a highly desirable attribute that will enhance the marketability of a theory. Promotion of Theories Throughout the life cycle of a theory, from creation to test marketing to publication in a major journal to the widespread adoption and use of a theory by the research community, promotion is a key factor in successfully marketing a theory. As with consumer goods, a variety of promotional techniques can be used. Interestingly, and contrary to popular beliefs, theories that do not provide impressive empirical results, produce a potential resolution to a major problem in the field (Kuhn 1970, Popper 1959), or generate novel predictions (Lakatos 1978), can still be marketed successfully. It is also possible to successfully market a theory that makes no unusual or novel predictions and is in fact quite similar to other theories. Of course, a scientist's promotion task will be easier if the theory product has unique features (e.g., it generates novel predictions) or it has desirable attributes of a compelling logic coupled with strongly supportive data. However, as long as the new theory is relatively consistent with the worldview of at least a segment of the field, it can be successfully promoted. Two Approaches to demonstrate that Marketing is a Science are proposed by Hutchinson, K.D (1952).he has two lines of approach:
4

 the semantic approach according to which the various contributors wrestle with

dictionary meanings, warping and twisting them, until at last marketing is seen to have fulfilled many, though not all, of the requisite characteristics of a science.
the economic approach. Students of marketing interested in "practical" as well as

academic matters seem to find the time-worn theories of neo-classical economics to be unsatisfying or downright inapplicable. For some years economists themselves have been trying to free their subject from the fetters placed there by the static assumptions inherited from the classical school traditions. Some progress is being made in modernizing economic doctrines but there still remain numerous concepts which lack realism. It has been this factor which has encouraged students of marketing to pursue further the task of clarification in fact such work was essential. In looking over the work of marketing theorists it Hutchinson observes that considerable effort has been expended in attacking the generally accepted, or doctrines which relate to price setting. It is apparently true, he argues, that much of this body of thought has been erected upon a foundation which contains some rather unrealistic assumptions, and certainly some which appear foreign to a marketer. Thus far, however, the contributions of marketing theorists to economic theory of pricing remain restricted to the field of criticism. If one were to seek evidence of constructive scholarship along these lines he would discover that no notable body of new theory has been brought forth to replace the seemingly discredited notions. An even harsher observation could be made: the probing of marketers into economic theory has tended more to becloud than to clarify the issues. What constitutes a science is a question which has been settled in general for centuries, but from time to time the issues arise again as new subjects are held up for scrutiny. Within modern times the areas of social study, the socio-economic fields, have caused considerable debate over the character of science itself. The trouble with attacking this problem from a semantic point of view is that words have multiple meanings and one is enabled to prove almost anything, and almost nothing, by careful selection of the definition which seems to fit his case. Words are being used in this essay, which makes falling into the trap of trying to show that marketing is not a science that others have fallen into by trying to show that it is one, particularly when their demonstration has depended heavily upon the twist of word meanings. A much sounder approach to the

problem would seem to be upon the ground of human experience, contrasting the place of science in human affairs with that of the arts. There must be a relationship existing between the sciences and marketing. The answer to this query has already been indicated but perhaps should be restated. Men of science have come to develop a systematic approach to their problems which is known as the scientific method. Hypotheses are developed, facts are gathered to support or confute the hypotheses, and then tests are conducted to see if hypotheses are sound. In actual research work, the techniques employed vary with the problem at hand but the spirit of careful analysis and testing is not relaxed. Engineers and physicians are trained to approach their problems in this spirit of scientific inquiry; marketing men are learning rapidly to follow their examples. The method is open for all to use and that the employment of it does not necessarily make the user a scientist nor his subject a science. Marketing men not infrequently contribute to one of the several sciences upon which they depend. In trying to find information to solve his immediate problem he may strike upon some principle which actually enlarges the science involved. Market problems vary widely in scope. Some are of almost no social consequence being chiefly competitive in nature; others are broader in character and depend for solution upon a wide understanding of social forces and of human behavior. It is in the pursuit of these solutions that contributions to the fields of science result. Such additions to the universal body of knowledge mustarding to Hutchinson, be looked upon as by-products of market research, and not its chief purpose. By focusing the attention of scientists upon those concepts which are inadequately developed, the inquiring minds of marketing men can do much to give useful direction to scientific investigation. Already students of economics, sociology, and psychology are feeling the impact of this curiosity and are tending to advance knowledge along the lines demanded. In conclusion a critical look at the factors involved indicates that marketing is not a science, since it does not conform to the basic characteristics of a science as espoused by Buzzelle. A much more realistic view shows it to be an art, in the practice of which reliance must be placed upon the findings of many sciences. Marketing research men, like engineers and physicians, have to adopt a scientific approach to their problems, but their relation to the fields of science is even
6

closer than this. Although at times they may make a contribution to some field of science, their chief contribution should be that of directing the course of scientific investigation along the lines most needed. The debate rages on and may be soon, a clear demarcation between what is explicitly a science and what is explicitly an art will come out.

REFERENCE Alderson, Wroe and Reavis Cox (1948), "Towards a Theory of Marketing," Journal of Marketing. 13 (October), 137-152. Anderson, Paul F. (1983), "Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 18-31. Buzzell, Robert D. (1963), "Is Marketing a Science?" Harvard Business Review, 41 (JanuaryFebruary), 32. Converse Paul D. (1945), "The Development of a Science of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 10 l~Ju1y), 14-23. Kenneth D. Hutchinson: Marketing as a Science: An Appraisal The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jan., 1952), pp. 286-293 American Marketing Association Kotler, Philip (1980), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lakatos, Imre (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1. J. Worrall and G. Currie, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leslie M. Dawson: Marketing Science in the Age of Aquarius The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 66-72 American Marketing Association Stable