Talk:History of marketing/Archives/2012

New structure
Deleted proposed structure (no information was presented in the talk page), proposing a new one as follows:

1) History of marketing thought, presenting key authors and their ideas. Discuss problems with approach

Four main phases, A) ancient and medieval concepts of marketing; B) Late nineteenth century; C) Traditional school; D) Modern school.

I am using this source as main reference. I welcome other suggestions.

2) Marketing history, also presenting key authors and ideas. Discuss problems with approach.

I will use this source: Jones, D. G. Brian, and David D. Monieson. 1990a. Historical research in marketing: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 18 (4): 269–78., I welcome other suggestions.

3) Eras of marketing (production-product-sales-market): discuss about origins, it's wide acceptance in the Marketing field and its recognized fallacy among more serious scholars of the field.

If you're knowledgeable in marketing, you probably heard about this approach. I will compile some references already available in WP.

Then, summarize entry (probably in a reversed order) and include in the main article about marketing.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Editor br (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research
To me this article is original research with, currently, a thin veneer of references. I have flagged a great number of places where citations and clarifications are required. I do see the history of marketing as a valid article, which is why I have not simply flagged this for deletion.

As a practical marketing person since 1979 I was ahead of the wave of "educationally qualified marketers". I escape the need to gain formal qualifications and the need to buy textbooks and write treatises on marketing. And this article appears to be such a treatise, written in a pseudo-academic way, as part of a marketing education course. I'm glad I missed the need to create such things.

But this is an essay, and, as such, has no place here.

I was asked to come here to assist with improvement of the article since I understand marketing. The problem is that I have no academic interest in the history of marketing. In marketing "what works today, works today". So I have come here as an ordinary editor, and, unable or unwilling to edit out the original research myself, I have flagged it for clarification, citation, or, uncited, for removal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiddle, thanks for the input, but I am offended that you did not check the sources I cite, state that this is original research, or claim that this is related to a marketing education course. I understand you assumed that I had to study as I marked in my page that I am getting a MBA from Kellogg. I am done with Kellogg. There is no such course in Kellogg whatsoever. The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the history of marketing is a valid article. I started to do the research for the sole purpose of writing this article, and I don't understand why you are so aggressive. Editor br (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try not to take comments personally. The topic has a place here, yes.  But this article in the way it is written does not.  I had no idea you were studying for an MBA, and (please do not take this as a remark against you) no interest in that either, nor in Kellog.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  It may report on research.  It may not, of itself, perform research.
 * Whether I checked the sources you cite or not is not fundamental to the requirement for substantial further citation or wholesale removal of uncited items.
 * It remains that the article I inspected is an essay, and essays, however well wrotten, have no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiddle, the second paragraph above seemed to attack me personally, but I probably misunderstood you.
 * Let me restate my motivation - I decided to write about marketing as it is a top 100 articles in Wikipedia but is poorly written (at least in my opinion). As this is an encyclopedia, I decided to start about the history of the science, following the example of philosophy, psychology, economics, and others. The idea is to provide information about the development of the field - most articles explain its history in the first paragraphs of the article. As there is no place for OR here, I went on my books on Marketing, Google Scholar and academic journals to find reliable sources about the field.


 * To my surprise, there seems to be a controversy in the field about the history of marketing:


 * First, most old textbooks refer to some sort of Keith' "Marketing Revolution" (1960) chronology, arguing that marketing began with production orientation, moving towards sales, marketing and then marketing control. Some present variations on this subject, including "product orientation", "customer orientation" and so forth. Old editions of Kotler's Marketing Management still refer to this paper, but the academic field (especially marketing historians) vehemently disagrees that such approach is true. I decided to incorporate scattered texts poorly written in Wikipedia here, most notably the article called 'production orientation', that is in the end of the article.


 * Then I find the Robert Bartels's book. If you type history of marketing in Google scholar, this is the most cited source. Should I ignore it or not? Furthermore, checking two widely cited papers, I discover about the field of "marketing history" as academic science, and a dispute about the methods to evaluate it (marketing history and history of marketing thought). This debate is widely cited in the references I provided so far, and I think I accurately depicted the debate in the field. (ps: I emphasize that Bartel's book was all over the place in the article before I began to edit it. I found unreasonable to base an article only in one source, so I included a few to counterbalance his research)


 * I challenge your claim that this is an essay. I assume your are interpreting the text as |"Synthesis of published material which advances a position". Please note that the sources cited do explicitly reach the same conclusion as the ones presented here.  Editor br (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no intention of offending anyone. It was assuredly not aimed at you.  I am, as I stated, a marketer prior to the current alleged requirement for formal marketing education.  I apologise for offence, inadvertently caused.
 * Yes, I perceive synthesised OR, but I have insufficient academic interest in this area to rewrite those segments of the article, even as a copy-editor, a task I have done elsewhere with some success. Yet it does need a heavy rewrite.  I hope you are able to succeed with it.  I think there is an insufficient number of editors directly interested in it for you to be able to do anything other than be bold and make the changes yourself.  I genuinely wish you luck and success with this article.  This is one I believe should definitely be here, if it can be constructed correctly.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fiddle, can you point out the exact section that you think is synthesized OR? Editor br (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To me the entire article reads like a first year undergraduate dissertation compiled from hastily done internet research and drawing conclusions. Perhaps the simple rewriting of the article will handle that.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to improve the text
Wikipedia community, based on the debate above, I wrote some questions to get feedback on how to improve this article:


 * The problem of 'Wikipedia on marketing' reflects the same dilemma of marketing historians - contrary to economics, biology or philosophy, marketing is a science of practitioners, and hence most knowledge and innovation is undocumented. Fiddle, if you have 30 years of Marketing experience, I really would like to get your input on history of marketing. My major concern is that Wikipedia needs reliable sources exactly to avoid OR, NPOV dispute, and neutrality. If you have plenty of knowledge of marketing, how can we write based on your knowledge if it is not published in any other source? In a way, Wikipedia needs textbooks and treatises on marketing. Based on your knowledge, how can we write about marketing history without reliable sources? Does anyone know good source besides the ones I use or cite here to base an article about "history of marketing"? Maybe the conclusion is that Wikipedia has no role on marketing studies ...


 * One of the confusions I see in this article is that it mixes the academic field of "marketing history" to the "history of marketing" itself. What do you think about separating both topics in two distinct articles?


 * An alternative outline for this article that could be less controversial would be the following:
 * Lead
 * Marketing concepts used/discussed in pre-modern economies
 * Emergence of marketing as a separate field of economics in the early nineteenth century
 * Traditional theories pre 50's
 * Development of Marketing management (STP, 4Ps, etc.)
 * New approaches: behavioral science, anthropology and ethnographic research, etc.

I am happy that a lot of editors began to discuss about marketing, as the quality of Wikipedia about it can be greatly improved. I look forward to suggestions and constructive feedback to the questions raised above. Warm regards, Editor br (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Simplified reference to the History of Marketing [Do you support these history references with other material?]:

My paraphrasing: Marketing was preceded by the development of the traveling salesman as part of the expansion attempts in distribution of products. A Salesman was a specialized distributor able to extend a market/distribution area. Distributive education provided a key link to market research to be used by executive and retail management.

Reference 1: The History of Marketing Education _brendas9432 Contributor By Brenda Sanders, eHow Contributing Writer

There was a time when the distribution of goods and services provided for the bulk of jobs. As a result, public schools were urged to train students for these types of jobs. Today, marketing education entails a broad range of ideas, which originated in what was once termed "distributive education," and are still being used today.

Women 1. In the early 1900s, America was moving away from an agricultural society into an industrial nation. What this meant was that women who had previously stayed at home were now moving to places where they could work. This led to women being exposed to ill-reputed lifestyles and a workplace set up for men. Additionally, women were not trained in the jobs they held. Lucinda Wyman Prince 2. Lucinda Wyman Prince was considered the mother of distributive education. Her concern for women led her to travel to stores and talk to employers and workers. Prince began offering counseling to women as well as on-the-job training for women. She also convinced public schools in Boston to train students in retailing. Other cities began to offer similar programs. Prince was also instrumental in getting colleges to train women in distributive education, as well as persuading the colleges to train distributive education instructors. Simmons College in Boston named a retailing school after her. The school is still in existence today. Funding Programs 3. The idea of distributive education in public schools spread across America to the point where a distributive education program was considered in Congress for funding. By this time, programs in public schools offered training that encompassed classroom training as well as on-site job training. Ultimately, a distributive education program was funded by legislation in 1936. Lucy Crawford 4. Lucy Crawford was a pioneer in distributive education. She was the first to categorize marketing jobs and come up with what each job entails (performance standards) along with goals for each position. This was the start of performance-based education. Organizations began utilizing her work. As a result, competency/performance-based materials and educational opportunities were developed along with other performance-based education strategies such as cooperative education and portfolio assessment. Cooperative Education 5. In the early 1900s, federal guidelines for distributive education were developed. The guidelines stated that distributive education meant that students had to spend half a day in the classroom and half a day on a paid job where the student was supervised. The teacher who coordinated the job was called the teacher coordinator. Many of these types of programs can be seen today. They may use different words, but the concept is the same. School-to-work programs, internships, practicum and service learning projects are examples of how the idea that began in distributive education as cooperative education has grown.

Reference 2: Suchard and the Emergence of Traveling Salesmen in Switzerland, 1860-1920 Roman Rossfeld University of Goettingen (Gottingen) Business History Review, Vol. 82, No. 4

Abstract: Based on theoretical findings of the new institutional economics, this examination of the history of the Swiss chocolate company Suchard (founded in 1826) and the Verband Reisender Kaufleute der Schweiz (Association of Swiss Commercial Travelers) describes the economic significance, social image, and everyday life of traveling salesmen between 1860 and 1920. By 1900, commercial travelers formed a critical link between the enterprise and the market, helping to drive the vertical integration of production and distribution. They enjoyed high standing within the company, and many were promoted to executive levels. Traveling salesmen were largely responsible for procuring information and expanding product sales in an era that preceded specialized market research and the domination of advertising companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.11.218 (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest dropping the 'Marketing Thought' support due to it being an academic theory advancement subject. Fiddle Faddle is right in supposing the original research aspects overwhelm the article.

Small revision is probably not a good idea for this article in need of rewriting from a historian despite Marketing experts deciding on the true value academically.

But I'd suggest more like;

This article discusses the history of marketing along with changes in marketing theory and practice.

Contents

1 History of marketing o 1.1 Historical Period o 1.2 Pioneers o 1.3 Origin in schools o 1.4 Origin in vocation 2 Marketing history o 2.1 Timeline of innovation o 2.2 Precedences and institutional formation * 3 * 4 See also * 5 References

2.1 Timeline of innovation

* 1450: Gutenberg's metal movable type, for the production of flyers and brochures * 1730s: emergence of magazines * 1836: first paid advertising in a newspaper (in France) * 1839: posters on private property banned in London * 1864: earliest recorded use of the telegraph for unsolicited mail * 1867: earliest recorded use of billboard hire * 1880s: early examples of trademarks as branding * 1905: the University of Pennsylvania used the coined phrase for a course in "The Marketing of Products"[4] * 1908: Harvard Business School opens * 1922: radio advertising commences * 1941: first recorded use of television advertising * 1950s: systematization of telemarketing * 1970s: E-commerce pioneered * 1980s: development of database marketing as precursor to CRM[5] * 1980s: emergence of relationship marketing * 1980s: emergence of computer-oriented spam * 1984: introduction of guerrilla marketing * 1985: desktop publishing democratizes the production of print-advertising 1991: Integrated marketing communications gains academic status [6] * 1990s CRM and IMC (is pioneered) gain dominance in promotions and marketing planning[7],[8] * 1995-2001: the Dot-com bubble impacts the future of marketing * 1996: identification of viral marketing * 2000s: Integrated marketing gains acceptance and in 2002 its first dedicated academic research centre[9],[10]

Periods of marketing history as follows:

* Production orientation era * Product orientation era * Sales orientation era * Market orientation era * Customer orientation

edit Production orientation

A production orientation dominated early business history; concerned primarily with produce, manufacturing, and distribution.[citation needed] Say's Law encapsulated this viewpoint, stating: "Supply creates its own demand". This orientation rose to prominence in an environment which had a shortage of manufactured goods relative to demand, so goods sold easily.[11]

Implications of this orientation include:[citation needed]

* narrow product-line(s) * pricing based on the costs of production and distribution * research limited to incremental product innovation * packaging crafted primarily to distribute or store products * minimal awareness of the existence of the product * consumers with limited scope obtain the known, supplied and available product,

edit References

But this article should really reflect a core of academically supported references (on the actual subject) that may allow better reformation and better writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.11.218 (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with these references is that historical references are intermittent. Authors discuss prominence in different areas due to a excess of supply, excess of demand or similar but rarely look into the varied moments in history where production exceeded storage, or trade exceeded satisfaction (spice/silk traders) and the subsequent changes in product lines versus societal changes to market area and reasoning in distribution.

A strict history is what I suggested with my two pinpoint references of distribution education and the development of distribution excellence positions after industrialization increased distribution coverage areas. Because an expanded analysis of marketing's historical initiatives and moments is potentially going to involve a lesser amount of previously compiled research. Perhaps 'Marketing History' should strictly remain a study of name building 'Marketing' in the 20th Century and significant origins around that time within the prevailing industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StubbornVn (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)