Content uploaded by Debra Jones Ringold
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Debra Jones Ringold on Aug 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol. 26 (2) Fall 2007, 251–260
© 2007, American Marketing Association
ISSN: 0743-9156 (print), 1547-7207 (electronic) 251
The American Marketing Association Definition of
Marketing: Moving from Lagging to Leading
Indicator
Debra Jones Ringold and Barton Weitz
Rather than constraining scholars whose focus is marketing and society, the 2004 American Marketing
Association (AMA) definition of marketing has provoked warranted criticisms of the informal and
sporadic AMA definition-making process and has served as a catalyst for vigorous discourse on the
proper conceptual domain and impact of marketing. Thus, the 2004 AMA definition of marketing has
stimulated an important, healthy debate and has motivated reform of the AMA definition-making
process.
Debra Jones Ringold
is Professor of Marketing, Atkinson Graduate
School of Management, Willamette University (e-mail: dringold@
willamette.edu).
Barton Weitz
is J.C. Penney Eminent Scholar Chair,
Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida
(e-mail: bart.weitz@cba.ufl.edu). The authors appreciate the contri-
butions of Michael Robinson, who located early editions of market-
ing textbooks and assisted in the design and proofing of the Appen-
dix; Pamela Moeller and Karen E. Piter, who also assisted in the
preparation of the manuscript; and discussions with Greg Gundlach
and Ron Hill and the comments of two anonymous
JPP&M
reviewers.
The 36,000 members of the American Marketing Asso-
ciation (AMA) represent a large and diverse cross-
section of the marketing community, including mar-
keting academics, managers, consultants, researchers, and
students. As its “Mission Statement” indicates, the AMA
views its primary role as facilitating and promoting the
practice, teaching, and study of marketing:
The [AMA] is a professional association for individuals and
organizations involved in the practice, teaching and study of
marketing worldwide. Our principal roles are:
•Improving: Advancing marketing competencies, practice and
thought leadership.
•Promoting: Being an advocate for marketing and promoting its
importance, efficacy and ethics.
•Supporting: Being an essential resource for marketing informa-
tion, education/training and relationships.
Historically, the AMA has refrained from attempting to
represent the marketing community’s perspective in debates
involving such things as legal or regulatory issues that
affect the practice of marketing. The AMA has no formal
mechanism for determining the issues on which it will take
a position, assessing the views of its members, or develop-
ing a formal position on those issues. Thus, the AMA is
reluctant to offer official commentary regarding “the impli-
cations of [its definition of marketing] for (1) scholarship—
in particular, scholarship that addresses ‘marketing and
society’—and (2) the role and responsibility of marketing
in society” (Gundlach 2007, p. 243) without developing and
then using a process to confirm that an opinion truly reflects
the views of the AMA membership. Indeed, the use of a
somewhat informal process to develop the 2004 definition
of marketing has contributed to the current controversy.
As we discuss, the AMA, stimulated by the controversy
over its 2004 definition of marketing, has instituted formal
policies and procedures to ensure timely and inclusive
review/revision of the official definition of marketing (and
the AMA “Statement of Ethics”). Rather than developing
an official position on the implications of present and future
definitions, the AMA believes that it is most appropriate for
these implications to be debated among association mem-
bers in the association’s journals and magazines and at its
conferences. It is in this spirit that we participate in this spe-
cial section.
From our vantage points, as former chairpersons of the
AMA board of directors, we comment on (1) the challenges
of developing a definition of marketing; (2) why a defini-
tion is important; (3) how the definitions (including the
AMA’s) have changed over time; (4) why the AMA is the
most appropriate organization to offer an official definition;
(5) why participation on the part of marketing managers,
researchers, academics, and marketing students is impor-
tant; and (6) what the new AMA definition development
process is, and who will lead the next definition effort.
Finally, we address the implications of AMA’s new defini-
tion for scholarship on marketing and society and the role
and responsibility of marketing in society.
Challenges in Developing a Definition of
Marketing
Marketing is an eclectic activity studied and undertaken by
people with a wide variety of skills and knowledge bases.
Many scholars and practitioners believe that marketing is
not just a functional area within an organization but also a
philosophy that should permeate all areas of the organiza-
tion (Webster 2005). Thus, in many organizations, market-
ing managers have transferred into marketing from other
functional areas with little formal training in marketing.
252 The AMA Definition of Marketing
1Hunt (2002) also argues that resource advantage theory provides the
foundations for a general theory of marketing. In addition, Lusch and
Vargo (2006) offer their service-dominant logic as a possible foundation
for a general theory of marketing.
Several marketing professors at leading business schools
have doctorates in economics, psychology, anthropology,
statistics, and operation research, not marketing. Some
scholars take an even broader perspective and view market-
ing as a societal process (e.g., Wilkie 2005) and also a
societal institution (e.g., Lusch 2007).
This diversity in the marketing community creates an
exciting environment for marketers—an environment that
provides the ingredients for combining different perspec-
tives, knowledge, and skills to develop innovative theories
and solutions to marketing problems. However, this diver-
sity can also create conflicts between marketers with differ-
ent mind-sets. Thus, given the wide range of interests and
activities of marketers in general, and of AMA members
specifically, it is unlikely that a single definition of market-
ing will be embraced by all marketers.
The lack of a general theory of marketing may contribute
to dysfunctional conflicts among the eclectic group of
people involved in the teaching, practice, and study of mar-
keting. Whereas some scholars argue that marketing theory
and concepts have made remarkable strides over the course
of our history (e.g., Achrol and Kotler 2006), others suggest
that marketing theory often falls short. For example, Hunt
(2002) concludes that the closest thing to a general theory
of marketing today is Alderson’s (1957, 1965) functionalist
theory of market behavior.1In a different vein, Rust (2006,
p. 1) argues that “[m]arketing will only become mature as a
field when it is realized that it is … possible to have theory
that is indigenous to marketing.”
Need for a Definition of Marketing
Definitions are important because they set forth meaning,
describe essential qualities, and delineate the boundaries or
extent of something and differentiate it from other things.
They are at their most powerful when they are used to build
theories that explain phenomena of interest (Bernard 2002).
A widely accepted definition of marketing offers marketing
practitioners and academics, as well as those with whom
they want to communicate, some consensus with respect to
what marketing is and is not. Because theory building
requires a compelling specification of “the proper concep-
tual domain of the construct labeled ‘marketing’” (Hunt
1976, p. 5), an official definition can provide a common
starting point for those who agree with the definition and,
more important, a starting point for those who do not. Dis-
sent from prevailing conceptualizations of marketing and
the controversies, theory building, and research it provokes
have advanced consumer, managerial, and societal interests
in tangible ways (e.g., Kotler and Levy 1969; Kotler and
Zaltman 1971).
Evolution of Definitions of Marketing
To be sure, “[m]arketing is an activity … not easy to
define” (Converse, Huegy, and Mitchell 1965, p. 6), and as
a discipline, we have been working to craft a widely
accepted definition of marketing for most of our history
(Bartels 1974, 1983; Hunt 1976, 2002). Thus, in the
absence of a common definition and unified body of mar-
keting knowledge, it is not surprising that many important
marketing issues remain unresolved.
Even a cursory examination of early marketing texts
reveals a remarkable number of what might be deemed
“classic” managerial challenges and social criticisms of
marketing that persist to this day. For example, Maynard,
Weidler, and Beckman (1927) consider the determinants of
primary versus selective demand, costs and contributions of
marketing to the firm and consumers, and ethical dimen-
sions of various marketing practices. Duncan (1920) evalu-
ates various personal, regulatory, and social responses by
which consumers attempt to exercise their prerogatives in
the marketplace. Clark (1922) examines the impact of
branding, advertising, price policy, distribution, competi-
tion, and government regulation on consumers in particular
and on the marketing system as a whole.
In short, we are again engaged in a debate as to what con-
stitutes the proper conceptual domain of marketing, guided
by something less than a unifying theory of marketing and
faced with enduring questions as to the impact of marketing
on the consumer, the organization, and society. In our view,
these three challenges are related.
To understand better the evolution of the AMA definition
of marketing, we consulted definitions created by textbook
authors who characterize a particular school of marketing
thought and/or best-selling textbook authors whose various
editions might provide a longitudinal perspective on how
marketing has been defined. Because textbook authors
aggregate and synthesize information reflective of contem-
porary disciplinary thinking, they reflect and influence the
perspectives of future marketers. Although we were faithful
to these criteria for these reasons, we recognize that our
limited selection of textbooks is illustrative rather than
comprehensive.
According to Hunt and Goolsby (1988, p. 35), “four dif-
ferent approaches have dominated the study of marketing:
(1) the commodity approach, (2) the institutional approach,
(3) the functional approach, and (4) the managerial
approach.” Sheth and Gross (1988) provide useful descrip-
tions of these four schools of thought. The commodity
school focuses on the objects of market transactions and
attempts to differentiate various classes of products on the
basis of their physical characteristics and associated buyer
behavior. The institutional school focuses on agents or
organizations that perform marketing functions. The func-
tional school concerns itself with marketing activities or
functions. The managerial schools of thought focus on indi-
vidual (i.e., consumer and professional) behavior.
Having accepted this taxonomy, one of our tasks was to
identify textbook authors associated with each of these
approaches, locate all the relevant editions, and compare
each with the description that Sheth and Gross (1988) offer.
Hunt and Goolsby (1988) cite Brown’s (1925) work as an
example of the commodity approach and categorize Dun-
can’s (1922) work as institutional. Clark and colleagues (in
editions from 1922 to 1942), Maynard and colleagues (in
editions from 1927 to 1957), and Converse and colleagues
(in editions from 1930 to 1965) take a functional approach
(Hunt and Goolsby 1988). We concur with these character-
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 253
2It has been suggested that Howard’s (1957, 1963) Marketing Manage-
ment: Analysis and Planning was the first textbook characteristic of the
managerial school (Hunt 2006). However, Howard provides no formal
definition of marketing and thus was not appropriate for inclusion in this
effort.
izations and with the commonly held view that McCarthy
and colleagues’ (in editions from 1960 to 2005) text signals
“the beginning of the end for the functional approach,…
[with] the emphasis of the book … on the problems of the
marketing manager” (Hunt and Goolsby 1988, pp. 40–41).2
Our next task was to identify texts that typify the manage-
rial school, were published after McCarthy (1960), and con-
tinue to be published today. We selected Kotler and col-
leagues (in editions from 1967 to 2006) and Pride and
Ferrell (in editions from 1977 to 2006). Finally, we con-
sulted with the AMA headquarters in Chicago to obtain the
official definitions of marketing adopted and/or promul-
gated by the association (Keefe 2004). The Appendix pre-
sents the definitions of marketing that these authors and the
AMA offer.
Through 1960, the AMA definition of marketing appears
to be consistent with positive definitions typical of early
textbook writers in that it describes distribution from pro-
ducer to consumer in the private sector. Positive definitions
define phenomena such as marketing as they actually exist
or will exist in the future, whereas normative definitions
might contain positive elements but are also concerned with
what marketing ought to be (for a detailed discussion, see
Hunt 1976).
Between 1960 and 1985, however, the AMA definition
becomes “out of step” in its adherence to this positive, dis-
tribution focus. Furthermore, Kotler (1972) offers a norma-
tive definition that explicitly introduces the notion of
“exchange,” Pride and Ferrell (1977) offer a normative
definition that explicitly expands the scope of marketing in
relation to their reference to organization rather than busi-
ness, and Kotler (1984) offers a normative definition that
characterizes marketing as involving individuals and
groups. Meanwhile, McCarthy (1960) moves from a norma-
tive definition of marketing per se, to a normative definition
of both macro (“social process” [McCarthy and Brogowicz
1981] and “objectives of society” [McCarthy 1971]) and
micro (“need-satisfying goods and services” [McCarthy
1978] and “organization’s objectives” [McCarthy 1978])
marketing. Similarly, Kotler (1972) augments his normative
definition of marketing with a normative definition of mar-
keting management. Apparently reflecting these changes,
the 1985 AMA revision takes a normative approach,
includes the notion of exchange, adds a process element,
considers individuals and organizations, and remains mana-
gerial in its emphasis.
Between 1986 and 2004, Pride and Ferrell (1987) incor-
porate the idea of “exchange relationship.” Kotler (1988)
includes the concept of “value” and describes marketing as
a “societal process” (Kotler 2003). Likewise, the 2004
AMA definition adopts the notions of relationship and
value but, unlike these textbook authors, characterizes mar-
keting as an “organizational function and a set of
processes.”
Typically, textbooks synthesize well-accepted knowl-
edge; however, in several cases, they offer new perspectives
on marketing that have led to a rethinking of the discipline.
It could be concluded that since 1960, the AMA definition
of marketing has followed, rather than led, the discipline as
represented by these textbooks. Because the AMA wants to
play a leadership role in advancing marketing thought and
practice, it is disconcerting that the AMA definitions could
be considered lagging indicators of mainstream disciplinary
thinking.
Thus, the AMA undertook an effort to develop an
improved definition of marketing, reflecting current schol-
arship and practice of marketing. Under the direction of
Professor Robert Lusch, comments about the 1985 AMA
definition and suggestions for revising it were solicited
from a wide range of academics and practitioners around
the world (Keefe 2004). Several draft definitions were cir-
culated to academics, practitioners, AMA officers, and
members of the AMA board of directors. Through an itera-
tive process that synthesized these inputs, the AMA board
of directors approved and presented a final version.
Some marketing academics and practitioners agree that
the 2004 definition reflects the current practice and study of
marketing better than the 1985 definition (Keefe 2004), but
others do not (Gundlach 2005, 2006; Wilkie 2006; Wilkie
and Moore 2006). From our perspective, the 2004 defini-
tion takes a broader perspective of marketing than the 1985
definition, focusing on “processes for creating, communi-
cating, and delivering value to customers” rather than mak-
ing decisions about the four Ps. It emphasizes that market-
ing is a process of creating “value [for] customers and for
managing customer relationships” rather than stimulating
transactional exchanges. Finally, it recognizes that market-
ing “benefit(s) the organization and its stakeholders,” not
just individuals and organizations. Stakeholders can be
broadly interpreted to be all societal institutions. Regardless
of the various options of the 2004 definition, we believe
that periodic efforts aimed at improving the official defini-
tion of marketing are important and that the AMA is the
most appropriate organization to manage the review and
revision of the official definition.
The AMA’s Role in the Definition of
Marketing
The AMA has a long history of developing a definition of
marketing and terms used in the practice and study of mar-
keting (Keefe 2004). In 1935, the National Association of
Marketing Teachers, a predecessor of the AMA, developed
one of the first definitions of marketing. This definition was
adopted in 1948 by the AMA and again in 1960 when the
AMA reviewed the definition and decided not to change it.
This original definition stood for 50 years, until it was
revised in 1985 and again in 2004.
The potential strength of the AMA and the official defi-
nition it develops derives from the size and diversity of its
membership. No other marketing association has a growing
membership of approximately 36,000, with strong partici-
pation from different but related constituencies—approxi-
mately 17,000 marketing managers, 3600 marketing
researchers, 3200 marketing academics, and 12,000 market-
254 The AMA Definition of Marketing
ing students. For more than seven decades, the AMA and its
members have played a leading role in the development and
dissemination of marketing knowledge and information.
Making the most of the different perspectives resident in
these constituencies will go a long way to ensuring that the
official AMA definition is robust and fosters a common
understanding of marketing across the discipline.
Need for Broad Participation and
Acceptance of a Definition
Most of the criticism of and discussion about the 2004
AMA definition has been by marketing academics. Defini-
tions play a critical role in the development of theories and
knowledge. Thus, it is appropriate for academics to be con-
cerned about the definition of marketing. However, the
development of a definition of marketing by academics that
is not accepted by marketing practitioners would accentuate
disconnects between marketing thought and marketing
practice (Bolton 2005).
New Process for Reviewing and Refining
the AMA Definition of Marketing
Recognizing the need for a formal process that solicits a
broad range of inputs in a structured manner, in May 2006,
the AMA board of directors adopted a new, formal defini-
tion review/revision process. Three critical goals for the
periodic review/revision of AMA’s definition of marketing
are (1) transparency, (2) broad participation, and (3)
continuity.
The AMA definition of marketing will now be reviewed
every five years, and the next review of the definition of
marketing was scheduled to begin in January 2007. The
review process will be managed by an ad hoc subcommittee
of the AMA Governance Committee appointed by the chair
of that committee (AMA chair-elect). The subcommittee
will comprise representatives from AMA division councils
(i.e., academic, market research, professional chapters, and
collegiate chapters), a subcommittee chair, and two at-large
members also appointed by the chair of the committee. To
provide for continuity in the review process, the chair of the
Governance Committee is encouraged to have some overlap
between each new review committee and previous review
committees. The process will proceed as follows:
1. The AMA will broadly announce the initiation of the
review/revision process. This announcement will be made
through e-mails to AMA members, postings on the AMA
Web site, articles in Marketing News, messages delivered
through AMA listserves, and communications with AMA
councils and board of directors. The announcements will
solicit input as to whether changes are needed and the nature
of any suggested changes, outline the nature of the process
and the membership of the ad hoc subcommittee, and pro-
vide a mechanism for offering input (e.g., posting on a Web
bulletin board). Surveys of the membership might be used to
solicit input.
2. The ad hoc subcommittee will then review the input from the
councils, board of directors, and membership and determine
whether changes are needed.
3. If the recommendation is that no changes are needed, the ad
hoc subcommittee will report the decision, with a summary
of feedback received and rationale for its recommendation, to
the AMA board of directors for approval. If the AMA board
does not approve the subcommittee’s recommendation, the
subcommittee will take the feedback from the board and
reexamine and resubmit a recommendation.
4. If the recommendation is that changes are needed, the AMA
will publicize to its membership (e.g., an announcement on
the AMA Web site and in Marketing News, e-mails to mem-
bership) the recommended new statement, a summary of
feedback received, and the rationale for the recommendation
and will solicit feedback on the recommended revised state-
ment. The ad hoc subcommittee will review the feedback and
prepare a final recommendation to the AMA board of direc-
tors for approval. If the AMA board does not approve the
subcommittee’s recommendation, the subcommittee will take
the feedback from the board and reexamine and resubmit a
recommendation with supporting documentation.
5. To maintain continuity, at the conclusion of the process, each
ad hoc subcommittee will produce a report (i.e., a “white
paper”) that outlines the process, summarizes the general
nature of the input received, and provides the rationale for
the recommendation.
The members of the ad hoc subcommittee who will under-
take this work in 2007 include Shelby D. Hunt, Texas Tech
University; Donald R. Lehmann, Columbia University
(committee chair); Wayne McCullough, Daimler-Chrysler;
James Peltier, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater; Ric
Sweeney, University of Cincinnati; Joan Treistman,
M/A/R/C Research; William L. Wilkie, University of Notre
Dame; Becky Youngberg, American Marketing Associa-
tion; and George Zinkhan, University of Georgia.
Marketing Definition, Scholarship, and
Society
As this subcommittee begins its work, we do well to con-
sider the potential impact of the 2004 AMA definition (see
the Appendix) on scholarship concerned with the subject
matter area broadly described as “marketing and society”
and the role and responsibility of marketing in society, and
vice versa. To some extent, these issues have already been
addressed by Grove, John, and Fisk (2006), Gundlach
(2005, 2006), Lehmann (2006), Levy (2006), Wilkie
(2006), and Wilkie and Moore (2006), among others, who
have criticized the 2004 AMA definition.
Grove, John, and Fisk (2006) offer the 2004 AMA defi-
nition of marketing as evidence of marketing’s “objectifica-
tion of people.” “In the [2004 AMA] definition the person
as customer is narrowly cast as ‘customer value’ to the
organization and its stakeholders…. Worse, the definition is
presumptuous in asserting the notion that customers want to
be ‘managed’” (Grove, John, and Fisk 2006, p. 307).
Gundlach (2005, pp. 1–2, emphasis in the original)
describes the 2004 AMA definition as taking “a largely (if
not exclusively) marketer perspective, viewing marketing
as an ‘organizational function and a set of processes’
engaged in by the firm to ‘benefit the organization and its
stakeholders.’” To Gundlach (p. 2, emphasis in the origi-
nal), employment of “an exclusively marketer perspective”
may prevent consideration of perspectives other than those
of the firm. Quoting Wilkie and Moore (1999, p. 199),
Gundlach cautions (p. 106) that “viewing a topic from a
single perspective highlights certain characteristics, but can
hide other aspects that also may be important…. In terms of
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 255
scholarship, circumscribing marketing to those activities
and processes of the marketer limits and constrains the rele-
vant domain of interest.”
Lehmann (2006, p. 296) views the 2004 AMA definition
to be fairly general and observes that it “does not provide a
sense of the key essence of the term.” Levy (2006) takes the
2004 AMA definition to task for being tenaciously tradi-
tional. He argues (p. 62) that “[i]t is not superior to Brown’s
1925 definition” (see the Appendix) and criticizes it for
being normative in nature and narrow in scope. “It ignores
the fact that bad marketing is also marketing, that individu-
als as well as organizations market, and that buying is mar-
keting, too” (Levy 2006, p. 62).
Wilkie (2006) and Wilkie and Moore (2006) observe that
beginning with the 1985 version, AMA definitions have
become increasingly narrow (i.e., managerial) and norma-
tive (i.e., marketing is in the best interests of consumers).
They conclude that this makes it more difficult for mar-
keters to adopt more aggregated perspectives of the field.
“In our view, this organizational focus for the entire field of
marketing does not speak to the concerns of many (even
most) scholars who are concerned with the development of
knowledge about marketing, including those focusing on
consumer behavior, research methods and models, and
larger impacts on society” (Wilkie and Moore 2006, p.
277).
Our view of the actual impact of the 2004 AMA defini-
tion on scholarship concerned with marketing and society
and the role and responsibility of marketing in society is
that the definition has energized a healthy debate that has
put this important subject matter front and center in current
discourse and in the official definition-making process.
Rather than constraining scholars who are concerned with
marketing’s impact on society, this definition provoked
warranted criticisms of the previously informal and spo-
radic AMA definition review/revision process, caused the
(since 1985) normative nature of the definition to be ques-
tioned, and served as a catalyst for a renewed and vigorous
debate about the scope and impact of marketing.
Along with Kotler and Levy (1969), Kotler and Zaltman
(1971), Bartels (1974, 1983), Hunt (2002), Lusch and
Vargo (2006), and Rust (2006), critics of the 2004 AMA
definition implicitly challenge each of us to examine and
explicitly acknowledge our views of marketing, theory, and
research and what they mean for our work and that of the
discipline. We believe that the 2004 AMA definition has
had less impact on scholars focused on marketing and soci-
ety than marketing and society scholars have had, and will
continue to have, on individual and collective notions of the
definition of marketing. The suggestion that the 2004 AMA
definition will somehow constrain those committed to a dif-
ferent view insults scholars and practitioners whose concep-
tualization of marketing is at odds with the official one.
Conversely, an official definition that fosters positive
description and normative evaluation; acknowledges mar-
keting activity in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors;
and recognizes activity and impacts at the individual, orga-
nizational, and societal levels may serve to improve the col-
lective understanding and practice of marketing. This is an
opportunity we should fully exploit.
For our own part, this exercise has led to discussions
about what we think might be a reasonable definition of
marketing. We suggest that a positive (rather than norma-
tive) definition can better focus attention on the reality of
marketing practice and its impacts; that marketing is a par-
ticular sort of effort (i.e., one directed at the creation and
exchange of value); and that it is engaged in by individuals,
organizations, and the political economies they constitute.
This exercise has also caused us to reflect on Rust’s
(2006, p. 2) assertion that “[t]he mature marketing disci-
pline will be tolerant, confident, global, technologically
savvy, and unashamed to be primarily about marketing.”
Any definition-making process, and the result itself, should
encompass these attributes. Moreover, the AMA definition
of marketing should lead rather than lag. It should address
the present and future marketing, not the past. We have
every confidence that the 2007 process and its result will do
just that.
Appendix: An Overview of Marketing
Definitions Throughout the Years
1920–1924
•Duncan (1920, pp. 1–2): “Marketing ... has to do with the
actual distribution of goods, the buying and selling process….
It includes all of the processes of transportation, storing,
weighing, grading, buying, selling, etc.”
•Clark (1922, p. 1): “Marketing consists of those efforts which
effect transfers in the ownership of goods, and care for their
physical distribution.”
1925–1929
•Brown (1925, p. 3): “[M]arketing may be defined as the
process of transferring goods through commercial channels
from producer to consumer.”
•Maynard and Beckman (1927, p. 1): “[M]arketing covers all
activities necessary to effect transfers in the ownership of
goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
1930–1934
•Converse (1930, p. 3): “Marketing in a broad sense covers
those business activities which have to do with the creation of
place and time utilities.”
•Clark (1932, p. 1): “Marketing consists of those efforts which
effect transfers in the ownership of goods and care for their
physical distribution.”
•Maynard and Beckman (1932, p. 3): “[M]arketing covers all
business activities necessary to effect transfers in the owner-
ship of goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
1935–1939
•AMA (1935, in Keefe 2004): “Marketing is the performance of
business activities that direct the flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers.”
•Converse (1935, p. 3): “Marketing, in a broad sense, covers
those business activities that have to do with the creation of
place, time, and possession utilities.”
•Maynard and Beckman (1939, p. 3): “[M]arketing covers all
business activities necessary to effect transfers in the owner-
ship of goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
1940–1944
•Converse (1940, p. 1): “Marketing, in a broad sense, covers
those business activities that have to do with the creation of
place, time, and possession utilities.”
256 The AMA Definition of Marketing
•Clark (1942, p. 1): “Marketing consists of those efforts which
effect transfers in the ownership of goods and services and care
for their physical distribution.”
1945–1949
•Maynard and Beckman (1946, p. 3): “[M]arketing covers all
business activities necessary to effect transfers in the owner-
ship of goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
•Converse (1946, p. 1): “Marketing includes all the activities
involved in the creation of place, time, and possession
utilities.”
•AMA (1948, in Keefe 2004): “Marketing is the performance of
business activities that direct the flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers.”
1950–1954
•Maynard and Beckman (1952, p. 3): “[M]arketing covers all
business activities necessary to effect transfers in ownership of
goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
•Converse (1952, p. 1): “Marketing includes all the activities
involved in the creation of place, time, and possession
utilities.”
1955–1959
•Maynard and Beckman (1957, p. 4): “[M]arketing covers all
business activities necessary to effect transfers in ownership of
goods and to provide for their physical distribution.”
•Converse (1958, p. 4): “Marketing includes the activities
involved in the creation of place, time, and possession
utilities.”
1960–1964
•AMA (1960, in Keefe 2004): “Marketing is the performance of
business activities that direct the flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers.”
•McCarthy (1960, p. 33): “Marketing is the performance of
business activities that direct the flow of goods and services
from producer to consumer or user in order to best satisfy con-
sumers and accomplish the firm’s objectives.”
•McCarthy (1964, p. 16): “Marketing is the performance of
business activities that direct the flow of goods and services
from producer to consumer or user in order to satisfy cus-
tomers and accomplish the firm’s objectives.”
1965–1969
•Converse (1965, p. 1): “Marketing, the exchange of goods and
services, is a very common and ordinary activity which directs
and controls the movement of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers.”
•Kotler (1967, p. 12): “Marketing is the analyzing, organizing,
planning, and controlling of the firm’s customer-impinging
resources, policies, and activities with a view to satisfying the
needs and wants of chosen customer groups at a profit.”
•McCarthy (1968, p. 9): “Marketing is the performance of busi-
ness activities which direct the flow of goods and services from
producer to consumer or user in order to satisfy customers and
accomplish the company’s objectives.”
1970–1974
•McCarthy (1971): “[Macro-m]arketing is concerned with
designing an efficient (in terms of use of resources) and fair (in
terms of distribution of output to all parties involved) system
which will direct an economy’s flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers and accomplish the objectives of
the society” (p. 19). “[Micro-marketing] is the performance of
business activities which direct the flow of goods and services
from producer to consumer or user in order to satisfy cus-
tomers and accomplish the company’s objectives” (p. 19).
•Kotler (1972): “Marketing is the set of human activities
directed at facilitating and consummating exchanges” (p. 12).
“Marketing management is the analysis, planning, implemen-
tation, and control of programs designed to bring about desired
exchanges with target audiences for the purpose of personal or
mutual gain. It relies heavily on the adaptation and coordina-
tion of product, price, promotion, and place for achieving
effective response” (p. 13).
1975–1979
•McCarthy (1975): “[Macro-m]arketing is concerned with
designing an efficient (in terms of use of resources) and fair (in
terms of distribution of output to all parties involved) system
which will direct an economy’s flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers and accomplish the objectives of
the society” (pp. 18–19). “[Micro-m]arketing is the perfor-
mance of business activities which direct the flow of goods and
services from producer to consumer or user in order to satisfy
customers and accomplish the company’s objectives” (p. 19).
•Kotler (1976): “Marketing is human activity directed at satisfy-
ing needs and wants through exchange processes” (p. 5). “Mar-
keting management is the analysis, planning, implementation,
and control of programs designed to bring about desired
exchanges with target markets for the purpose of achieving
organizational objectives. It relies heavily on designing the
organization’s offering in terms of the target market’s needs
and desires and using effective pricing, communication, and
distribution to inform, motivate, and service the market” (p. 7).
•Pride and Ferrell (1977, p. 9): “We define marketing as indi-
vidual and organizational activities aimed at facilitating and
expediting exchanges within a set of dynamic environmental
forces.”
•McCarthy (1978, pp. 7–8): “Micro-marketing is the perfor-
mance of those activities which seek to accomplish an organi-
zation’s objectives by anticipating customer or client needs and
directing a flow of need-satisfying goods and services from
producer to customer or client.”
1980–1984
•Kotler (1980): “Marketing [is a] human activity directed at sat-
isfying needs and wants through exchange processes” (p. 19).
“Marketing management is the analysis, planning, implementa-
tion, and control of programs designed to create, build, and
maintain mutually beneficial exchanges and relationships with
target markets for the purpose of achieving organizational
objectives. It relies on a disciplined analysis of the needs,
wants, perceptions, and preferences of target and intermediary
markets as the basis for effective product design, pricing, com-
munication, and distribution” (p. 22).
•Pride and Ferrell (1980, p. 7): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities aimed at facilitating and expe-
diting exchanges within a set of dynamic environmental
forces.”
•McCarthy (1981): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities which seek to accomplish an organization’s objec-
tives by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a
flow of need-satisfying goods and services from producer to
customer or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social
process which directs an economy’s flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers in a way which effectively
matches supply and demand and accomplishes the objectives
of society” (p. 10).
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 257
•Pride and Ferrell (1983, p. 10): “Marketing consists of indi-
vidual and organizational activities aimed at facilitating and
expediting exchanges within a set of dynamic environmental
forces.”
•McCarthy (1984): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities which seek to accomplish an organization’s objec-
tives by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a
flow of need-satisfying goods and services from producer to
customer or client” (p. 11). “Macro-marketing is a social
process which directs an economy’s flow of goods and services
from producers to consumers in a way which effectively
matches supply and demand and accomplishes the objectives
of society” (p. 13).
•Kotler (1984): “Marketing is a social process by which indi-
viduals and groups obtain what they need and want through
creating and exchanging products and value with others” (p.
14). “Marketing management is the analysis, planning, imple-
mentation, and control of programs designed to create, build,
and maintain beneficial exchanges and relationships with target
markets for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives”
(p. 14).
1985–1989
•AMA (1985, in Keefe 2004): “Marketing is the process of plan-
ning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and dis-
tribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that
satisfy individual and organizational objectives.”
•Pride and Ferrell (1985, p. 9): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities aimed at facilitating and expe-
diting exchanges within a set of dynamic environmental
factors.”
•Pride and Ferrell (1987, p. 7): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities that facilitate and expedite sat-
isfying exchange relationships in a dynamic environment
through the creation, distribution, promotion, and pricing of
goods, services, and ideas.”
•McCarthy (1987): Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
•Kotler (1988): “Marketing is a social and managerial process
by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and
want through creating and exchanging products and value with
others” (p. 11). “Marketing (management) is the process of
planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and
distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges
that satisfy individual and organizational objectives” (p. 11).
•Pride and Ferrell (1989, p. 8): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities that facilitate and expedite sat-
isfying exchange relationships in a dynamic environment
through the creation, distribution, promotion, and pricing of
goods, services, and ideas.”
1990–1994
•McCarthy (1990): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
•Kotler (1991): “Marketing is a social and managerial process
by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and
want through creating, offering, and exchanging products of
value with others” (p. 10). “Marketing (management) is the
process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, pro-
motion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create
exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objec-
tives” (p. 11).
•Pride and Ferrell (1991, p. 4): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities that facilitate and expedite sat-
isfying exchange relationships in a dynamic environment
through the creation, distribution, promotion, and pricing of
goods, services, and ideas.”
•McCarthy (1993): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
•Pride and Ferrell (1993, p. 4): “Marketing consists of individ-
ual and organizational activities that facilitate and expedite sat-
isfying exchange relationships in a dynamic environment
through the creation, distribution, promotion, and pricing of
goods, services, and ideas.”
•Kotler (1994): “Marketing is a social and managerial process
by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and
want through creating, offering, and exchanging products of
value with others” (p. 13). “Marketing (management) is the
process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, pro-
motion, and distribution of goods, services, and ideas to create
exchanges with target groups that satisfy customer and organi-
zational objectives” (p. 13).
1995–1999
•Pride and Ferrell (1995, p. 4): “Marketing is the process of
creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing goods, services,
and ideas to facilitate satisfying exchange relationships in a
dynamic environment.”
•McCarthy (1996): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
•Kotler (1997): “Marketing is a social and managerial process
by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and
want through creating, offering, and exchanging products of
value with others” (p. 9). “Marketing (management) is the
process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, pro-
motion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create
exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals” (p.
15).
•Pride and Ferrell (1997, p. 4): “[M]arketing [is] the process of
creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing goods, services,
and ideas to facilitate satisfying exchange relationships in a
dynamic environment.”
•McCarthy (1999): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
258 The AMA Definition of Marketing
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
2000–2004
•McCarthy (2002): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 8). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 10).
•Kotler (2003): “Marketing is a societal process by which indi-
viduals and groups obtain what they need and want through
creating, offering, and freely exchanging products and services
of value with others” (p. 9). “Marketing management [is] the
art and science of choosing target markets and getting, keep-
ing, and growing customers through creating, delivering, and
communicating superior customer value” (p. 9).
•Pride and Ferrell (2003, p. 4): “[M]arketing [is] the process of
creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing goods, services,
and ideas to facilitate satisfying exchange relationships with
customers in a dynamic environment.”
•AMA (2004, in Keefe 2004):“Marketing is an organizational
function and a set of processes for creating, communicating
and delivering value to customers and for managing customer
relationships in ways that benefit the organization and its
stakeholders.”
2005–Present
•McCarthy (2005): “Micro-marketing is the performance of
activities that seek to accomplish an organization’s objectives
by anticipating customer or client needs and directing a flow of
need-satisfying goods and services from producer to customer
or client” (p. 7). “Macro-marketing is a social process that
directs an economy’s flow of goods and services from produc-
ers to consumers in a way that effectively matches supply and
demand and accomplishes the objectives of society” (p. 9).
•Kotler (2006): “Marketing is a societal process by which indi-
viduals and groups obtain what they need and want through
creating, offering, and freely exchanging products and services
of value with others” (p. 6). “Marketing management [is] the
art and science of choosing target markets and getting, keep-
ing, and growing customers through creating, delivering, and
communicating superior customer value” (p. 6).
•Pride and Ferrell (2006, p. 4): “Marketing [is] the process of
creating, distributing, promoting, and pricing goods, services,
and ideas to facilitate satisfying exchange relationships with
customers in a dynamic environment.”
References
Achrol, Ravi S. and Philip Kotler (2006), “The Service Dominant
Logic for Marketing: A Critique,” in The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo,
eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 320–33.
Alderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive
Action. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1965), Dynamic Marketing Behavior. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Bartels, Robert (1974), “The Identity Crisis in Marketing,” Jour-
nal of Marketing, 38 (October), 73–76.
——— (1983), “Is Marketing Defaulting Its Responsibilities?”
Journal of Marketing, 47 (October), 32–35.
Beckman, Theodore N., Harold H. Maynard, and William R.
Davidson (1957), Principles of Marketing, 6th ed. New York:
The Ronald Press Company.
Bernard, H. Russell (2002), Research Methods in Anthropology:
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3d ed. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
Bolton, Ruth, ed. (2005), “Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities
and Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice,
and Infrastructure,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 1–25.
Brown, Edmund (1925), Marketing. New York: Harper and
Brothers.
Clark, Fred E. (1922), Principles of Marketing. New York:
Macmillan.
——— (1932), Principles of Marketing, rev. ed. New York:
Macmillan.
——— and Carrie Patton Clark (1942), Principles of Marketing,
3d ed. New York: Macmillan.
Converse, Paul D. (1930), The Elements of Marketing. New York:
Prentice Hall.
——— (1935), The Elements of Marketing, rev ed. New York:
Prentice Hall.
——— and Harvey W. Huegy (1940), The Elements of Marketing,
2d rev. ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
——— and ——— (1946), The Elements of Marketing, 3d rev.
ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
———, ———, and Robert V. Mitchell (1952), The Elements of
Marketing, 5th ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
———, ———, and ——— (1958), Elements of Marketing, 6th
ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
———, ———, and ——— (1965), Elements of Marketing, 7th
ed. New York: Prentice Hall.
Duncan, C.S. (1920), Marketing: Its Problems and Methods. New
York: D. Appleton and Company.
Grove, Stephen J., Joby John, and Raymond P. Fisk (2006), “Back
to the Future: Putting People Back in Marketing,” in Does Mar-
keting Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future, Jagdish
N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, 306–311.
Gundlach, Gregory T. (2005), “The American Marketing Associa-
tion’s New Definition of Marketing: Perspectives on Its Impli-
cations for Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Mar-
keting and Society,” in 2005 Marketing and Public Policy
Conference Proceedings, Vol. 15, Jeff Langenderfer, Don
Lloyd Cook, and Jerome D. Williams, eds. Chicago: American
Marketing Association, 1–3.
——— (2006), “Whither ‘Marketing’? Commentary on the
American Marketing Association’s New Definition of Market-
ing,” in Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on
the Future, Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Sisodia, eds.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 105–108.
——— (2007), “The American Marketing Association’s 2004
Definition of Marketing: Perspectives on Its Implications for
Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Marketing in
Society,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26 (Fall),
243–50.
Howard, John A. (1957), Marketing Management: Analysis and
Planning. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 259
——— (1963), Marketing Management: Analysis and Planning,
rev ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1976), Marketing Theory: Conceptual Founda-
tions of Research in Marketing. Columbus, OH: Grid.
——— (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a Gen-
eral Theory of Marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.
——— (2006), personal communication, (October and
November).
——— and Jerry Goolsby (1988), “The Rise and Fall of the Func-
tional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Per-
spective,” in Historical Perspectives in Marketing, Terrence
Nevett and Ronald A. Fullerton, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company, 35–54.
Keefe, Lisa M. (2004), “What Is the Meaning of Marketing?”
Marketing News, (September 15), 17–18.
Kotler, Philip (1967), Marketing Management: Analysis, Plan-
ning, and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (1972), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and
Control, 2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (1976), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and
Control, 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (1980), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and
Control, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (1984), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and
Control, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (1988), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
——— (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control, 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
——— (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control, 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
——— (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
——— (2000) Marketing Management, The Millenium ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— and Kevin Lane Keller (2006), Marketing Management,
12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
——— and Sidney J. Levy (1969), “Broadening the Concept of
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 10–15.
——— and Gerald Zaltman (1971), “Social Marketing: An
Approach to Planned Social Change,” Journal of Marketing, 35
(July), 3–12.
Lehmann, Donald R. (2006), “More Dominant Logic for Market-
ing,” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, Robert F.
Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
296–301.
Levy, Sidney J. (2006), “How New, How Dominant,” in The
Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, Robert F. Lusch and
Stephen L. Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 57–64.
Lusch, Robert F. (2007), “Marketing’s Evolving Identity: Defin-
ing Our Future,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26
(Fall), 261–68.
——— and Stephen L. Vargo (2006), “Service-Dominant Logic
as a Foundation for a General Theory,” in The Service-
Dominant Logic of Marketing, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L.
Vargo, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 406–420.
Maynard, Harold H. and Theodore N. Beckman (1946), Principles
of Marketing, 4th ed. New York: Ronald Press.
———, Walter C. Weidler, and Theodore N. Beckman (1927),
Principles of Marketing. New York: Ronald Press.
———, ———, and ——— (1932), Principles of Marketing, rev.
ed. New York: Ronald Press.
———, ———, and ——— (1939), Principles of Marketing, 3d
ed. New York: Ronald Press.
———, ———, and William R. Davidson (1952), Principles of
Marketing, 5th ed. New York: Ronald Press.
McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960), Basic Marketing: A Managerial
Approach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1964), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, rev.
ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1968), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, 3d ed.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1971), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, 4th ed.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1975), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, 5th ed.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— (1978), Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, 6th ed.
Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— and Andrew A. Brogowicz (1981), Basic Marketing: A
Managerial Approach, 7th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
——— and William D. Perreault Jr. (1984), Basic Marketing: A
Managerial Approach, 8th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
——— and ——— (1987), Basic Marketing: A Managerial
Approach, 9th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— and ——— (1990), Basic Marketing: A Managerial
Approach, 10th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
——— and ——— (1993), Basic Marketing: A Global-
Managerial Approach, 11th ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
Perreault, William D., Jr., and E. Jerome McCarthy (1996), Basic
Marketing: A Global-Managerial Approach, 12th ed. Chicago:
Richard D. Irwin.
——— and ——— (1999), Basic Marketing: A Global-
Managerial Approach, 13th ed. Boston: Richard D. Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
——— and ——— (2002), Basic Marketing: A Global-
Managerial Approach, 14th ed. Boston: Richard D. Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
——— and ——— (2005), Basic Marketing: A Global-
Managerial Approach, 15th ed. Boston: Richard D. Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
Pride, William M. and O.C. Ferrell (1977), Marketing: Basic Con-
cepts and Decisions. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1980), Marketing: Basic Concepts and Deci-
sions, 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1983), Marketing: Basic Concepts and Deci-
sions, 3d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
260 The AMA Definition of Marketing
——— and ——— (1985), Marketing: Basic Concepts and Deci-
sions, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1987), Marketing: Basic Concepts and Deci-
sions, 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1989), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1991), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
7th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1993), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1995), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
9th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (1997), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
10th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (2000), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
2000 lib. ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (2003), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
12th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
——— and ——— (2006), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies,
13th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rust, Roland T. (2006), “From the Editor: The Maturation of Mar-
keting as a Discipline,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (July), 1–2.
Sheth, Jagdish N. and Barbara L. Gross (1988), “Parallel Develop-
ment of Marketing and Consumer Behavior: A Historical Per-
spective,” in Historical Perspectives in Marketing, Terrence
Nevett and Ronald A. Fullerton, eds. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company, 9–33.
Webster, Frederick, Jr. (2005), “Back to the Future: Integrating
Marketing as Tactics, Strategy, and Organizational Culture,” in
“Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for
Improving Marketing Thought, Practice, and Infrastructure,”
Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 4–6.
Wilkie, William L. (2005), “Needed: A Larger Sense of Marketing
Scholarship,” in “Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and
Imperatives for Improving Marketing Thought, Practice, and
Infrastructure,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 8–10.
——— (2006), “The World of Marketing Thought: Where Are
We Heading?” in Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Per-
spectives on the Future, Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra S. Siso-
dia, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 239–47.
——— and Elizabeth S. Moore (1999), “Marketing’s Contribu-
tion to Society,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue),
198–218.
——— and ——— (2006), “Examining Marketing Scholarship
and the Service-Dominant Logic,” in The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing, Robert F. Lusch and Stephen L. Vargo,
eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 266–78.
