Page 23 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

16 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Professors Kotler, Levy, and Zaltman obviously believed that the defini-
tion of the field of marketing itself should encompass more than commer-
cial applications. Their “broadened marketing” definition was published in
the field’s leading journal, the Journal of Marketing, which contributed to
the definition’s raising red flags in conventional marketing circles. Not sur-
prisingly, the definition provoked considerable discussion and controversy,
which, as Shelby Hunt later noted, in some ways mirrored a definitional
debate from a decade earlier as to whether marketing should be consid-
ered a “science” (Hunt, 1976).
Shaw and Jones (2005) point out that one of the factors that helped the
“broadened” view to become acceptable to the marketing discipline was
that in the 1970s and 1980s Kotler’s textbook, Marketing Management,
came to dramatically dominate the field and was the basic text in a signifi-
cant percentage of classes, especially at the advanced level. In his text and
elsewhere, Kotler (1972, p. 53) argued that “the marketer is a specialist in
understanding human wants and values and determining what it takes for
someone to act.” Kotler’s text came to dominate the MBA world, replacing
a text by Eugene McCarthy that adopted the conventional goods and ser-
vices economic paradigm.
Criticism and concerns about “broadening” quickly emerged from
mainstream marketing scholars. David Luck (1969; 1974) argued that the
“broadening” definition was entirely too vague and general and that it
made any kind of activity to influence others a marketing activity. Luck
claimed, “Marketing is concerned with markets, of course, and markets
must be characterized by buying-and-selling [emphasis added]” (1969, p.
54). However, other traditional marketing theorists accepted the thrust of
the broadened concept for the discipline but thought that it emphasized
the wrong thing. Bartels (1988) concluded that the new approach was fo-
cused on individuals and their personal gain and neglected the impact of
their actions on society as a whole.
The attempt to craft new definitions and new boundaries engendered
confusion. A senior marketing scholar, William Lazer, accepted the term
“social marketing” but agreed with Bartels. Lazer and his co-author, Eugene
Kelley, arguing that the “dimensions of social marketing” included the so-
cial implications of private sector marketing practice. This inclusion, they
noted, was “based on long-run enlightened self-interest of marketing with
direct, long-run economic consequences” (Lazer & Kelley, 1973, p. 47).
Their readings book was titled Social Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints,
and it included a range of articles on the social implications of marketing
practices and on ways to carry out such practices in socially desirable
ways. Nonetheless, Lazer and Kelley were still concerned that the