ABSTRACT
Does marketing need reform? I am pleased to be able to offer commentary on such an important and timely question. In the short space allotted for this chapter, I focus on how “marketing” is defined, viewing such inquiry to be central to the question of whether marketing should be reformed.1 In particular, I comment on the new definition of marketing recently announced by the American Marketing Association (AMA). I contend that the AMA’s definition of marketing advances an exclusively marketer perspective of marketing (more so than prior AMA definitions). I briefly discuss the implications of adopting such a perspective for defining marketing, concluding that these implications are of sufficient concern to call for “reform” in how marketing is defined in relation to scholarship.2 In particular, I argue that scholars should adopt a definition of marketing that does not advance a single perspective, but is independent and of sufficient breadth to be integrative of other perspectives, thereby enabling comprehensive and objective advances in scholarship. BACKGROUND
With almost forty thousand members, the American Marketing Association is considered by many to be the major association of its kind for many academics and practitioners in the field of marketing. There is no doubt that the AMA has played an important and influential role in the development of scholarship in the field. Few in marketing are not familiar with the AMA’s journals, conferences, and other activities. Many academics attend AMA conferences, publish in AMA journals, are members of their special interest groups, and have provided service to the association. Indeed, as an academic association, the AMA positions itself as a “thought leader,” seeking to influence marketing’s scholarly development and practice.
