The double helix of marketing

The history of marketing thought and the development of marketing theory are inherently intertwined like the double helix in biology. In other words, marketing theory is shaped by marketing history and at the same time, marketing theory shapes the history of marketing.

This is for at least three reasons. First, marketing as a discipline and practice is contextual (Sheth and Sisodia, 1999). As the market context changes so do the perspectives and the practices. Markets are defined as the interplay between customers, competition and the marketer. All three entities change their market engagement over time and sometimes abruptly. For example competition has become more global with the liberalization of markets and the reduction of trade, investment and tariff regulations. Competition from multinationals headquartered in emerging economies such as China, India, Russia and Brazil is reshaping markets. Similarly, customers are changing due to demographic shifts such as an aging population and the growth of working women households. Aging redefines market needs and working women households redefine resources.

Finally, the marketer also changes its market offerings and its market approaches over time. New products, new price bundles, new advertising claims and new channels are invested and marketed.

Change in the context redefines marketing history and encourages development of new concepts for marketing theory often resulting in a paradigm shift. InMarketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation,Sheth et al. (1988) articulated how 12 schools of marketing thought historically emerged as a consequence of market evolution, ranging from the commodity, the functional and institutional theories of marketing, to buyer behavior, inter-organization, and managerial schools of thought.

And the journey has continued. Since the 1980s, at least three new marketing perspectives have emerged: market orientation, competitive strategy and relationship marketing. Each one has made a significant contribution toward theory development.

Second, markets are more complex than the universe. This sounds preposterous but it is true. The universe seems to be bound together by only two key perspectives: relativity and rebirth. Understanding markets, on the other hand, calls to mind the proverbial five blind men and the elephant. Unlike the universe, markets are defined and understood from multiple perspectives: each one is correct in its own right because it is validated either by face validity or by empirical support. For example scholars have developed a product perspective (if you build it, they will come) often useful in technology-driven industry. Examples include the internet; cell phones especially in emerging markets; the iPod in the music industry; and the Kindle in e-books.

Similarly, another group of scholars has developed a customer centricity perspective, with compelling logic and empirical support from the superior financial performance delivered to the marketer. Finally, we are now taking a societal perspective or what is referred to as the triple bottom line (profit, planet and people) redefining the role and purpose of marketing. It seems that all three perspectives are right, and, therefore, we end up saying ‘it depends’. In short, context matters and pluralistic perspectives are welcome.

A third dimension of the market is that it is more unpredictable than the weather. Markets fool the best of market researchers and the best of marketing managers. For example 65% of all market successes are by accident and 30% succeed despite flaws in the original marketing plans. In other words, if the marketer had followed the playbook, the new product would have failed. However, the company had the courage and the capability to improvise and adapt which resulted in marketing success by accident. Examples include the Mustang car, social media and on-line shopping.

Unpredictability of market outcomes does not allow dogma to prevail. It encourages improvisation and a willingness to embrace new concepts and new realities. For example with the rise of emerging markets such as China and India, we are now questioning the traditional colonial mindset in marketing and instead, inventing, discovering or designing new products anchored to new marketing objectives of affordability and accessibility (Immelt et al. 2009). We are also rethinking whether such fundamental marketing concepts as differential advantage, market segmentation and resource advantage are useful for emerging markets.

Does marketing history shape marketing theory or vice versa? The answer is yes, just as attitudes shape behavior and behavior shapes attitudes. It is the age-old chicken and egg question. The answer is the complementary relationship between marketing theory and history of marketing: the double helix of marketing.