My first degree was in history and I am always interested in how people classify history. Time is continuous, it just keeps on coming. Yet, human beings often find it hard to make sense when something is continuous. It is much easier to operate with items grouped in some ways. We like to see things in discrete compartments, e.g. eras. How then can we think of the eras of marketing?
Grouping By Period
Days have a clear cycle which means it is pretty obvious why people use them. When looking at longer periods one wants a suitable way of grouping. Decades/centuries are pretty arbitrary. There isn’t a massive difference between 1989 and 1990 compared to the difference between 1990 and 1991. Instead, those studying history group into ages/periods etc…
When learning these for the first time it is often tempting to imbue ages with great significance. In English history 1066 (the Norman Conquest of England) is a significant date. This date is, obviously, much less significant when looking at other countries. Even in England, many things didn’t change in 1066. (The Normans even used the old Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy to manage the country. It was just now a French-speaking, instead of an old English-speaking, bunch of killers in charge). In school we learned that 1485 (the death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth) was the end of the medieval period. Still, having a new ruling monarch, Henry Tudor, didn’t fundamentally alter England and Wales never mind mean much beyond those countries.
Creating The Eras Of Marketing
Approaching the history of marketing it would be easy if there were self-evident periods. There aren’t. Instead, scholars have to try and make sense as best they can. They need to put structure on messy continuous scholarly time. Wilkie and Moore do this in their 4 eras of marketing. In a major task of reading the literature, they manually synthesize the themes. (We could probably try to use some automated data analysis techniques if we did it now).
Wilkie and Moore talk about how at the turn of the twentieth century “the area that would become “marketing” was firmly ensconced within the field of economics” (Wilkie and Moore, 2003, page 116). They then highlight the way marketing — in their view — progressed.
Describing The Eras
After the “pre-marketing” period there was the first twenty years of the twentieth century. This represented “founding the field”. (Note the use of nice round numbers to make it easy for the reader.). The next thirty years (1920-1950) was “formalizing the field”. In this era, many of the professional associations and journals were founded. The next thirty years (1950-1980) the authors describe as a paradigm shift. This was a boom time and they give details of the great increase in those studying business. In this era two views appeared; a managerial view and a more behavioral and quantitative science viewpoint. The final era is the last twenty years of the twentieth century. (They wrote in 2003 so haven’t anything since). This saw a fragmentation into knowledge niches. They then consider where we were going (back in 2003) including some concerns for the field.
Wilkie and Moore’s work is extensive and interesting. It is worth all marketers having a think about where the field is coming from, and going to. Fragmentation especially worries me. That said, it seems here to stay.
For more on the history of marketing and academia see here, here, and here
Read: William Wilkie, & Elizabeth Moore (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: Exploring the “4 eras” of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2), 116-146.
