Template:Did you know nominations/E. Jerome McCarthy


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator.

E. Jerome McCarthy

 * ... that E. Jerome McCarthy is considered a "pivotal figure in the development of marketing thinking" by the Oxford Dictionary of Marketing for introducing the 4 Ps of marketing in his 1960 textbook, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach"?
 * ALT1 ... that E. Jerome McCarthy is considered a "pivotal figure" in his field for introducing the 4 Ps of marketing (pictured)?

5x expanded by BronHiggs (talk). Nominated by CaroleHenson (talk) at 21:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC).


 *  QPQ review Evangelische Akademie Tutzing - in progress
 * Shorter ALT1 added. Edwardx (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg You have put a lot of work into expanding and improving this article, but it is not yet a 5x expansion. Before expansion began, the May 12, 2016 edit had 2023 characters. The latest edit on November 27, 2016 showed a character count of 7591, which is about a 3.75x expansion. If you are not able expand it 5x, you may consider taking this to GA and then renominating it for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry about that. I must have read the DYK checker incorrectly. Thanks!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Yoninah, I'm afraid I have to disagree. DYKcheck on the May 12, 2016 edit gives 769 prose characters—remember, bulleted lists do not count as prose—which means a nearly 10x expansion. This article qualifies in terms of newness and size for DYK, so I'm superseding your "X". I did a comparison of the May 12 and current versions of the article, and there is no significant material remaining in the new version; if the bulleted phrases had repurposed as prose, then it might have been a consideration, but this is not the case. Will you be continuing the review? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware that bulleted lists do not count as prose, but when they are fleshed out as these were, I do count them as prose. Nevertheless, I will defer to your opinion and continue this review. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Full review: 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Thanks to for tightening the hook and removing the repetition of the word "marketing"; ALT1 hook ref verified and cited inline. Image is freely licensed. QPQ done.
 * I have a question about the book title, though. Google Books shows a 1981 edition called Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, but in the 1990s the title seems to have changed to Basic Marketing: A Global-Managerial Approach. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? Also, I saw a lengthy embedded "citation needed" tag in the first paragraph under "Development of the 4Ps concept". I added quotes to the term "managerial approach", and perhaps just a sentence is needed to explain this term satisfactorily. Yoninah (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, . I am in the middle of something right now, but I will get back to this soon. Good points.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have added a definition for the term "managerial approach" in this edit, starting with the sentence "The managerial approach evolved.." in the second paragraph of E. Jerome McCarthy § Development of the 4Ps concept.
 * Regarding the two different titles, as says, these are two different books. We could explain that in a sentence, such as: "McCarthy also wrote Basic Marketing: A Global Managerial Approach, which applies the managerial approach to global business operations."
 * Ironically, finding a secondary source for this statement isn't as straightforward as one might think. I haven't found one at the moment. I am just seeing it cited vs. being discussed out-right. But there's got to be one out there. If this is helpful, though, I could keep looking.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * * Thank-you for trying to add a definition of the marketing approach. I have some concerns about the following passage:


 * "Another important factor was his definition of a "managerial approach".[10][11] The managerial approach evolved from the functional approach of the early twentieth century, which was viewed from an economic perspective. However, it did not consider the value of distribution.[12] The managerial approach views marketing as a management science.[13] It uses problem-solving to "develop an optimum offering of products, prices, promotion, and place (distribution)," according to the Handbook of Marketing.[14]"


 * * It is unclear what the pronoun "it" refers to? In this passage, it might be construed that the passage means that it was the managerial approach (or the functional approach) that did not consider the value of distribution. Yet, this is not in accordance with the consensus view.
 * * Clearly the source indicates that it was economists that had failed to consider distribution, and that the emergence of functionalist approach was a direct response to that failure. This would be much more consistent with the accepted view.BronHiggs (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Another important factor was his definition of a "managerial approach".[10][11] The managerial approach evolved from the functional approach of the early twentieth century, which was viewed from an economic perspective. However, it did not consider the value of distribution.[12] The managerial approach views marketing as a management science.[13] It uses problem-solving to "develop an optimum offering of products, prices, promotion, and place (distribution)," according to the Handbook of Marketing.[14]


 * User:BronHiggs The book, Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach is currently in its 17th edition and has never been out of print since 1960. Basic Marketing: A Global Managerial Approach is a different book - and seeks to apply the managerial approach to global business operations. At one stage, the article included a select bibliography of McCarthy's key publications, but on advice from other editors, this was deleted. (Perhaps its inclusion would have made the distinction between book titles clearer?) Some other material on how the publication of McCarthy's book sounded the death knell for the functional approach by ensuring the popularity of the managerial approach was also omitted on advice from different editors. BronHiggs (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , Thanks so much for chiming in! I thought that was the case re: the books, but I needed to research it to be sure. All we need to do is add a sentence about the evolution to the second book. (I used to create lists of publications or works (for artists), too, and am finding that there is an issue with dumping in lists like that.)


 * I have no idea what you mean about the last sentence. I thought that there was something in there about it, but I don't see it. I remember writing a summary. If I cannot find it straight away, can you come up with a summary of the managerial approach - something like Yoninah says that defines this?-- CaroleHenson (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you cannot remember what was meant by my previous comments, perhaps you would care to review your initial response when I first raised expressed some concerns about ambiguity surrounding the distinction between the functionalist school and the managerial school. (See Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy - go to Managerial Approach#Response) where your comments include such things as "Let's come back to this" and "I need to digest it a bit" (the latter comment was repeated at least twice). I had previously suggested some commentary with relevant (even eminent) sources. I am really unsure as to what more I can do. BronHiggs (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)




 * Edit conflict.... For instance, I see a definition of the management approach is a management science for decision-making, such as these. Would this be the kind of approach that you think is appropriate?


 * If you want me to type something up, I am very happy to do it for your review.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have tried to explain previously, McCarthy's 1960 contribution was more profound. Virtually all modern texts adopt a managerial approach, so the list of books on Google really only validates this.

Here's the best that I can explain it: 1. Prior to 1960, the so-called functionalist school dominated the discipline. (Schools, in this context, primarily refers to how the discipline is taught- but as always there is some overlap between theory and practice) 2. The managerial approach was known prior to 1960 but is not generally regarded as the dominant model. 3. The functionalist approach, which really had been kicking around from the 1920s and 30s, was primarily concerned with the "functions" of marketing (hence the name functionalist school or approach). 4. The functionalist school asked questions such as "Is sales a marketing responsibility?" "Is advertising a marketing responsibility" "Who is responsible for distribution and logistics?" For example, a lot of theorising went into which distribution functions were marketing responsibilities and what functions were performed by third party channel intermediaries such as transportation companies, warehousing and wholesale/ retail operators. 5. The publication of McCarthy's book presented an elegant and simple framework for managerial decision-making in the marketing area. The basic framework is the 4 Ps - four key decision areas, but also includes the customer who is the focus of of these decisions - accordingly, issues such as consumer research (understanding the customer) also form part of McC's approach. 6. The book immediately grabbed the attention of both academics and practitioners - which at the time was unusual. 7. Within a few years of the book's publication, the functionalist approach was as good as dead in the water and the managerial approach became the dominant school of thought. 8. The 4 Ps is not without criticism, but at this time no-one has really come up with a better model - so it enjoys continuing currency and forms the backbone of most university programs in marketing as well as defining market department areas of responsibility. I have previously supplied references in support of these observations. BronHiggs (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I am copying this to Talk:E. Jerome McCarthy.-- CaroleHenson (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you for taking care of the additional writing, . I removed some close paraphrasing and also edited the lead to reflect his notability. We don't need to include the additional book; after all, DYK only requires a start-class article. ALT1 verified and cited inline. Rest of review above. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Yes, I saw your edits, thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do about the McCarthy article? There seems to be a lot of "tweaking" which inadvertently results in the text getting further and further away from the original plan. I will outline some of the issues that I have detected:


 * 1. Lead Section:
 * "He [McCarthy] was the first to define the managerial approach in marketing and proposed the concept of the 4 Ps marketing mix in his 1960 book Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach, which has been one of the top textbooks in university marketing courses since its publication.[1][2]"
 * Comment: The first claim that he was the first to define the managerial approach appears to be unsourced. Further this claim appears to be a highly debatable assertion. The managerial school was known prior to the 1950s and 60s, well before McCarthy published his book, but at the time the discipline was dominated by the so-called functional school. Most of the sources that I have consulted appear to credit McCarthy with putting the managerial school on the map and sounding the death knell for the functionalist school.


 * 2. Development of 4 Ps Concept: 2nd paragraph
 * "Another important factor was his definition of a "managerial approach".[10][11] The managerial approach evolved from the functional approach of the early twentieth century, which was viewed from an economic perspective. However, it did not consider the value of distribution.[12]
 * Comment: The claim that it [the managerial approach] is not supported by the source. The relevant passage in the source is, "Our appreciation of marketing's contributions is enhanced by the 'functional approach' which arose early in the twentieth century in reaction to mainstream economic's lack of attention to the value of the distribution function." (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZjQb3xZoVe0C&pg=PA19&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, p.19) My reading of this passage is that it was the economics discipline that had failed to offer insights for managing the distribution function. The passage does not appear to make any claims about failures on the part of either marketing management (i.e. the managerial approach) or the functional approach. Elsewhere in the same source, lengthy discussions of how both marketing management and the functional approach treated distribution can be found. This source cannot be used to support any claim that marketing management was deficient in its treatment of distribution.


 * 3. Educator and author: 2nd paragraph
 * "McCarthy coauthored two learning aids for Essentials of Marketing [30][31]and one about Computest, a computer testing system.[32]"
 * Comment/ question: Are we confident that it was only two learning aids? If so, is there a reliable source? If not, why specify a number? Could this be reframed to indicate that he coauthored a number [or several] learning aids. Are we confident that the second book was about Computest? Or, was it a test-bank designed by McCarthy designed to be used in conjunction with the software program, known as Computest? On a related issue, I wonder why the focus is on learning aids when it is clear that McCarthy also developed many teaching aids and did this at a time when relatively few teaching resources were published.


 * 4. Further reading: Item
 * " Alf H. Walle (January 2010). The Equitable Cultural Tourism Handbook. IAP. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-60752-359-8."
 * Comment: This appears to be a link to end of chapter discussion questions (without solutions). The chapter offers little insight into the development of marketing thought, and indeed does not even mention the managerial approach as a significant school of thought (and instead identifies four schools namely, the commodity school, the functional school,the institutional school and the regional school) See https://books.google.com.au/books?id=cd6Sjxu2lesC&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false, p.12 but then elsewhere in the chapter,  detailed discussion of McCarthy and the managerial approach is presented without any real attempt to integrate it into the "schools" (pp 17-19). The discussion of the schools in what is essentially an introductory text is rather fragmented and lacking in any  overall conceptual framework. It has the potential to confuse readers rather than clarify and I would recommend that it be dropped. There are far better references to the evolution of the schools. A useful example would be: Shelby D. Hunt and Jerry Goolsby, "The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective," originally published in 1988 and reprinted in: Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue - Marketing Legends, Vol. 1, Naresh K. Malhotra,(ed), Bingley, UK, Emerald, 2011 [partially accessible via Google Books]

, Based on the discussion on this talk page, and the "front page" visibility a DYK brings, I believe that the DYK nomination should be withdrawn (which I am happy to do if there's a process) or declined. Although it does not exactly meet "Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK" of the DYK Reviewing Guide, it sure gets to the spirit of what is happening. Thank you so much for your effort on it, you made some good edits and points!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg OK. I'm sorry it worked out that way. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Yoninah (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)