Review of Marketing Research Volume 8

REVIEW OF MARKETING
RESEARCH: SPECIAL
ISSUE – MARKETING LEGENDS
REVIEW OF MARKETING
RESEARCH
Series Editor: Naresh K. Malhotra
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2011
Copyright r 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Reprints and permission service

Contact: booksandseries@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting
restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA
by The Copyright Clearance Center. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of
information contained in the text, illustrations or advertisements. The opinions
expressed in these chapters are not necessarily those of the Editor or the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-85724-897-8
ISSN: 1548-6435 (Series)
Emerald Group Publishing

Limited, Howard House,
Environmental Management
System has been certified by
ISOQAR to ISO 14001:2004
standards
Awarded in recognition of
Emerald’s production
department’s adherence to
quality systems and processes
when preparing scholarly
journals for print
REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH VOLUME 8
REVIEW OF MARKETING
RESEARCH: SPECIAL
ISSUE – MARKETING
LEGENDS
EDITED BY
NARESH K. MALHOTRA
Nanyang Business School,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
United Kingdom – North America – Japan

India – Malaysia – China
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Richard P. Bagozzi Stephen M. Ross School of Business,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, USA
Shelby D. Hunt Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Philip Kotler Kellogg Graduate School of Management,
Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, USA
Balaji C. Krishnan Fogelman College of Business & Economics,
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
V. Kumar Mack Robinson School of Business, Georgia
State University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Naresh K. Malhotra Nanyang Business School, Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore
Kent B. Monroe College of Business at Illinois, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign,
IL, USA
Shannon B. Rinaldo Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Jagdish N. Sheth Goizueta Business School, Emory
University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Yoram ‘‘Jerry’’ Wind The Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Gerald Zaltman Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, and
Olson Zaltman Associates USA
vii
EDITORIAL BOARD
Rick P. Bagozzi Robert F. Lusch

University of Michigan, USA University of Arizona, USA
Russ Belk Debbie MacInnis

York University, Canada University of Southern California,
USA
Ruth Bolton
Arizona State University, USA Nelson Ndubisi
Griffith University, Australia
George Day
University of Pennsylvania, USA A. Parasuraman
University of Miami, USA
Morris B. Holbrook
Columbia University, USA William Perreault
University of North Carolina,
Michael Houston
USA
University of Minnesota, USA
Robert A. Peterson
Shelby Hunt
University of Texas, USA
Texas Tech University, USA
Nigel Piercy
Dawn Iacobucci
University of Warwick, UK
Vanderbilt University, USA
Jagmohan S. Raju
Arun K. Jain
University of Pennsylvania, USA
University at Buffalo, State
University of New York, USA
Vithala Rao
Barbara Kahn Cornell University, USA
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Brian Ratchford
Wagner Kamakura University of Texas, USA
Duke University, USA
Bodo B. Schlegelmilch
Donald Lehmann Vienna University of Economics and
Columbia University, USA Business, Austria
ix
x EDITORIAL BOARD
Jagdish N. Sheth Rajan Varadarajan

Emory University, USA Texas A&M University, USA
Itamar Simonson Michel Wedel

Stanford University, USA University of Maryland, USA
David Stewart Barton Weitz

University of California, USA University of Florida, USA
INTRODUCTION – REVIEW OF
MARKETING RESEARCH: A REVIEW
OF LEGENDARY CONTRIBUTIONS
TO MARKETING
OVERVIEW
Review of Marketing Research, now in its eighth volume, is a fairly recent

publication covering the important areas of marketing research with a more
comprehensive state-of-the-art orientation. The chapters in this publication
review the literature in a particular area, offer a critical commentary, develop
an innovative framework, and discuss future developments, as well as present
specific empirical studies. All the eight volumes have featured some of the top
researchers and scholars in our discipline who have reviewed an array of
important topics. The response to the first seven volumes has been truly
gratifying, and we look forward to the impact of the eighth volume with great
anticipation. This eighth volume is unique in that it is exclusively devoted to
marketing legends and features the work of all the legends named to date.
PUBLICATION MISSION
The purpose of this series is to provide current, comprehensive, state-of-the-

art articles in Review of Marketing Research. Wide ranging paradigmatic or
theoretical or substantive agendas are appropriate for this publication. This
includes a wide range of theoretical perspectives, paradigms, data (qualita-
tive, survey, experimental, ethnographic, secondary, etc.), and topics related
to the study and explanation of marketing-related phenomenon. We reflect
an eclectic mixture of theory, data, and research methods that is indicative
of a publication driven by important theoretical and substantive problems.
We seek studies that make important theoretical, substantive, empirical,
methodological, measurement, and modeling contributions. Any topic that
xi
xii INTRODUCTION
fits under the broad area of ‘‘marketing research’’ is relevant. In short, our
mission is to publish the best reviews in the discipline.
Thus, this publication bridges the gap left by current marketing research
publications. Current marketing research publications such as the Journal
of Marketing Research (USA), International Journal of Marketing Research
(UK), and International Journal of Research in Marketing (Europe) publish
academic articles with a major constraint on the length. In contrast, Review
of Marketing Research will publish much longer articles that are not only
theoretically rigorous but also more expository, with a focus on implement-
ing new marketing research concepts and procedures. This will also serve to
distinguish this publication from Marketing Research magazine published by
the American Marketing Association (AMA).
Articles in Review of Marketing Research should address the following
issues:
Critically review the existing literature

Summarize what we know about the subject – key findings
Present the main theories and frameworks
Review and give an exposition of key methodologies
Identify the gaps in literature
Present empirical studies (for empirical papers only)
Discuss emerging trends and issues
Focus on international developments
Suggest directions for future theory development and testing
Recommend guidelines for implementing new procedures and concepts
CHAPTERS IN THIS VOLUME
This volume summarizes the contributions of all the marketing legends in

their own words. The Legend Series was started recently and so far nine
marketing legends have been named. The volume is unique in that it contains
articles by all the nine legends in which they have attempted to summarize
not only their research but also the salient aspects of their academic life
journeys. I would not even dare to summarize the contributions of each
legend in a paragraph or two. However, to whet the appetite of the reader, I
selectively focus on a few of the contributions of each Legend. The legends
are discussed alphabetically based on their last names, and the chapters in
this volume are also arranged accordingly.
Introduction xiii
Rick Bagozzi mentions his tenure at various academic institutions and the
lesson he learnt about how important is the fit between one’s values, skills,
resources, and goals, and the institutional values, traditions, and people and
economic conditions. Rick has made significant contributions in the study
of human behavior and several other areas. His methodological contribu-
tions encompass representation of constructs (from unidimensionality to
multidimensionality), construct validity, and causal models. In terms of
formative versus reflective indicators, Bagozzi concludes that in the majority
of cases, reflective measurement should be used because that avoids the
several problems associated with formative measurement. Rick has also
made contributions to marketing as social exchange, salesforce behavior,
and health and organizational behavior.
The most enduring theme of his research has been the study of human
behavior, where he has drawn on several disciplines including social
psychology (notably social psychology), anthropology, and sociology. Much
of this research has been marked by applied applications not only in
marketing but also in organization behavior, health behavior, the technology
acceptance model (TAM) in information systems, and cross-cultural contexts.
In one of the first tests of the theory of reasoned action, Bagozzi found that
intentions fully mediate the effects of attitudes on behavior. Controlling for
the effects of past behavior, both the attitude-intention and the intention–
behavior relationships were attenuated but not eliminated. More funda-
mental is consumer action, which Rick explained with theories of consumer
behavior, goal-directed and self-regulatory mechanisms. Rick maintains
that consumer action can be automatic or impulsive, deliberative, or both
automatic and deliberative.
Shelby Hunt has made significant contributions in many areas including
marketing theory (the nature and scope of marketing, philosophy of
science foundations of marketing, and philosophy of science controversies in
marketing), channels of distribution, macromarketing, ethics, and social
responsibility, marketing management and strategy, relationship marketing,
and the resource-advantage theory.
Hunt’s contributions in terms of the resource-advantage theory are
particularly noteworthy. His first article on this topic identified phenomena
that any theory of competition should explain to be considered satisfactory
and evaluated neoclassical theory. He then introduced the comparative
advantage theory and showed it to perform better than the neoclassical
theory on explaining the phenomena. The comparative advantage theory of
competition was later re-labeled as resource-advantage theory. His most
recent article on the topic, ‘‘Competitive Advantage Strategies in Times of
xiv INTRODUCTION
Adversity,’’ discusses how the resource-advantage theory of competition

provides a perspective for managers that shows how competition is a
dynamic process, explicates the concept of competitive advantage, explains
how institutions affect the process of competition, and integrates the
fragmented strategy literature. Thus, Shelby makes a seminal contribution
in not only propounding strategy theories but also integrating the literature.
Philip Kotler has made significant contributions by the many books he
has published. As one measure of his impact, his books have probably
sold more copies than the books of any other marketing academic. His
research contributions are no less and can be classified into marketing
theory and orientations, improving the role and practice of marketing,
analytical marketing, the social and ethical side of marketing, globalization
and international marketing competition, marketing in the new economy,
creating and managing the product mix, strategic marketing, and broadening
the concept and application of marketing. Given the space constraints, I
highlight only his contributions to marketing theory and orientations where
Professor Kotler has propounded several foundational concepts and notions.
Kotler was among the first to advance the notion of segmentation,
targeting, and positioning (STP), which have now become the strategic pillars
of any marketing platform. Phil also formulated other foundational concepts
such as societal marketing, arguing that the company should produce a
product that satisfies a need while not harming the consumer, those around
the consumer, or the society as a whole. In another seminal article,
‘‘A Generic Concept of Marketing,’’ Kotler proposed that ‘‘exchange’’ is
the core concept. Marketing is not about making things or using things but
exchanging things. Kotler also put forth the notion of ‘‘broadening the
concept of marketing,’’ stating that marketing should not only be focused
on the ‘‘goods and services’’ basket but that other things could be marketed
as well, such as places, persons, ideas and causes. In ‘‘Megamarketing,’’
Kotler claimed that the 4Ps might not suffice to win a market, especially if
the market is blocked by individuals or organizations from purchasing
the product, and introduced power (push) or public relations (pull), as two
additional ‘‘P’’ tools in the marketer’s tactical toolkit. In ‘‘From Mass
Marketing to Mass Customization,’’ Kotler traces the evolution of marketing
from making one standard product to sell to everyone to being able to make a
customized product for each person.
V. Kumar (VK) views his research from a decision-making point of view
in terms of decisions that marketers can make either at the market, brand,
firm, store, or the customer level. These decisions have to be transformed
into strategies and/or tactics leading up to successful implementations
Introduction xv
and improved bottom-line results. Within each of these decision domains,

VK has examined sub-areas of marketing. For example, at the markets level,
he has focused on forecasting, retailing, and international marketing. VK
has made significant contributions in several areas including forecasting,
retailing, marketing research, international marketing, business-to-business
marketing, marketing strategy, and more recently in customer relationship
management (CRM). I briefly discuss VK’s contributions to CRM repre-
senting his most recent research.
Within the topic of CRM, the customer lifetime value (CLV) metric
has emerged as an important metric to measure and manage customers. VK
and his co-authors have developed a conceptual framework to help market-
ing managers effectively manage customers and they illustrate the strategic
advantages of the CLV metric. They show that CLV has a number of
advantages over other customer focused metrics such as customer tenure
and share-of-wallet, as CLV is a forward looking metric and one that
constantly reflects the changing marketing environment. Petersen & Kumar
adopt a CLV-based perspective to address the issue of product returns.
Their empirical examination of product return policies of various firms
found that with an accommodative return policy customers feel there is
much less risk to purchasing products, know they can return them, and
therefore tend to buy more. While the optimal rate is unique to each
company, they proposed a number of tactical ways of managing product
return rates and ensuring customers remain profitable not only in the
short term, but in the future as well. As another significant contribution, VK
and his co-authors explored the development of an even more comprehen-
sive metric than CLV that they call customer engagement value (CEV),
to incorporate some of the less direct ways customers contribute value to
a firm. The CEV measurement reflects not only future purchases by a
given customer (CLV) but also customers’ likelihood of providing referrals
(CRV), positively or negatively influence the purchasing decisions of their
networks [customer influencer value (CIV)], and providing feedback to a
company [customer knowledge value (CKV)].
Malhotra discusses his preparation for an academic career and the
trajectory his research has followed. He reflects on his research contributions
to marketing by selectively summarizing the key contributions in each of his
nine volumes to be published in the Sage series and draw out some lessons
and principles he has learned. Malhotra has made significant contributions in
several areas including marketing research [conjoint analysis (CA), multi-
dimensional scaling (MDS), research design, and data analysis], consumer
behavior (information processing and decision making, attitude, intention,
xvi INTRODUCTION
and choice behavior), marketing management and policy, international and

cross-cultural marketing, marketing of services (retailing, health care), ethics,
quality of life and pedagogy, management information systems, and
technology and marketing. Brief comments are offered on his contributions
to CA and MDS as eight of the ten papers he has published in the Journal of
Marketing Research are in this area.
Two broad streams of research underlie Malhotra’s research in CA and
MDS. One concerns the assessment of reliability, stability, and validity of
results obtained from these procedures. The other stream deals with the
development of procedures for reducing the data collection demands
imposed on the respondents and yet allow the estimation of these models at
the individual level. Malhotra examined the structural reliability and
stability of nonmetric CA by embedding a core set of attributes within a
larger set to assess the stability of the core attributes in terms of part-worths
and importance weights and followed similar procedures in the context
of MDS. His findings on the relative robustness of both CA and MDS
contributed to the subsequent popularity of these procedures in both
academic and applied research. In terms of the need to reduce the data
collection demands imposed on the respondents and yet obtain enough
information to estimate the parameters at an individual level, Malhotra
argued that it is not meaningful to obtain detailed evaluations on the
undesirable choice alternatives and was the first to propose the use of
the tobit model in estimating the parameters of the preference function.
Likewise, he proposed obtaining information on a limited number of choice
alternatives then suggested an innovative application of the EM-algorithim.
In the context of MDS, Malhotra and his co-authors examined the use of
cyclical designs and random deletions to obtain limited information from
the respondents and still estimate the parameters at the individual level.
Further along the line of reducing the data collection demands on
the respondents, Malhotra examined the detrimental effects of fatigue on
interproduct similarity judgments and obtained interesting findings that
shed light on the effects of fatigue versus learning. He has also extended
his research on MDS to correspondence analysis based on qualitative data,
where he examined several theoretical issues and also published a review
article. Malhotra also briefly discusses his marketing research textbooks that
are global leaders in the field.
While Kent Monroe has made significant contributions in many areas,
he chooses to focus on pricing research. He traces the development of the
pricing research program, beginning with his doctoral dissertation and
continuing to the present time. His early research examined two important
Introduction xvii
concepts relative to behavioral pricing research, reference price and

acceptable price range, and drew on psychophysics and adaptation-level
theory. His early research focus included pricing models and research on
patronage behavior where he was amongst the first to examine such issues.
Then he expanded his research program to explore how the context of a
purchase situation, including the structure of the prices available for
judgment, influences buyers’ price perceptions and willingness to buy.
Subsequently, Kent further expanded his research on behavioral pricing by
integrating findings from the research program into examining how various
sellers pricing strategies and tactics influence buyers’ judgments and
purchase decisions. His book Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions captures
much of his research and also makes a significant contribution.
While Kent has examined several interesting issues, brief comments are
offered on his research on price unfairness as this stream encompasses some
his most recent research. Price fairness refers to consumers’ assessments of
whether a seller’s price is reasonable, acceptable or justifiable. Kent has
elaborated on the Fairness Principles, based on the principles of distributive
justice and procedural justice. He has made an important distinction between
the fair process effect (the tendency for evaluations of outcomes and
behaviors to be influenced by perceptions of procedural fairness) and the
fair outcome effect or fair equity effect (the positive influence of perceived
distributive fairness on subsequent behavioral responses). His programmatic
research has examined the effect of fairness judgments on perceptions of
value, perceived transaction value and fairness perceptions, relationship
between perceived price fairness and satisfaction, and dynamic pricing on
the Internet. His findings in this area are significant and yet point to the need
for further research as several gaps remain.
Sheth’s contributions to the discipline are discussed by tracing the path
he followed. He is described as an ‘‘accidental marketer’’ who started as
a social scientist, got interested in buyer behavior and ventured into
organizational buyer behavior noticing its similarities to individual buyer
behavior. The chapter by Balaji and Sheth traces the various topics that
have captured Sheth’s interest at different times along with his motivations
for being interested in these topics. They present a macro perspective of his
research and describe the reasons for the transformation of his interests.
In addition to academic publications, they also provide a glimpse of his
other contributions to the marketing discipline. Sheth has made significant
contributions in several areas including consumer behavior (conceptual
foundation, empirical research), visioning the future, international market-
ing, managerial marketing (the early years, current thought), organizational
xviii INTRODUCTION
buyer behavior, and relationship marketing. We offer brief comments on his

contributions to relationship marketing (RM) since that represents some his
recent research.
In the area of RM, Sheth has made contributions in terms of conceptual
and theoretical foundations, the evolution of the RM paradigm, and RM
practice. According to Sheth, RM has influenced three seismic shifts in
marketing. First, it was instrumental in shifting the focus from customer
acquisition to customer retention. As markets mature, it is more profitable to
realign marketing dollars toward customer loyalty programs and other
customer retention initiatives. Second, it encouraged customer selectivity by
leading a company to decide which customers to serve and which ones to
deselect and let go. Thus, RM brought a shift from revenues to profitable
revenues. Third, RM shifted the focus away from products/services to
customers, leading to the shift from share of market to share of wallet
concept. Sheth’s philanthropic contributions are also outlined. As a founding
member of the Board of Directors of the Sheth Foundation, I can personally
attest to his generosity in furthering the discipline of marketing.
Jerry Wind’s research has been influenced by the real world challenges
facing corporations and organizations, the search for and use of the latest
methodological developments to assure the rigor and validity of the solutions,
and the continuous challenge of prevailing concepts and approaches in
search of better ones. He has made significant contributions in many areas
including organizational buying behavior, consumer behavior, product and
new product management, marketing strategy, market segmentation, global
marketing, marketing research and modeling, and the future of marketing.
Brief comments will be offered on his contributions to marketing research as
he, along with his colleague Paul Green, has done much to contribute to the
importance of marketing research as a foundational sub-discipline within
marketing and as the basis of formulating sound marketing strategies and
programs.
Jerry was among the early researchers to highlight the importance of
experimentation in marketing research and his applications of experimenta-
tion include assessing the effectiveness of TV advertising, retailing, and new
product sales. Preference measurement with an emphasis on CA is another
area where Jerry has made a mark. He and his co-authors offered a neat
methodology for measuring preferences for item collection. His paper
with Green published in HBR offered a simple and yet elegant exposition of
CA and outlined its tremendous potential for both academic and applied
research. His academic applications of CA have included product testing,
pricing, health care, and law. He has also incorporated this technique into
Introduction xix
choice simulators, optimizers, and dynamic model. Likewise, he has applied

CA in addressing significant marketing problems facing business and
nonbusiness organizations. Indeed, Professor Wind has made significant
contributions to make CA an accessible and widely used technique. Jerry’s
expertise in statistical and quantitative methods extends well beyond CA
to include a wide range of econometric and multivariate methods. While
his application of multivariate methods cover many areas, one which stands
out is product positioning. He was amongst the first to suggest the use of
MDS for product positioning, a methodology that is now commonly applied.
Likewise, Jerry and his co-authors introduced overlapping clustering
demonstrating its usefulness for product positioning. More recently in
2006, Jerry and his co-authors proposed a new stochastic MDS procedure to
identify and represent asymmetric competitive market structures.
Jerry Zaltman describes some of the lessons he learned during his career.
Some of these lessons describe ways of approaching intellectual issues while
others express values and attitudes that underlie these approaches. While the
lessons were learnt in an academic environment they apply equally in the
world of practice, and many in our daily lives. It is hoped that these lessons
will challenge readers to crystallize their own implicit career lessons and
share them with others. I briefly comment on two of the lessons Jerry
thoughtfully offers toward the end of his chapter.
Jerry’s current interests encompass topics in the sociology of knowledge,
cognitive neuroscience, the adoption and diffusion of innovation, organiza-
tional change, and models of individual and social learning. So, when
something captures your attention, cast a very wide net to trap existing
relevant perspectives. Another lesson is that all methods of inquiry are
compromises with reality. Therefore, Zaltman urges using a variety of
methods. Multiple methods not only provide convergent validity for an
insight but also offer a range of insights and thus reduce the compromises
we make with reality.
It is a great honor for me to have been selected as a marketing legend. I
have also been honored to edit this volume containing a summary of the
contributions of the other legends in their own words. It is hoped that
collectively the chapters in this volume will substantially aid our efforts to
understand, model, and make predictions about both the firm and the
consumer and provide fertile areas for future research. The Review of
Marketing Research continues its mission of systematically analyzing and
presenting accumulated knowledge in the field of marketing as well as
influencing future research by identifying areas that merit the attention of
researchers.
REFLECTIONS ON A SCHOLARLY
CAREER: FROM INSIDE OUT AND
BACK AGAIN
Richard P. Bagozzi
ABSTRACT
Any career is marked by luck, both good and bad, as well as by hard work
interspersed by times of uncertainty, fits and starts, and learning from
one’s mistakes and successes. But beyond these outcomes and actions, I
owe an enormous debt to people who have shaped me and made life the
challenging and rewarding journey it is. My family of origin and extended
family were incredibly supportive in personal and functional ways. So
many mentors and teachers influenced what I know and who I am. Many
students, colleagues, secretaries, computer and library staff, and group
chairs and deans provided the help, inspiration, and friendship guiding my
career behind the scenes. My wife, son, and daughter sustained me
through times of tears and joy, as did my community of faith. All these
relationships were foundational to any contributions I may have made to
attitudes, social action, and theory of mind; methodology, statistics, and
philosophical foundations of research; sales force, organization, and
health behaviors; emotions, ethics, and moral behavior; and marketing
and managerial practice. For me, my career contributions are secondary
to the relationships within which I was fortunate to engage.
Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue – Marketing Legends

Review of Marketing Research, Volume 8, 1–41
Copyright r 2011 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008005
1
2 RICHARD P. BAGOZZI
INTRODUCTION
Life is to give, not to take.
– Bishop Myriel to Jean Valjean at the close of
Book I of Les Mise´rables (United Artists, 1935)
I begin this reflection with feelings of deep gratitude to all the people who
made my career possible and supported me in so many ways over the years.
The research that I have done, summarized hurriedly on the pages to follow,
would never have happened without the input and guidance of many people.
Everything began with my parents, of course, who through their example
and strength of character were objects of awe and admiration for me to this
day. We had little by way of material things but instead placed value on
ideas, music, physical fitness, and the faith that we shared together in the
family. My parents were very nurturant throughout my life, emphasizing
caring and empathy, not only for family members and relatives but also for
strangers and people of different races and cultures. Special concern was
given to people in the world who were marginalized or persecuted and to
issues of social justice and mercy. My early years spent with my parents
were under the same ruff with my grandparents in their home and included a
seemingly endless stream of short-time house guests from our village of
origin, Castelcondino, in the Trentino region of Italy. It was exciting and
educational being exposed to these people, as well as to my relatives on my
mother’s side of the family. It seemed that everyone spoke 3 languages, with
my mother’s parents speaking 4 or 5. And living in an ethnic community
made everyday life all the more stimulating and intriguing. The years spent
in the Del Rey part of Detroit were very happy ones, as were those that
followed when we moved 5 miles west to the suburbs.
I remember well the teachers I had from kindergarten through high
school. Many were immigrants or first-generation Americans and conveyed
a deep love for education and scholarship, as well as ‘‘the old country.’’ My
school years in the 1950s and early 1960s followed the pattern exemplified
by my grandparents, parents, and relatives: comprehensive engagement with
studies, music, and athletics as well as involvement with the church and
volunteer work in the community. Looking back on the many experiences I
had in this time period, I realize that these years were formative in terms of
developing a need to give to others, valuing self-renewal, and consciously
choosing communal, spiritual, and intellectual activities over individual and
materialistic ones. With a deeply loved grandfather who was a socialist, a
revered uncle who was an environmentalist, and another uncle who was a
communist, I came to appreciate a diversity in political and social views and
Reflections on a Scholarly Career 3
was better equipped to choose my own way in the face of the McCarthyism
and knee-jerk conservatism and anticommunism pervading the atmosphere
at the time.
I chose a cooperative engineering college program with General Motors
following high school graduation because this would pay for my education,
and, I suppose, the national climate of post-Sputnik and the local environ-
ment of an automotive company town enveloping Detroit and suburbs
seemed the blueprint for success. The educational portion of my under-
graduate program saw some of the best teachers I ever had across the 5 univer-
sities I attended and graduated from and I suspect shaped my commitment to
students and teaching to this day. The work portion of the cooperative
program (6 weeks of work, followed by 6 of school, and alternating year
around over 4 years) was life-forming. I was the only student in the factory
that I was assigned to, which was a skilled trades operation (Fisher Body Die
and Machine, the largest such operation in the world), and therefore, I was
permitted to work much as a union apprentice worker, which gave me first-
hand experience in the skills and functioning of the plant, plus deep
friendships with the workers. As the workers were nearly all skilled tradesmen
from Europe, having immigrated at the end of World War II, plus a core of
workers who had been here before the war and fought in the union movement,
I learned a lot about industry in general and life in particular. A sampling of
my coworkers: a Greek Cypriot who lived in Algeria for awhile en route to
America, a German tank commander in the Panzer Division, a Rumanian
refugee, many Germans, Italians, a few Greeks, Armenians, Hungarians,
Englishmen, and Poles. These men had much to share about their cultures and
viewpoints, and I took everything in like a sponge. During school time, I was
also shaped by my brothers in the fraternity I belonged to, Sigma Alpha
Epsilon, where we, ‘‘the campus jocks,’’ had won the year-long university
competitions in sports nearly every year since 1918, along with the annual
community service awards, but unfortunately were dead-last academically.
Somehow, I found a way personally to balance studies with sports and
community service, but it took a lot of hard work and discipline that served me
well later in graduate school and beyond.
After earning an MS in engineering and math at the University of
Colorado and the National Bureau of Standards and then an MBA at night
school at Wayne State, while working as an engineer at Pontiac Motors, I
went on to Northwestern for my PhD. Ferdinand Mauser, a professor at
Wayne State, encouraged me to choose Northwestern and also ‘‘sent’’ Tom
Robertson, Randy Schultz, and Gary Armstrong before me. Faculty
members at Northwestern were not only innovative and at the top of their
game so to speak, but Sidney Levy gave me the inspiration and freedom to
study unfettered and to take nearly all my course work outside the Manage-
ment School (in the departments of statistics, psychology, and sociology, as
well as giving me less extensive but important exposure to anthropology,
philosophy, and economics, including time at the University of Chicago in the
C.I.C Program as well). In addition, a combination of great role models (Levy,
Kotler, Zaltman, Stern, Clewett, Sternthal, and Stasch in marketing; Don
Campbell and Tom Cook in psychology) along with outstanding doctoral
students helped prepare me for a career in academia. The time spent with these
people at Northwestern was priceless.
My first academic appointment was at the University of California,
Berkeley, as an assistant professor. David Aaker and Fran Van Loo were
outstanding mentors and colleagues, and I benefited greatly from their input
and friendship. During this period, I received the undergraduate and school
of business teaching awards. I also was the first person in the school of
business to receive the university-wide teaching award. My time at Berkeley
initiated me into the value and joy of working with others on academic
projects and convinced me of the need to make room for joint projects in the
right balance with individual scholarship. Despite all these good experi-
ences, certain nefarious actions in the marketing group led me to resign in
disgust, and I left for MIT.
While at MIT, I worked with Al Silk, an outstanding scholar, on a couple of
projects. It was a pleasure being a part of such a fine group of professors as
John Little, Glen Urban, and John Hauser. MIT was kind enough to permit
me to take a year’s leave of absence to serve as a Senior Fulbright Scholar at
the University of the Saarlands, the Federal Republic of Germany, where I
had the honor to get to know Professor Werner Kroeber-Riel. I also was able
to visit my ancestral city, Castelcondino, and my relatives in Italy a few times,
which left a lasting impression. Upon my return to MIT, and after a lot of
soul-searching, I decided to accept a tenured position at Stanford University.
It was difficult leaving MIT because of the people there and the level of
excellence at that fine institution. But MIT was not a good fit for me, owing to
the need to do sponsored research with industry or government to have
funding for research, which did not correspond well with my skills and
interests I found out belatedly. I never had an RA at MIT, as a consequence,
nor would it have been likely for me to chair dissertations. These factors, plus
the chance to work with my close friend Lynn Phillips at Stanford, and to
live in a state and climate I loved, drew me to Stanford, plus of course the great
scholars there like Seenu Srinivasan, Mike Ray, Peter Wright, and Dave
Montgomery.
Stanford never worked out as I had hoped. Mortgage rates shot up to the
high teens, and we found it difficult to live and afford housing on my faculty
salary. At the same time, we had two children in my 3 years there, and both my
wife’s and my father had died in a space of a few years apart. Therefore, we
decided to revisit an opportunity at the University of Michigan, which
allowed us to return to our families, raise our children with their grand-
mothers, aunts and uncles, and cousins nearby, and additionally for me to
focus academically on teaching and research, with no financial worries (after
recovering, however, from losing our life’s savings because we could not sell
our home in California!).
All these moves drove home the lesson concerning how important is the fit
between one’s values, skills, resources, and goals, on the one hand, and the
institutional values, traditions, and people and economic conditions, on the
other hand, connected to one’s employment. I was too naı̈ve or unsophis-
ticated to figure out all these things in my early career years and paid the price
personally as well as put my wife and family through undue turmoil. All
academic career opportunities are not alike, and a number of hidden
constraints and pitfalls make the choice of one’s place of work a difficult one. I
learned that the most important criteria are time for scholarly endeavors,
economic and financial conditions allowing one to live on an academic salary
alone, and collegial issues. Academically, everything else is secondary.
Michigan was and continues to be a fine place to be a professor. Here, I had
time to balance research and teaching, was blessed with excellent doctoral
students, and worked with colleagues on many fruitful projects. Faculty
support was outstanding, better than any place that I had been. Our dean, Gil
Whitaker, was inspirational in terms of his work ethic, sense of fairness, and
knowledge of institutional and operational matters. Later, when he retired as
Provost of Michigan and asked me to join him at Rice University, to help him
build the Management School, it was an easy decision for me.
My time at Rice University was most unusual. In addition to the normal
experiences of research, teaching, and institutional building and having the
privilege to work with Utpal Dholakia on many exciting projects and to be
connected with Bob Westbrook, Kim Kehoe, Randy Batsell, and others, I
somehow found time to spend 3 years at the University of St. Thomas to
earn an MA in theology, with a healthy dose of philosophy thrown in.
Everything was going well at Rice University, and I fully expected to
remain there for the rest of my career. But two things happened. First, my
wife’s youngest sister died of cancer after a couple years struggle. Sharing
with my wife in the stress and sadness surrounding the suffering of her sister,
and later in the grief following her death, I had time to reflect upon how
important my wife’s mother, surviving sisters, and close friends in Michigan

were to her. Second, after all these happenings, I was approached by the
University of Michigan, enquiring about the possibility to return to Michigan.
Frank Ascione, the dean of the College of Pharmacy, was instrumental in
initiating this (I had done research with Frank, mentored young faculty
working under him, and advised nearly all their doctoral students over a dozen
years before going to Rice). The chance to be closer to my mother was also an
added benefit of returning to Michigan. Therefore, once again, family issues
dictated career choices. Of course, it would be hard to find a better place to
work than the University of Michigan.
Beyond great colleagues at the University of Michigan in the college of
Pharmacy and the Ross School, two other attributes made everything go so
successfully. One was the phenomenal secretarial, computer, library, research,
and teaching support. Having Janet Nightingale as a faculty support person
was a blessing of incalculable value. Her skills and dedication are unmatched.
I also benefited in similar respects, before Janet’s arrival, with Carolyn
Maguire, and at Rice with Vaccaro Greaves. Linda Gorlitz brought similar
heights of professionalism to the management of the marketing group. All this
gave about 25 years of uninterrupted support that I am sure exists at few
universities. Second, the University of Michigan and the Federal Govern-
ment, Center for International Business Education, have done an outstanding
job facilitating visits of international faculty members and student scholars
that have enriched my life and the life of the school.
To each of the above people and the administrators that made all these
things possible, I am most grateful. But all this would have come to naught
without the love and support of my wife, Beverly, who not only gave me
two wonderful children, Benjamin and Anna, but sustained me over all these
years. Now on to a description of my research.
FROM ATTITUDES TO ACTION
Perhaps, the most constant theme across my academic career has been the
study of human behavior, where the core of my approach has resided in
social psychology. At the same time, this core has been infused with linkages
to psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Much of this research has been
marked not only by applied applications, primarily in marketing, but also
in the fields of organization behavior and health behavior. Some of this
research has been more basic, proposing either broad frameworks or specific
hypotheses in empirical studies, where these are situated either in one of the
social or behavioral sciences proper or across two or more of these fields

jointly. While occasionally narrowly focused within a particular discipline,
more often than not my work has been interdisciplinary and eclectic.
Moreover, my approach to research in these areas has been to frequently
inject a tension between theory and method within any particular study in the
sense of (a) integrating theory and method or (b) creating a conflict between
the two with the hope of yielding new ways of looking at the theory as well as
adding to knowledge. I have always believed that the way we measure and
study a phenomenon affects how we conceive of that phenomenon and that
our ideas and methods constrain each other. As a consequence, my practice
has been to take a long-run perspective in the conduct of programs of research
and to use different methodologies: qualitative, experimental, survey, and
quantitative. The hope is to go beyond or transcend limitations in theory and
method to inject fresh thinking into the field. Of course, such an approach
leads perhaps as often to dead ends as novel research.
Later, I give a loose summary of the evolution of my behavioral research.
For purposes of organization and coherence, my behavioral research
programs in salesforce, organizational, and health behaviors are treated in
separate sections of this chapter.
Attitude Theory
The theory of reasoned action (TRA, Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) was an early
impetus for my work, where I focused initially on the meaning of attitudes.
My aim has always been to add to the theory of attitudes, not merely to
apply the TRA. Hence, my practice of publishing also in basic and applied
research journals.
An attitude was originally defined under the TRA as Aact ¼ Sbiei, where
Aact ¼ attitude toward an action, bi ¼ belief that performing the action
would lead to consequence i, and ei ¼ evaluation of consequence i. Fishbein
(1980) took the equality sign in the above equation in a definitional sense
to signify that there is only one attitude, but two ways to conceive and
measure it:
if [we] were able to tap and accurately measure all of a person’s salient behavioral beliefs
and outcome evaluations, the indirect measure of attitude based on these beliefs and
outcome evaluations summation (Sbe) should be perfectly correlated with a direct valid
measure of attitude (Ao). Thus the direct (Ao) and indirect measure (Sbe) would be
interchangeable. (p. 84)
By contrast, I proposed that Aact and the (Sbe) are distinct representations
of attitude, and although possibly related functionally or causally to each
other (see later), they have unique developmental processes or antecedents
(Bagozzi, 1981a, 1982). For example, I suggested that Aact is an overall,
global, or direct summary of one’s attitude and can be measured with semantic
differential items (e.g., bad–good, unfavorable–favorable); Aact arises
through processes such as classical conditioning, operant learning, or cogni-
tive consistency mechanisms (Bagozzi, 1982). Aact can be an evaluative,
affective, or both an evaluative and affective reaction or predisposition to
respond behaviorally toward an object. The Sbe, I argued, is an indirect form
of attitude arrived at through information processing and subject to cognitive
integration, elaboration, generalization, categorization, or cognitive consis-
tence mechanisms (Bagozzi, 1982). I showed in a test of construct validity that
the measures of Aact and Sbe achieved convergent, discriminant, concurrent,
predictive, and nomological validity (Bagozzi, 1981a), thereby establishing the
uniqueness of each form of attitude.
In an experiment, I further showed that emotional arousal is one process
governing the relationship between Aact and Sbe (Bagozzi, 1994). I used
knowledge-assembly theory and the semantic theory of memory to predict
that arousal induces a unitization between global affective reactions (e.g.,
unpleasant–pleasant) and global evaluative reactions (e.g., unsafe–safe)
toward an action. Furthermore, I hypothesized and found that arousal (a)
increases the association between positive cognitions about the consequences
of an act and Aact and (b) decreases the association between negative
cognitions and Aact, thereby revealing certain positive–negative asymmetries.
No such asymmetries were predicted or found for the association between
positive or negative affective reactions (i.e., through either approach–
avoidance or semantic differential measures in both cases) and Aact. Arousal
thus influences the organization of cognitions and positive and negative affect
in memory under attitude theory.
I conducted two further experiments to investigate the conditions under
which beliefs and evaluations combine to influence Aact, in a model I termed,
the purposive behavior model of attitude (Bagozzi, 1986, 1989). Under the
TRA, evaluations are conceived of, and measured by, good–bad reactions. I
argued that good–bad reactions can be ambiguous, and, depending on the
person or context, evaluations, which capture the motivational component of
the Sbe, can be either moral or evaluative (e.g., good–bad, see Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975), affective (e.g., pleasant–unpleasant; or satisfied–dissatisfied, see
Rosenberg, 1956), or approach–avoidance eliciting (i.e., the subjective
conditional probability or likelihood that one would perform an act, given
that he or she believes that such a performance will lead to consequence i; see
Bagozzi, 1986). I reasoned that neither a moral nor an affective evaluation
should be sufficient to capture the motivational component of the Sbe in many
contexts. A person’s moral and affective evaluations may, at times, be
incongruent with each other and at the same time fail to correspond with
the person’s Aact, depending on the circumstances. Some acts (or conse-
quences) are emotionally repelling, yet morally desirable (e.g., donating
bone marrow); others are affectively pleasing, yet ethically forbidden
(e.g., extramarital sex); and still others coincide in both dimensions (e.g.,
raising money for charity). I proposed that only the approach–avoidance
conceptualization would consistently perform the required motivational role,
at least for morally tinged and highly affectively charged actions. In a head-to-
head test of the three approaches to the measurement of evaluations in a study
of blood donation, I found that beliefs and evaluations combined multi-
plicatively to predict Aact only for my proposed subjective conditional
approach–avoidance measures and not for good–bad or pleasant–unpleasant
measures. The tests of hypotheses here required the use of multiple regression
where both main and interaction effects were incorporated. Most tests of the
Sbe fail to correct for a fundamental indeterminacy in measures of Sbe and
produce biased parameter estimates (see Bagozzi, 1984a).
I performed a follow-up experiment to further explore the conditions
under which affective and moral pressures influence attitude formation
(Bagozzi, 1989). The findings showed that beliefs and approach–avoidance
evaluations combine multiplicatively to influence Aact when affective and
moral pressures are both action promotive for highly involving contexts, but
have additive effects for lowly involving contexts.
In still another experiment, I studied the role of arousal in regulating the
halo effect (Bagozzi, 1996). In marketing, psychology, and many applied
fields, it is presumed that Aact is dependent on the Sbe, which suggests that
attitudes can be changed by influencing beliefs or evaluations. But is it
possible for the direction of influence to be the reverse? This is the halo
effect. If attitudes influence our beliefs, instead of the reverse, then this has
disconcerting implications for persuasive communication strategies. Using a
spreading activation model of semantic memory to frame predictions, I
hypothesized and found that arousal produces a halo effect for positive
beliefs of the consequences of giving blood, reduces halo for negative beliefs,
and eliminates halo for aggregated positive and negative beliefs.
What are the implications of attitudes for behavior and how do they
operate to produce their effects? Consistent with the TRA, I found that
intentions fully mediate the effects of attitudes on behavior (Bagozzi, 1981b).
This was one of the first tests of the TRA with real behavior in the field and
with measurement error controlled. I further found in this study that,
controlling for the effects of past behavior, both the attitude–intention and
the intention–behavior relationships were attenuated but not eliminated. This
showed that attitudes and intentions can function according to predictions
even when habit is controlled. In other words, reasoned processes influence
behavior beyond the effects of automatic reactions.
Throughout the history of attitude research, the received view has
conceived of it as a unidimensional response. We either are favorable or
unfavorable toward a political issue, like or dislike a brand, or feel good or bad
about our job. Indeed, beginning with the work of Thurstone in the late 1920s
to the present, researchers have used specific methods to construct uni-
dimensional scales for measuring attitudes before testing hypotheses contain-
ing attitudes. This is a good example of how ideas and methods conspire to
blind us to the possibility that attitudes might exist as multidimensional
psychological states, where the dimensions might be based on unique, as well
as common, antecedents and influence unique, as well as common, outcomes.
But if we rely only on intuition, common sense, or unidimensional a priori,
conceptualizations of attitudes, and further depend on methods that
guarantee that they will be unidimensional, we cut ourselves off from multi-
dimensional possibilities and their implications.
It was against this backdrop that I began to consider how attitudes might
be multidimensional and function differently from those under the usual
paradigm. An early example can be found in Bagozzi (1981a, 1981b). Here I
proposed and found that information processing-based attitudes can exhibit
unique, but correlated, components. For example, beliefs concerning the
negative consequences of giving blood were found to cluster in three distinct
domains – perceived immediate physical pain, immediate internal sickness,
and rational costs – and to structure unique expectancy-value reactions.
These notions of multidimensional expectancy-value attitudes have found
application in studies of diet suppressants (Oliver & Bearden, 1985), coupon
usage (Shimp & Kavas, 1984), and reactions to advertisements (Yi, 1989),
among other areas.
Paul Warshaw and I (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990) proposed additionally
that direct or global attitudes can also function multidimensionally, especially
in goal-directed contexts. We found that such attitudes disaggregate in three
distinct components: attitude toward goal success, attitude toward goal
failure, and attitude toward the process of striving for a goal. My colleagues
and I have applied this model a number of times and found evidence for
differential effects of the components in the self-regulation of high blood
pressure (Taylor, Bagozzi, & Gaither, 2001), exercising and dieting (Bagozzi &
Kimmel, 1995), dieting decision-making (Bagozzi, Moore, & Leone, 2004),
and body weight maintenance (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998).
A more general multidimensional approach to attitudes that also applies in
non-goal-directed settings has been investigated by my colleagues and I with
regard to bone marrow donation (e.g., Bagozzi, Lee, & Van Loo, 2001). Here,
separate affective and evaluative global attitudes were discovered. Building
on our research, similar results have been found by others in different settings
(e.g., Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2005). Unlike multidimensional expectancy-
value attitudes, where beliefs and values are tailored to a specific context,
multidimensional global attitudes constitute general, overall affective, and
evaluative responses and thus generalize across contexts. There is always a
trade-off, of course, between context-specific and universal-based research,
and therefore, each of the three multidimensional perspectives described
earlier has its place in research I believe.
Attitudes are believed to be relatively stable predispositions to respond to
an act or object and are based on learning. Once learned or formed, they are
triggered automatically, after one is exposed to the act or object or thinks
about it. In this sense, attitudes are reactive and passive.
Another approach is to view goal-directed behavior in a dynamic, self-
regulatory way. My colleagues and I have proposed that people consider the
prospects of both anticipated goal success and anticipated goal failure by
identifying and appraising the consequences occurring if one were to achieve
or fail to achieve one’s goal (Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Pieters, 1998). Such
appraisals generate positive and negative anticipated emotions, respectively,
which function to initiate volitional processes in pursuit of a goal. Anticipated
emotions are not necessarily alternatives for attitudes but have been found to
serve as complementary determinants of decision-making (e.g., Bagozzi &
Dholakia, 2006a, 2006b; Taylor, Bagozzi, & Gaither, 2005). Indeed, attitudes
may even be dependent on anticipated emotions in some contexts (e.g., Leone,
Perugini, & Bagozzi, 2005). Elsewhere, I have summarized six differences
between active attitudes (i.e., attitudes toward success, failure, and process)
and anticipated emotions (Bagozzi, 2006, p. 26), where both can be contrasted
with passive attitudes in the TRA and theory of planned behavior senses (i.e.,
attitudes in the latter theories are learned predispositions, not dynamic
appraisals of the consequences of goal achievement or failure, as under the
theory of trying and the model of goal-directed behavior; see Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1990; Bagozzi et al., 1998; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001).
Another contribution to attitude theory I wish to mention is the
postulation of alternatives for the Sbe as antecedents to Aact. The use of
the Sbe has the methodological disadvantage of requiring ratio-scaled

measures, which are difficult to obtain and have seldom been used, or if
ratio-scaled measures are unavailable, requiring that main and interaction
effects both be modeled, which makes it difficult (a) to use methods of
analysis taking into account measurement error, such as structural equation
models (cf., Bagozzi et al., 2004), or (b) to model the Sbe as a dependent
variable (e.g., Bagozzi, 1984a). The use of the Sbe also has the practical
limitation of obliging one to measure multiple beliefs (usually at least 7) and
an equal number of evaluations, which can stretch questionnaire length and
overburden respondents.
The technology acceptance model (TAM) has been suggested as an
alternative (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989, 1992; Bagozzi, Davis, &
Warshaw, 1992; cf., Bagozzi, 2007a). Here, the Sbe has been replaced with
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, for contexts such as the
adoption of computer software or hardware and other technological devices.
See also Gaither, Bagozzi, Ascione, and Kirking (1997) for an extended TAM
in the domain of physician adoption of new therapies. The Davis et al. (1989)
article has had much impact on the information technology and systems fields
and is one of the most highly cited articles in business. See also Bagozzi
(2007a) for critique of TAM and suggestions for deepening and broadening
attitude theory.
A final contribution to attitude theory to note concerns research in cross-
cultural contexts. My coauthors and I showed for example, that the TRA
generalizes across the United States, Italy, China, and Japan, in a study of
fast-food restaurant patronage (Bagozzi, Wong, Abe, & Bergami, 2000).
Nevertheless, certain contingencies were uncovered: the theory worked better
for Westerners than Easterners; attitudes, subjective norms, and past
behavior or habit had stronger effects for Americans than citizens of the
other countries; and subjective norms had greater influence when eating with
friends than alone.
Self-Regulation and Action
I suggested that the term, consumer behavior, be reserved for the psycho-
logical processes that consumers undergo (Bagozzi, 2006a). More funda-
mental is consumer action, which can be explained in part with theories of
consumer behavior, yet goes farther than psychological-based theories in
marketing to incorporate goal-directed and self-regulatory mechanisms and
to introduce social processes more formally and extensively than seen
in psychological-based consumer behavior research, per se. But to be clear, I

believe that consumer behavior and consumer action are intimately related
and should be studied together in an integrated way in most cases.
By action, I mean ‘‘what an agent does, as opposed to what happens to an
agent (or what happens inside an agent’s head)’’ (Blackburn, 1994, p. 5).
Unpacking this definition, we scrutinize three elements. The first is the
concept of an agent and the notion of agency, where an agent is one who acts:
‘‘(t)he central problem of agency is to understand the difference between
events happening in me or to me, and my taking control of events, or doing
things’’ (Blackburn, 1994, p. 9 ). Secondly, action deals with what a person
does in a self-regulative or willful way. Finally, any complete treatment of
action should consider why actions are undertaken and to what they lead.
Consumer action, then, is what a consumer does in the acquisition, use, or
disposal of a product or service.
I maintain that consumer action can be automatic or impulsive (e.g.,
Strack & Deutsch, 2004), deliberative, or both automatic and deliberative
(Bagozzi, 2006a, p. 4, Fig. 1.1). A limited amount of my research has
considered automatic processes, usually in the form of habit (e.g., Bagozzi,
1981b; Bagozzi, 2006a, pp. 9–12; Tam, Bagozzi, & Spanjol, 2010). Most of my
research in consumer behavior addresses deliberative processes, with some of
this controlling for automatic processes. The remainder of this section of the
chapter will emphasize my work on deliberative aspects of consumer research.
Over much of my career, I have been influenced by action theory in
philosophy. Aristotle’s ideas set the stage for me: ‘‘The first principle of action –
its moving cause, not its goal – is rational choice, and that of rational choice is
desire, and goal-directed reason’’ (2000, p. 104; see also Aristotle, 1915, for an
alternative translation). My aim over many years has been to develop and test
a theory of intentional or purposive action. In schematic form, my theory can be
summarized as follows: reasons for action - desire to act - decision-making/
choice/intention to act - action (as an end or means to an end) -
achievement of the end or not - collateral outcomes (for self, others, and
surroundings). The category, ‘‘reasons for action,’’ refers to such determi-
nants of desire to act as goal setting outcomes, attitudes, subjective norms,
group norms, social identity, and emotions (Bagozzi, 2006a, pp. 19–27), and
even constitutes the definition of intentional action for some philosophers
(e.g., Goldman, 1970, defines intentional action as action ‘‘the agent does
for a reason,’’ p. 76), but I take the broader approach entailed in the
above schematic. For relatively comprehensive overviews of my theory of
intentional action and research in support of this theory, including some
philosophical commentary, see Bagozzi (2000a, 2006a, 2006b), Bagozzi,
Gürhan-Canli, and Priester (2002), and Bagozzi, (2010a). The following

subsections consider most of the essential elements of my theory. Fig. 1
graphically displays these elements and their organization.
Trying to Consume
Many, perhaps most, acts of consumption are ends in and of themselves
(e.g., exercising simply for its aesthetic and kinesthetic pleasures) or means
to other ends (e.g., exercising and dieting for the purpose of losing body
weight). In such contexts, consumers typically realize that performance of
an intended act is problematic in their own minds because they recognize
either that they have personal shortcomings (e.g., limited resources and
weakness of will) or that situational events might arise to thwart purchase
(e.g., bad weather or a stockout). To fulfill their consumption goals,
consumers must see their own actions as purposive endeavors, where foresight
and effort are needed to execute consumption acts and achieve consumption
goals. Consumers thus often attempt or try to consume (Bagozzi & Warshaw,
1990).
Fig. 1. Summary of Key Variables and Processes in Consumer Action as a

Deliberative and Reflective Endeavor. Note: The effects of habit, past behavior, and
automatic processes are omitted for simplicity. Source: Bagozzi (2006a).
Paul Warshaw and I conceived of trying as a singular subjective state that

summarizes the extent to which a consumer believes that he or she will try to
act or has acted, where trying is proposed to mediate the effect of intentions to
act on actual actions (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990). Although a subjective sense
of trying is certainly a real phenomenon, I also believe that trying can be
deepened and broadened to encompass a set of psychological and physical
processes one engages in after forming an intention to try, to implement one’s
decisions more effectively and efficiently (Bagozzi, 1992). In this regard, I
proposed that, succeeding a decision to act, some subset of the following
constitutes a cluster of trying processes: planning, monitoring of progress
toward a goal, self-guidance and self-control activities, commitment to a goal
or intention or action, resistance to temptation, overcoming impediments,
and physical and mental effort put forth in goal pursuit. The theory of trying
has been tested to different degrees in a number of studies (e.g., Bagozzi &
Warshaw, 1990; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998a, 2000a; Taylor et al., 2001;
Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Basuroy, 2003; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2007).
I further proposed that the effects of trying on goal attainment/failure (see
Fig. 1) depend on the affect arising from appraisals of the rate of progress in
goal pursuit. Two systems seem to govern the success of trying: approach
and avoidance affective systems (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998). Affective
responses occur in reaction to appraisals of one’s progress toward a goal such
that, when the rate of progress is below a reference value, negative affect
occurs, and when the rate of progress is at or above the reference value,
positive affect results. I suggest that such affective feedback moderates the
effect of trying on goal success or failure. When progress is made in pursuit of
either a sought-for incentive or avoidance of a threat, one feels elated or
relieved, respectively, and the action implication is to stay the course. When
progress wanes in pursuit of an incentive or avoidance of a threat, one feels
sad or anxious, respectively, and the implication is to try harder to achieve the
goal. Of course, it is important to recognize that when consumers try to
achieve a consumption goal, they sometimes alter the target goal or their
definition of success or failure; in fact, they might abandon goal striving
altogether. I discussed still other self-regulatory processes stemming from
emotions based on the communicative theory of emotions (see Bagozzi,
2006a, p. 14).
Intentions
Lewin conceived of intentional action in three phases: a motivation process,
an act of decision or intention resolving struggles imbedded in motivation
processes, and the action itself (Lewin, 1951, pp. 95–96). I have attempted to
make contributions to the meaning and measurement of intentions (for an

overview, see Bagozzi 2006a, pp. 14–19). We can think of intentions as part
of the more general concept of volition, which itself can be defined as ‘‘the
decisions, choices, intentions, and plans one makes to achieve an object of
desire or to perform desired acts,’’ where acts can be ends or means to ends
(Bagozzi, 2006a, p. 14). Leading researchers seem to conceive of intentions
as self-predictions or expectations that one will act and rely on self-report
measures of how likely or unlikely it is that one will act (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980, ch. 4). These researchers also regard intentions as ‘‘the immediate
determinant of behavior’’ (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 41). I take a more
nuanced view of intentions and feel that intentions often do not immediately
lead to action but rather are cued by later (frequently planned or
anticipated) reminders and are a part of a series of processes transforming
decisions into action.
I maintain that there are personal and shared intentions. Consider first
personal intentions. One type of personal intention is a goal intention, which
is a self-commitment to realize a desired end state by oneself alone and can
be expressed in two forms, noncontingently and contingently: ‘‘I intent to
pursue X’’ and ‘‘I intend to pursue X when Y happens,’’ where X is an
objective or outcome one wishes to achieve. The second type of personal
intention is a behavioral intention, which is a self-commitment to perform
an act by oneself either as an end in and of itself or as a means to goal: ‘‘I
intend to Z’’ and ‘‘I intend to Z so as to attain Y,’’ where Z is a particular
action. Similar to goal intentions, behavioral intentions can be expressed
noncontingently or contingently. Likewise, similar to Gollwitzer’s notion of
implementation intentions, I claim that behavioral intentions serve two
functions: a cognitive one that occurs as a mental representation of future
action opportunities formed as mental links between intended situations
and action, and a volitional one where the intention is later activated
automatically and induces action (Gollwitzer & Brandstätler, 1997). Unlike
Gollwitzer, however, who conceives of implementation intentions as planning
where, when, and how to act, I prefer to think of implementation intentions as
decisions to perform an action in the service of goal attainment (i.e., a
behavioral intention) and reserve planning as something distinct from
intention, per se. In many studies, I have examined goal and behavior
intentions, as well as planning (e.g., Bagozzi, 1981b; Bagozzi, 1992; Bagozzi &
Yi, 1989; Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Yi, 1989; Bagozzi et al., 2003; Dholakia &
Bagozzi, 2003; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Gopinath, 2007; Tam et al., 2010).
Shared intentions or collective intentions occur in two forms. One is an
intention to do something with a group of people or to contribute to, or do
one’s part of, a group activity: ‘‘I intend to do X in my group’’ or ‘‘I intend
to perform role A in group E.’’ Similar to personal intentions, shared
intentions can be expressed noncontingently or contingently. A second kind
of shared intention is rooted in a person’s self-conception as a member of a
particular group or social category, and action is conceived as either the
group acting or the person acting as an agent of, or with, the group. I
termed these we-intentions: ‘‘I intend that our group/we act’’ and ‘‘We (i.e., I
and the group to which I belong) intend to act.’’ I have studied shared
intentions in many studies (e.g., Bagozzi, 2000b; Bagozzi & Lee, 2002;
Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004; Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006a, 2006b;
Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Mookerjee, 2006; Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Klein, 2007).
Others have begun to employ my notion of we-intentions in their research
(e.g., Shen, Lee, Cheung, & Chen, 2010; Cheung & Lee, 2010, Shen Cheung,
Lee, & Chen, 2011).
In a number of studies, I have examined processes that moderate the effects of
intentions on action. The degree of well-formedness of intentions (Bagozzi &
Yi, 1989), the level of effort required to perform an action (Bagozzi, Yi, &
Baumgartner, 1990), task difficulty, goal-commitment-driven and plan-driven
intentions, well-formedness of goal and implementation intentions (Dholakia &
Bagozzi, 2003), and the role of regulatory focus and fit and habit (Tam et al.,
2010) all have been shown to moderate the effects of intentions on action.
Reasons for Acting

There are many reasons for acting, and I have studied a number of these. Of
course, attitudes constitute important reasons for action, which seems to be
a presumption behind the common practice of using attitudes as dependent
variables in many experimental consumer behavior and social psychology
studies. Along with attitudes, I have also explored the role of emotions as
reasons for acting. David Moore and I (Bagozzi & Moore, 1994), in a study of
consumer responses to anti-child abuse advertisements, found that negative
emotions (anger, sadness, fear, and tension) work through empathy to
influence intentions to donate. Likewise, Beth Edwards and I have explored
conditions where affect toward the means of goal pursuit influences goal
attainment (Bagozzi & Edwards, 2000a). And in still another study, Luigi
Leone, Marco Perugini, and I showed that E. Tory Higgins’ sense of
regulatory focus moderates the effect of anticipated emotions on action
evaluations (Leone, Perugini, & Bagozzi, 2005).
Anticipated emotions have been a central research concern of mine for a
number of years, following publication of an earlier article in the area by Hans
Baumgartner, Rik Pieters, and me (Bagozzi et al., 1998). Positive anticipated
emotions and negative anticipated emotions function in forward-looking

counterfactual ways (‘‘prefactaully’’) to evoke volitional processes and
action. The idea is that people who have a particular goal can come to think
about both achieving and failing to achieve their goal and how they might feel
about these imagined goal outcomes. The positive and negative affect so
elicited then influences volitional processes in the service of goal pursuit. My
colleagues and I have found anticipated emotions to be important
antecedents of desires, decision-making, and intentions in a number of
studies (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1998; Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001; Bagozzi &
Dholakia, 2002; Bagozzi et al., 2003; Taylor et al. 2005; Bagozzi & Dholakia,
2006a, 2006b; Bagozzi, Dholakia, & Klein, 2007). Note that anticipated
emotions sometimes displace or complement the effects of attitudes. Hans
Baumgartner, Rik Pieters, and I (Baumgartner, Pieters, & Bagozzi, 2008) also
have made a distinction between anticipated and anticipatory emotions and
found both to function in a study considering decision-making. Future-
oriented emotions are important reasons for acting in my model of Fig. 1.
Another new category of reasons for acting is social identity. Massimo
Bergami and I reformulated the cognitive component of social identity and
explored its antecedents and consequences (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).
Here, the cognitive component of social identity was shown to be
dependent on construed organizational image and organizational stereo-
types and to influence affective and evaluative aspects of social identity, en
route to its effects on organizational citizenship behaviors. Shortcomings
with existing conceptualizations and measures of the cognitive component
of social identity were pointed out. In many subsequent studies, my
colleagues and I have shown that the three components of social identity
are important determinants of desire and intentions to act (e.g., Bagozzi &
Lee, 2002; Dholakia et al., 2004; Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006a, 2006b;
Bagozzi et al., 2007).
One of the limitations of the TRA and TPB, as well as TAM and other
contemporary theories of behavior and action, is the failure to take into
account social aspects of decision-making in a comprehensive way. Long
ago, Herbert Kelman proposed that there are three kinds of social influence:
compliance, internalization, and identification. Compliance is based on the
need for approval or on reward or coercive power. The subjective norm
component in the TRA largely reflects need for approval aspects of social
influence. But internalization and identification processes of social influence
are not accommodated in the TRA or most other theories or models used in
marketing. Social identity constitutes one way to incorporate identification
processes in models of consumer and manager behavior. Utpal Dholakia
and I modeled the influences of subjective norms and social identity on

desire to act in a study of motorcycle brand communities and found that
both sources of influence had significant effects (Bagozzi & Dholakia,
2006a). Internalization social influence refers to the effect of shared values
or goals on decisions. We operationalized internalization processes as group
norms and also modeled social identity in a study of virtual community
participation and found both were important determinants of decision-
making (Dholakia et al., 2004). In one of only two published studies to my
knowledge that look at subjective norms, social identity, and group norms
simultaneously as determinants of decision-making, my colleagues and I
found that only social identity and group norms functioned significantly to
explain online social interactions (Bagozzi et al., 2007). Subjective norms
often fail to predict intentions in published studies, and therefore, it is
important to consider other sources of social influence, such as group norms
and social identity, as reasons for acting.
Habit is still another reason for acting (not shown in Fig. 1). Most
often, researchers have operationalized habit as frequency of past behavior
(e.g., Bagozzi, 1981b) or both frequency and recency of past behavior (e.g.,
Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990; Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995). Including past behavior
in a larger model as a predictor of decision-making and subsequent behavior
does not provide much theoretical insight as to why or how habit functions,
but it at least controls for the effects of habit and allows one to see if other
reasons for acting have significant effects on decisions and action beyond
learned responses. Paul Warshaw and I tried to provide some theoretical
rationale for the functioning of habit, by drawing on reasoning from
availability and anchoring/adjustment effects for the influence of recency of
past behavior and on learning arguments for the influence of frequency of past
behavior, especially when behavior is well-learned and practiced in a stable
environment (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990). More recently, my colleagues and I
have studied habit strength, in conjunction with implementation intentions
and regulatory focus and fit, in a field experiment (Tam et al., 2010).
Regulatory fit was found to have a significant effect on healthy snacking
behavior especially for people with strong versus weak unhealthy snacking
habits. Here, we conceived of habit as behavior elicited automatically as a
consequence of situational cues, where the strength of habit is represented by
the frequency of behavior and stability of the environment.
Desire
The final variable that I wish to consider under our discussion of self-
regulation and action is desire. I first proposed desire as a key motivator of
decisions in my theoretical article, ‘‘The Self-Regulation of Attitudes,

Intentions, and Behavior,’’ where weaknesses of attitude theory were also
discussed, and the role of emotions and goals in human action were broached
as well (Bagozzi, 1992). Over the years, I have scrutinized appetitive and
volitive desires and their manifestation in goal and behavioral desires. I argue
that many reasons for action do not provide motivation to act, or at least
sufficient motivation, and that desires are needed to convert reasons for
action into intentions to act. I also maintain that desires can be deliberative
but that they are often automatic, unconscious affective processes function-
ing as evaluative/emotional instigators of decisions or actions in a manner
similar to Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis. Furthermore, desires
function as internal motivational mechanisms where multiple, sometimes
conflicting, reasons for acting become integrated or resolved en route to
producing their effects on decision-making and intention commitments.
Desires incite goal intentions and provoke implementation (behavioral)
intentions. For further treatments of my sense of desire, see Bagozzi (2006a,
2006b). In a number of empirical articles, my colleagues and I have shown
that desires fully mediate the effects of such reasons for action as attitudes,
positive and negative anticipated emotions, subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, group norms, and social identity on intentions to act
(e.g., Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001; Bagozzi, Ascione, & Mannenbach, 2005;
Taylor et al., 2001, 2005; Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006a; Bagozzi et al., 2007).
Marco Perugini and I have experimentally demonstrated that desires and
intentions are distinct constructs (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004a, 2004b).
Finally, my colleagues and I have explored how desires function in impulsive
choices (Dholakia, Gopinath, & Bagozzi, 2005), self-regulation of tempta-
tions (Dholakia, Gopinath, Bagozzi, & Nataraajan, 2006), and enactment of
effortful decisions (Dholakia et al., 2007).
Fig. 2 presents a sketch of my conceptualization of self-regulation in what
I term the consumer core (Bagozzi, 2006b). Notice that the consumer core
is embedded in the model of Fig. 1 and is in a sense the heart of consumer
action. I claim that self-regulation occurs as a purposive activity controlling
the influence, if any, of goal desire on goal intention and action desire on
action intention (see Bagozzi, 2006a, 2006b, for more detail on how self-
regulation functions). In essence, self-regulation moderates the effects of
desires on intentions. By self-regulation, I mean the self-imposition of moral
and self-evaluative standards, which are akin to what some philosophers
term, second-order desires, although I deviate somewhat from philosophical
accounts and provide more explication of their functions than I have
found in the philosophical literature (see Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007; Bagozzi,
Fig. 2. The Consumer Core. Source: Bagozzi (2006b).
2006a, 2006b). I also consider the origins or antecedents of moral and

self-evaluative standards, which include social and self-conscious emotions
(e.g., pride, gratitude, awe, elevation, righteous anger, guilt, shame,
embarrassment, envy, and jealousy), caring, love, empathy, and personal
and social identity.
Reflection on ‘‘From Attitudes to Action’’
My research on attitudes and the theory of action has not been in the
mainstream of consumer research in marketing and is perhaps best regarded
to be a niche. The dominant paradigm in consumer research is the
information processing approach, which also includes nowadays behavioral
decision theory, although some internecine attitudes keep the fusion of the
two schools of thought farther apart than they need be. On and off over
many years, I have conducted information processing studies and used the
preferred method therein, experimentation. But much of my work also
spans fields and paradigms and uses multiple methodologies. The infor-
mation processing tradition, especially in recent years, has exhibited many
interesting and well-conducted studies, but from one point of view might be
characterized as being rather narrowly focused and fragmented and
consisting of hundreds of seemingly unconnected studies and findings.
Certainly a lack of integration and even coherence limit the field in this
regard. Part of my purpose has been to provide a contrasting paradigm (e.g.,
action theory), which represents a more holistic approach to consumer
research.
Often avoiding the mainstream, I have self-consciously followed a different
path. My work is programmatic to be sure, in the sense of displaying
interlocking studies over a long period of time, with a small number of central
themes guiding the stream(s) of research. But I have tried also to look deeply
into long-standing concepts and theories and conduct basic research, rather
than merely applying existing theories and research findings to marketing
through specific studies. Thus I have been concerned for a long time with the
meaning and nature, as well as the origins and bases, plus implications, of
attitudes, intentions, and other variables from psychology and social
psychology, which have been used extensively in marketing for 40 years or
more. My objective has been to give back to the basic disciplines that inform
consumer research so to speak. At the same time, while trying to apply
knowledge from the basic disciplines to consumer research, I discovered that
the existing theories and their measures do not always fit well the applied
issues at hand and need to be adapted and revised. Hence, my practice to
deviate from orthodoxy at times. Furthermore, in the examination of basic
research ideas and findings and in the effort to adapt these to consumer
research, I have seen opportunities to make contributions to basic research.
Therefore my practice, now and then over the years, to publish outside of the
field. Of course, personal inadequacies in explaining my ideas and political
struggles with reviewers and editors, as well as differences in tastes and
conceptions of what consumer behavior is, have been behind some of my
extracurricular activities.
One overarching theme in my consumer research has been to develop a
novel framework for thinking about why consumer do what they do and
how they do it. In a largely indirect and implicit way, my life-long reading of
philosophy has inspired me to formulate the theory of consumer action
summarized in Fig. 1. This involved proposing new concepts and processes
and figuring out how they all go together, and doing this while trying to
reconcile tensions among ideas from philosophy, psychology, and consumer
research. My approach also has been informed by ideas and research in
organization behavior, ethics, anthropology, and sociology. As a result, such
new concepts as we-intentions and shared intentions, goal desires and action
desires, anticipated and anticipatory emotions, group norms, social identity,
social and self-conscious emotions, trying, planning, and self-regulation (in
the sense of second-order moral and self-evaluative operations) all inform my
theory of consumer action and can be seen in piecemeal and integrated ways
in my empirical programs of research in this regard.
I have disproportionately allocated more space to my consumer research
in this chapter than to my other work. This was unplanned and probably
reflects a strong identity with this subfield of marketing. It may also be a
consequence of having been blessed with the honor of receiving the Fellow
in Consumer Behavior Award by the Association for Consumer Research in
1993, which occurred at exactly the halfway point of my career to date. The
Fellow award therefore was based on my early work, but starting with
Bagozzi and Warshaw (1990) and Bagozzi (1992) and continuing to the
present, I have done much more behavioral and social research than in the
first half of my career and believe personally that this work is more
important. Of course, having made the decision long ago to consciously
avoid the mainstream, my niche-work in this regard may never amount to
much in terms of external recognition. But for me, working with former
students and colleagues, and giving to and receiving from them, on these
projects has been its own reward.
METHODOLOGY: THE HOLISTIC CONSTRUAL

Doctoral programs and the administrative and teaching functions of
universities tend to segregate disciplines and programs within disciplines
such that research and courses become compartmentalized into separate
theoretical, empirical, and methodological topics, among other categories.
This tends to create specialists and to produce research either uneven in
quality or so narrow in scope as to generate knowledge that fails to
generalize and replicate well.
My approach has been to follow a holistic orientation where theory
construction and hypothesis testing are integrated, which I termed, the
holistic construal (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982). This occurs at two levels. One
is within the field of methodology itself, where much of my work has been at
the intersection of metatheory, multivariate statistics, and philosophy of
science. The other is within each of the substantive fields within which I
work, where I have attempted, as often as possible, to integrate theory and
method – that is, hypothesis development and hypothesis testing – so as to
better generate new knowledge. The latter can be seen in the general
approach I often take in particular studies, such as described in this chapter
under consumer research, organizational behavior, salesforce behavior, and
health behavior. I have not discussed this practice in the subsections of the
chapter devoted to these topics, but merely want to indicate here that, in
contrast to common practice separating hypothesis development from the
testing of hypotheses, which frequently can be rather stark in the degree of
separation, I try to combine hypotheses and their development with models
and methods that bridge the gaps, and take into account measurement
error and biases, better than commonly practiced in management and the
behavioral and social sciences. For example, economists often develop
axiomatic theories and derive empirical predictions but then test the
predictions with multiple regression analyses that may poorly fit the theory
and predictions and at the same time are contaminated with random and
systematic errors. I claim that it is important to integrate theory and method
more formally and to avoid, or at least correct for, errors or biases. In this
section of the chapter, I focus on my methodological contributions that
undergird the holistic construal.
Theory Construction
To meld together the theoretical domain with the empirical, I have considered
the question, ‘‘How should theories be constructed,’’ by developing a largely
realist approach to research. This work can be seen in Bagozzi (1980a, 1984b,
2007b, 2011b) and Bagozzi and Phillips (1982). The framework considers the
ways meaning or sense-making can be achieved in the interchange between
theoretical and empirical knowledge within a particular piece of research.
This happens, I claim, when conceptual meaning, empirical meaning, and
spurious meaning are reconciled jointly (Bagozzi, 1984b, 2011a). Each of the
subsections below summarizes contributory efforts in this regard.
Representing Constructs: From Unidimensionality to Multidimensionality
Psychological scales are often claimed to be unidimensional, both concep-

tually and empirically. Indeed, scale development procedures are applied with
this aim in mind. Yet, a recurrent outcome in empirical research using such
scales is the occurrence of multiple dimensions or factors for scales originally
designed to be unidimensional.
My colleagues and I argued that it is critical to consider the dimensionality
and level of abstraction of any scale or indeed the measures of any construct
(e.g., Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). This needs to
be done conceptually and operationally. Sometimes scales or constructs are
designed to represent one thing, phenomenon, or idea; other times, the scale or
construct might be characterized through its components or subdimensions.
Simultaneously, the level of abstraction of a scale or construct, and its
components, needs to be considered. Components might represent distinct
factors; if so, they may or may not be organized hierarchically, depending on
what they represent.
We developed a framework to capture unidimensional and multidimen-
sional scales or constructs and for representing their structure. Four models
were proposed: (1) the total aggregation model (a singular composite formed
as the sum or average of all measures of a scale); (2) the partial aggregation
model (where separate dimensions, if any, are aggregates of measures); (3) the
partial disaggregation model (where each dimension of a multidimensional
construct is a separate factor and is measured with multiple indicators, with
each indicator an aggregate of measures); and (4) the total disaggregation
model (where each dimension is a separate factor and measures of the scale
serve as separate, unaggregated, indicators) (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994).
The four models constitute distinct alternatives for representing scales or
constructs. The partial disaggregation model, in particular, is especially
useful for smaller samples and at the same time functions to smooth out
measurement error to a certain extent and to reduce the number of
parameters to be estimated in comparison to the total disaggregation model,
which helps make some models tractable that might not be otherwise. We
offered the following criteria for grouping measures to form indictors:
(1) items grouped within a subset should be linked in a sound way to the
construct they are intended to measure; effort should be made to formulate
correspondence rules that specify how the items can be deduced from the
constructs they are purported to measure, in what sense items are special
cases of these constructs, or why and to what extent items are reflections of
these constructs; (2) items forming a subset should be at comparable levels
of specificity and should constitute independent observations; (3) items in
one subset of items that indicate a construct should be at comparable levels
of specificity as, and constitute independent observations from, the items in
any other subset of items used to indicate the same construct; and (4) items
should be grouped into subsets only if all items (across and within subsets)
can be shown to be unidimensional (Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). With regard
to the fourth point, we argued that exploratory factor analysis provides
satisfactory evidence for unidimensionality, but confirmatory factor analysis
provides stronger evidence yet.
Our approach to construct representation not only helps one conceive of
and model different conceptions of phenomena. It can function dialectically
to induce new ideas into theory construction, validation, and measurement.

New aspects or dimensions of a concept can be modeled and tested, and
inappropriate aspects or dimensions of a concept can be identified and
modeled as unique concepts. In addition, our approach helps justify
and implement higher order constructs, which can be used to advantage as
predictive frameworks and overcome drawbacks with multicollinearity
(e.g., Bagozzi, 2010a).
Formative versus Reflective Indicators
Much discussion and debate have occurred in recent years on the issue of
whether indicators should or can be functions of latent variables, plus error.
The ramifications are complex, but important, as to the choice of formative
versus reflective indicators in any research study. I provided a brief, con-
ceptual discussion of some of the issues early on (Bagozzi, 1994, pp. 331–334).
Later, I entered the debate by publishing more philosophical and methodo-
logical articles (Bagozzi, 2007b; Bagozzi, 2011a). In a nutshell, it can be said
that formative indicators have a place in basic and applied research but
offer some challenges (Bagozzi, 2007b). The formative measurement model,
unlike the reflective model, is undefined by itself, except perhaps in its principle
components form. Formative measurement is only meaningful when the
formative latent variable also predicts manifest variables or latent variables
that have reflective indicators. The simplest and perhaps most meaningful
formative model is the MIMIC model where two or more formative indicators
predict two or more manifest variables through a latent variable. Unfortu-
nately, all other formative models exhibit the property that parameters
relating the observed formative indicators to their formative latent variable(s)
will be functions of the number and nature of endogenous latent variables and
their measures. This means that the measurement of latent formative variables
depends seemingly on the consequences of these variables as well as their
measures. This makes generalizability difficult to ascertain and comparisons
of findings across studies, as well, as comparisons of different models within
any study difficult to make. In addition, internal consistent reliability and
construct validity cannot be ascertained with formative measurement.
In the majority of cases, reflective measurement should be used because it
avoids the aforementioned problems with formative measurement. How-
ever, as I argue (Bagozzi, 2011a), formative measurement may not only
work satisfactorily in MIMIC model forms but can be more generally
applicable if one is willing to accept its ontological assumptions and status.
Jeff Edwards and I (Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000) discuss other aspects of
reflective and formative measurement.
Construct Validity
Construct validity is the extent to which an operationalization measures the

concept it is supposed to measure. An important special case of construct
validity is method bias, which is a type of systematic error. Construct
validity is a neglected topic but has received increased emphasis in recent
years throughout the managerial, behavioral, social, and applied sciences.
Along with Youjae Yi and colleagues, I have discussed many aspects of
constant validity, including how to model it and interpret its meaning. This
work occurs in marketing (Bagozzi & Yi, 1991; 1993), organization behavior
(Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998), information
systems (Bagozzi, 2011a), psychology (Bagozzi, 1991; 1993a, 1993b; Bagozzi &
Yi, 1990, 1992), and economics (Bagozzi, Yi, & Nassen, 1999). A recent
substantive application can be found in Dietvorst et al. (2009). Descriptions
and comparisons of the many structural equation models for implementing
construct validity and method bias investigations can be found in Bagozzi
(2011a).
Causal Models
Beyond measurement and validity issues, I have studied a number of aspects

of causality as well as the related issues of explanation, prediction, and
understanding from the point of view of structural equation models. An early
statement in this regard appears in my book, Causal Models in Marketing
(Bagozzi, 1980a). Here, I discussed causality and other philosophy of science
issues as well as developed the statistical bases of causal models and
demonstrated the power of structural equation models in testing complex
hypotheses and their role in theory construction, especially in survey research.
The principles considered here have served me well in my empirical work and
set the stage for subsequent methodological contributions. It is safe to say that
my book and later work provided initial impetus for research in the field
across a number of subareas and injected new philosophy of science standards
into theory development and testing of causal hypotheses. My Journal of
Marketing article a few years later, ‘‘A Prospectus for Theory Construction in
Marketing,’’ which won the Maynard Award for best contribution to

marketing theory and thought, added to this impact (Bagozzi, 1984b).
Structural equation models are not limited to measurement and construct
validity problems or to survey research. In three articles – Bagozzi (1977),
Bagozzi and Yi (1989), and Bagozzi, Yi, and Singh (1991) – I and my
colleagues pioneered the use of structural equation models in experimental
research. My Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) article, in this respect,
‘‘Structural Equation Models in Experimental Research,’’ (Bagozzi, 1977),
won the O’Dell Award for the most significant contribution appearing in the
JMR, as judged 5 years later.
Another contribution to causal models can be found in my treatment of
interaction effects. Hans Baumgartner and I treated various issues concerning
interactions within structural equation models (Baumgartner & Bagozzi,
1995), and I also considered issues of interactions in attitude models for
measured variables (Bagozzi, 1984a). In still another contribution, my
colleagues and I developed a way to model interactions for latent variables
and illustrated it in a field study (Bagozzi, Moore, & Leone, 2004).
Evaluation of Research that Uses Structural Equation Models
The use of structural equation models and interpretation of findings based

on this methodology require a lot of effort, nuance, and humility (e.g.,
Bagozzi, 2010a). With colleagues, I have published two articles that focus on
evaluation of research results based on structural equation models. Youjae
Yi and I did a comprehensive article in this regard (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), and
Hans Baumgartner and I did a similar piece that updated the earlier article
and included issues not addressed therein as well (Bagozzi & Baumgartner,
1994). The former article still is frequently cited and indeed is the highest
cited article appearing in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
We are doing an encore version now that will appear in early 2012.
Reflections on the Holistic Construal
The holistic construal tries to transcend theory, method, and research

findings. That is, it attempts to integrate theoretical criteria, methodological
concerns and standards, and empirical observations with an aim to add to
knowledge in a holistic manner not possible by the more piecemeal practices
found in management, social, and behavioral science fields. The approach
gives explicit attention to the tensions occurring between theory and method,
theory and observation or hypothesis testing, and method and observations.
For example, the holistic construal recognizes that how we measure, model, or
test a theoretical phenomenon or hypothesis affects how we think about and
interpret it. And vice versa. The various ideas, procedures, and practices
constituting basic and applied research inform and constrain each other. The
holistic construal endeavors to acknowledge and detect such dialectics and to
provide a language, approach, and criteria to formally represent these
interdependencies within any particular study.
MARKETING AS (SOCIAL) EXCHANGE
I have always felt a responsibility to give consideration to the intellectual

foundations of marketing and marketing thought. Doing so is part of what
any scholar should do in the sense of contributing to the meaning and
interpretation of one’s chosen field I believe. And how could anyone do
otherwise, benefitting from the thought leadership and mentoring of such
scholars, during my doctoral training, as Sidney Levy, Phil Kotler, and
Gerald Zaltman, plus less frequent but important input from other faculty
members in that great department of marketing at Northwestern
University? Students too contributed to this orientation including Reinhard
Angelmar, Christian Pinson, Fuat Firat, and Nikhilesh Dholakia, among
others.
My early work on marketing as exchange was driven by three guiding
questions: (1) why do people and organizations engage in exchange
relationships?; (2) how are exchanges created, resolved, or avoided?; and
(3) how should exchanges be created, resolved, or avoided? (Bagozzi, 1975,
1978a, 1979). By placing emphasis on exchanges and why and how they
emerge, transpire, and function the way they do, I hoped to delineate the
generic phenomena to be explained and regulated in marketing and define a
unique subject matter for the field. I also felt that a need existed to go beyond
economic and quid pro quo notions of exchange to expand the subject matter
to encompass social exchange and intangible aspects of exchange. I also
differentiated utilitarian from symbolic exchanges, considered types of
exchange (restricted, complex, generalized, and mixed exchanges), treated
motives for engaging in exchanges, and gave input to the nature of actors in
exchanges and the media and meaning of exchange, especially for the actors
therein and publics connected to the actors and connected to exchange inputs
and outcomes (see also Bagozzi, 1974a, 1976). Finally, in Bagozzi (1974b), I
think I wrote the first article on marketing relationships.
More recently, I have studied sociality and its relationship to marketing and
marketing thought (Bagozzi, 2000b, 2005, 2010b). Economic conceptions of
exchange and many marketing conceptions see it in rather individualistic
terms. Actors are presumed to be driven by self-interest alone, and
intrapersonal, interpersonal, or interorganizational concepts rule the day.
What I have attempted to do is to study mutuality and shared aspects of
marketing behavior and use these as bases for representing marketing action.
My early work touched on these topics by considering the notions of the
exchange system (Bagozzi, 1974a), social exchange (Bagozzi, 1975), and joint
or shared utility (Bagozzi, 1978, 1979), as well as the social construction of
meaning (Bagozzi, 1976), but these explorations did not go very far. To
ground the theory of marketing exchanges in social content, I drew upon
plural subject theory from philosophy and then revised and deepened it to fit
marketing in my recent work.
The starting point was the idea of a social group, where ‘‘each of a certain
set of persons must correctly view himself and the rest, taken together, as
‘us’ or ‘‘we’’’ (Gilbert, 1989, p. 152). Under this conception of a social
group, members think of themselves as ‘‘us,’’ ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and so on; the
members are jointly ready to act in a group action to accomplish a group
goal, and common knowledge among members exists to this effect. My
theory of sociality in marketing applies to two or more actors within a group
or organization interacting with an individual actor (e.g., consumer) or with
two or more members in another group or organization. It also applies to
any exchange relationship itself construed as a shared endeavor and to
networks of exchanges. I also considered three forms of sociality in
marketing (buyer social action, seller social action, and buyer–seller social
action) and proposed a typology of motives and orientations under buyer–
seller social actions, and benevolent buyer–seller social actions) (Bagozzi,
2000b, 2005, 2010b).
The central part of my theory of sociality in marketing develops the
notions of collective goals, collective commitment, and social action and
transforms the model in Fig. 1 into social action (see Bagozzi, 2000b, 2005,
2010b). The idea of ‘‘we-ness’’ was further developed in the sense that people
in a group or relationship each have we-concepts (e.g., we-goals, we-desires,
and we-intentions), believe that comembers have similar we-concepts, and
further believe that the we-concepts are shared among members. I then
developed both a key informant method and a method where judgments
of group members can be used to represent construct validity. Rene
Algesheimer, Utpal Dholakia, and I have illustrated these principles and

have also shown how they can be used in causal models (Algesheimer,
Bagozzi, & Dholakia, 2011).
Reflections on Marketing as Social Exchange
I have not done much on the intellectual foundations of marketing thought,

and what I have done has been in intermittent fits and starts. This probably
stems from having been in marketing departments where no one seemed to
care about such issues. And with a desire to work with others on shared
projects, I have engaged in mostly empirical and methodological studies
over the years. But I have a long-standing interest in this area and hope to
continue working on ideas related to the foundations of marketing thought
on and off in the future.
SALESFORCE BEHAVIOR
To mention ‘‘salesforce behavior,’’ ‘‘personal selling,’’ or ‘‘salespersons’’ is

enough to put a lot of students and faculty members to sleep. But for me,
these topics have been a fruitful laboratory for studying human behavior in
general and marketing in particular. Indeed, the behavior of salespersons
was my dissertation topic and saw five publications from 1978 to 1980.
Then, 20 years of no work in this area ensued, followed by a return to these
topics 12 years ago and continuing in partnership with Willem Verbeke to
this day.
My dissertation publications in the salesforce area can be found in
Bagozzi (1978b), Aaker and Bagozzi (1979), and Bagozzi (1980b, 1980c,
1980d). Here, I was concerned with answering the questions of why do
salespersons do what they do and what is the relationship between job
satisfaction and performance. I looked into determinants of job outcomes
such as job tension, role ambiguity, motivation, verbal intelligence, and self-
esteem. To address the questions of whether performance influences job
satisfaction or job satisfaction influences performance, I examined one of
the earliest models of reciprocal causation tested in marketing and found
that, at least in the short run, it is performance that affects satisfaction, not
the reverse (Bagozzi, 1980b). Research in the salesforce area before about
1978 tended to follow normative and individual difference paradigms. My
approach in this period was a combination of information processing and
stimulus-organism-response ideas that also looked at personality, situa-

tional, and interpersonal factors. These studies were the first in marketing to
employ structural equation models and to correct for measurement error.
My collaboration with Willem Verbeke has been very productive. Most of
our research looks at emotional processes in personal selling. Our first study
provided a new conceptualization of sales call anxiety consisting of four
components: negative self-evaluations, negative evaluations from customers,
self-awareness of physiological symptoms, and protective actions. We
examined the effects of various anxiety-provoking cues and negative
affectivity on the four components and then investigated the influence of
the four components on communication performance and volume perfor-
mance in each of two situations: canvassing and closing (Verbeke & Bagozzi,
2000). In later research, we studied the role of shame and embarrassment
(Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002), shame (Bagozzi et al., 2003), embarrassment
(Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2003), pride (Verbeke et al., 2004), sales call anxiety
(Belschak, Verbeke, & Bagozzi, 2006), emotional wisdom (Bagozzi, Belschak, &
Verbeke, 2010), and knowledge sharing (Verbeke, Belschak, Bagozzi, &
Wayts, 2011) in salesforces. Our most recent program of research investigates
neuroscience processes in the minds of salespersons where theory of mind
processes are examined and a new scale, the sales theory of mind scale, was
developed and tested (Dietvorst et al., 2009), as well as work studying
empathy, Machiavellianism, and genetic and hormonal processes in personal
selling, which are ongoing at the moment (e.g., Bagozzi & Verbeke, 2011).
MEANS-ENDS CHAINS
Building on the pioneering work of Rik Pieters and colleagues (e.g., Pieters,
Baumgartner, & Allen, 1995), my coauthors and I have used the laddering
methodology in a number of studies. We also have tried to provide
philosophical and behavioral science bases for the laddering procedure and
its use in means-ends chain theory. This has meant relating the methodology
to discursive psychology (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 2000), using network theory
ideas and indexes (e.g., Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994; Bagozzi, Sekerka, & Hill,
2009), explicating how cognitive schemas function in goal settings (e.g.,
Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999; Bagozzi, Bergami, & Leone, 2003), showing how
schemas are disclosed (e.g., Bagozzi, Bergami, & Leone, 2003), and tying the
laddering procedure to ideas in philosophy (Bagozzi & Dabholkar,
2000; Bagozzi, Bergami, & Leone, 2003; Bagozzi, Sekerka, & Hill, 2009).
Means-ends chain theory can be applied to goals (Bagozzi & Dabholkar,

1994; Bagozzi & E. Edwards, 1998; Taylor, Bagozzi, Gaither, & Jamerson,
2006), motives (Bagozzi, Bergami, & Leone, 2003; Bagozzi, Sekerka, & Hill,
2009), and values (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 2000). In addition, hypotheses can
be tested with multiple regression (Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 1994; Bagozzi,
Bergami, & Leone, 2003) or t-tests (e.g., Taylor et al., 2006; Bagozzi, Sekerka, &
Hill, 2009) as well as network indexes.
HEALTH AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

My interests have frequently taken me beyond marketing to study problems
in other fields. In this section of the chapter, I will briefly summarize work in
two such areas: health behavior and organizational behavior.
Health Behavior
Early on, I investigated health issues such as blood donation (Bagozzi, 1981a,
1981ab; 1982, 1986, 1989) and later body weight management, exercising, and
dieting (Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990; Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995; Bagozzi et al.,
1998; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998, 2000; Bagozzi, Moore, & Leone, 2004), and
bone marrow donation (e.g., Bagozzi, Lee, & Van Loo, 2001). The early work
was steeped in attitude theory, the later work more in self-regulation. Some
more recent self-regulation work looks into blood pressure control (e.g.,
Taylor et al., 2001, 2005, 2006).
Two experiments in the health area were recently conducted as well.
Nadkarni, Kucukarslan, Bagozzi, Yates, & Erickson, (2010) performed a
field experiment with real diabetes patients where implementation intentions
were manipulated. Greater adherence to blood glucose monitoring regimes
was held for people who planned where, when, and how to monitor their
blood glucose levels than those who merely formed intentions to monitor.
Tam et al. (2010) studied snacking behavior and showed that healthy
snacking behavior can be increased for those with strong versus weak
unhealthy snacking habits who experience regulatory fit (i.e., correspon-
dence between implementation intentions and regulatory orientation).
Over the years, I have performed many studies in the pharmaceutical and
health areas. For example, we have investigated physician use of different
information sources in drug prescribing (Gaither, Bagozzi, Kirking, & Ascione,
1994; Gaither, Bagozzi, Ascione, & Kirking, 1996; Gaither et al., 1997), how
the elderly process drug information (Christensen, Ascione, & Bagozzi,
1997), the functioning of pharmaceutical and therapeutic committees in
hospitals (Mannenbach et al., 1999; Nair, Ascione, Bagozzi, & Mannebach,
2001; Bagozzi, Ascione, & Mannenbach, 2005), hormone replacement
therapy decisions by patients (Huston, Bagozzi, & Kirking, 2010), and direct
to consumer advertising of prescription drugs (Sumpradit, Ascione, &
Bagozzi, 2004), among other studies.
Organizational Behavior
Some of my research in organizational behavior is methodological. Thus,

my colleagues and I have scrutinized construct validity and theory
construction issues (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982; Bagozzi & Yi, 1990; Bagozzi
et al., 1991; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998). Some of my work looks into social
identity theory (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Bagozzi, Bergami, Marzocchi, &
Morandin, Forthcoming). Other research focused on entrepreneurs
(Morandin, Bagozzi, & Bergami, 2006; Morandin, Bergami, & Bagozzi,
2007). Still other work investigates knowledge sharing (Verbeke et al., 2011)
and ethics (Rhee, Dutton, & Bagozzi, 2006; Sekerka & Bagozzi, 2007;
Serkerka, Bagozzi, & Charnigo, 2009; Bagozzi, Sekerka, & Hill, 2009). And
of course, my studies of salespersons and health behaviors described earlier
also scrutinized organization issues.
CONCLUSION
Time and space constraints made this reflection a more elliptical,

disorganized, and disproportionate treatment than I would have liked to
do under ideal circumstances. Nevertheless, it was gratifying realizing how
my career has unfolded. This was due in no small measure to assistance from
a large number of people: grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, cousins,
friends, spouse, children, teachers and professors, students, colleagues,
deans and group chairs, and faculty support personnel. To each of these
persons, I express my heartfelt thanks, and hope that I have given something
back.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (1979). Unobservable variables in structural equation models
with an application in industrial selling. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 147–158
(lead article).
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Algesheimer, R., Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (2011). A framework for assessing construct
validity and predictive validity in small group research. Unpublished working paper,
University of Michigan.
Aristotle. (2000) Nicomachaen ethics (R. Crisp, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1974a). Marketing as an organized behavioral system of exchange. Journal of
Marketing, 38, 77–81.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1974b). What is a marketing relationship? Der Markt, 51, 64–69.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39, 32–39.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1976). Science, politics, and the social construction of marketing. In:
K. L. Bernhardt (Ed.), Marketing: 1776–1976 and beyond (pp. 586–592). Chicago, IL:
American Marketing Association.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1977). Structural equation models in experimental research. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 209–226.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978a). Marketing as exchange: A theory of transactions in the market place.
American Behavioral Scientist, 21, 535–556.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978b). Sales force performance and job satisfaction as a function of individual
difference, interpersonal, and situational factors. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 517–531.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1979). Toward a formal theory of marketing exchanges. In: O. C. Ferrell,
S. W. Brown & C. W. Lamb, Jr. (Eds), Conceptual and theoretical developments in
marketing (pp. 431–447). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980a). Causal models in marketing. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980b). Performance and satisfaction in an industrial salesforce: An
examination of their antecedents and simultaneity. Journal of Marketing, 44, 65–77.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980c). The nature and causes of self-esteem, performance, and satisfaction in
the sales force: A structural equation approach. Journal of Business, 53, 315–331.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1980d). Salespeople and their managers: An exploratory study of some
similarities and differences. Sloan Management Review, 21, 15–26.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981a). An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 16, 323–359.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981b). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 607–627.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1982). A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect,
intentions, and behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 562–584.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984a). Expectancy-value attitude models: An analysis of critical measurement
issues. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1, 295–310.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1984b). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 48, 11–29.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1986). Attitude formation under the theory of reasoned action and a purposeful
behavior reformulation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 95–107.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1989). An investigation of the role of affective and moral evaluations in the
purposeful behavior model of attitude. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 97–113.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1991). Further thoughts on the validity of measures of elation, gladness, and joy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 98–104.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55, 178–204.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1993a). Assessing construct validity in personality research: Applications to
measures of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49–87.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1993b). An examination of the psychometric properties of measures of negative
affect in the PANAS-X scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 836–851.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1994). The effects of arousal on the organization of positive and negative affect
and cognitions: Application to attitude theory. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 222–252.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1996). The role of arousal in the creation and control of the halo effect in
attitude models. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 235–264.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2000a). The poverty of economic explanations of consumption and an action
theory alternative. Managerial and Decision Economics, 21, 95–109.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2000b). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 388–396.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). Socializing marketing. Marketing – Journal of Research and Management,
1, 101–111.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2006a). Consumer action: Automaticity, purposiveness, and self-regulation. In:
N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (Vol. 2, pp. 3–42). Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2006b). Explaining consumer behavior and consumer action: From frag-
mentation to unity. Seoul Journal of Business, 12(2), 111–143.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007a). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a
paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2007b). On the meaning of formative measurement and how it differs from
reflective measurement. Psychological Methods, 12, 229–237.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2010a). Structural equation models are modeling tools with many ambiguities:
Comments acknowledging the need for caution and humility in their use. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 208–214.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2010b). Consumer agency and action. In: P. Maclaran, M. Saren, B. Stern &
M. Tadajewski (Eds), The SAGE handbook of marketing theory (pp. 316–331). London:
Sage.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2011a). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational
research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35, 261–292.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2011b). Alternative perspecitives in philosophy of mind and their relationship to
structural equation models in Psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 22(2), 88–99.
Bagozzi, R. P., Ascione, F. J., & Mannenbach, M. A. (2005). Inter-role relationships in
hospital-based pharmacy and therapeutics committee decision making. Journal of Health
Psychology, 10, 45–64.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Baumgartner, H. (1994). The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis testing. In: R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Basic principles of marketing research.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-directed emotions. Cognition and
Emotion, 12(1), 1–26.
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as
mediators of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10,
35–62.
Bagozzi, R. P., Belschak, F. D., & Verbeke, W. (2010). The role of emotional wisdom in
salesperson’s relationships with colleagues and customers. Psychology & Marketing, 27,
1001–1031.
Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., & Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical representation of motives in goal-
setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 915–943.
Bagozzi, R. P., Bergami, M., Marzocchi, G. L., & Morandin, G. (Forthcoming). Customer–
organizational relationships: Development and test of a theory of extended identities.
Journal of Applied Psychology.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect on
decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 11, 313–340.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (2000). Discursive psychology: An alternative conceptual
foundation to means-end chain theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 535–586 (lead
article).
Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and test of a theory of
technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45, 659–686.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (1999). Goal-setting and goal-striving in consumer behavior.
Journal of Marketing, 63, 19–32.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006a). Antecedents and purchase consequences of
customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23, 45–61.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006b). Open source software user communities: A study of
participation in Linux user groups. Management Science, 52(7), 1099–1115.
Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Basuroy, S. (2003). How effortful decisions get enacted: The
motivating role of decision processes, desires, and anticipated emotions. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 273–295.
Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Klein Pearo, L. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
online social interactions. Media Psychology, 9, 77–114.
Bagozzi, R. P., Dholakia, U. M., & Mookerjee, A. (2006). Individual and group bases of social
influence in online environments. Media Psychology, 8, 95–126.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (1998a). Goal setting and goal pursuit in the regulation of
body weight. Psychology and Health, 13, 593–621.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (2000a). Goal-striving and the implementation of goal
intentions in the regulation of body weight. Psychology and Health, 15, 255–270.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998b). A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45–87.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J. R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer
behaviour. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach for representing multifaceted
personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1,
35–67.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories for the prediction of
goal-directed behaviours. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 437–461.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance,
internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 236–247.
Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K. -H., & Van Loo, M. F. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: The
role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology and Health, 16, 29–56.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Moore, D. J. (1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy
guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A
holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459–489.
Bagozzi, R. P., Sekerka, L. E., & Hill, V. (2009). Hierarchical motive structures and their role in
moral choices. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 461–486.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Verbeke, W. (2011). Exploring the minds of managers: Insights form three
neuroscience studies. In: K. C. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds), Handbook of positive
organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(2), 127–140.
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., Abe, S., & Bergami, M. (2000). Cultural and situational
contingencies and the theory of reasoned action: Application to fast food restaurant
consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9, 97–106.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental
designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 271–284.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1990). Assessing method variance in multitrait–multimethod matrices:
The case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75, 547–560.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait–multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 17, 426–439.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1992). Testing hypotheses about methods, traits, and communalities in
the direct product model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 373–380.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1993). Multitrait–multimethod matrices in consumer research:
Critique and new developments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 143–170.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Baumgartner, J. (1990). The level of effort required for behavior as a
moderator of the attitude–behavior relation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 45–59.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Nassen, K. D. (1999). Representation of measurement error in
marketing variables: Review of approaches and extension to three facet designs. Journal
of Econometrics, 89, 393–421.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Singh, S. (1991). On the use of structural equation models in experimental
designs: Two extensions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 125–140.
Baumgartner, H., & Bagozzi, R. P. (1995). Specification, estimation, and testing of moment
structure models based on latent variables involving interactions among the exogenous
constructs. Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 187–213.
Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2008). Future-oriented emotions:
Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38,
685–696.
Belschak, F., Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Coping with sales call anxiety: The role of
sale perseverance and task concentration strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 34, 403–418.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization and commitment as distinct aspects of
social identity in the organization: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to
antecedents and consequences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
Blackburn, S. (1994). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Cheung, C. M. K., & Lee, M. K. O. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in
online social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49, 24–30.
Christensen, T. P., Ascione, F. J., & Bagozzi, R. P. (1997). Understanding how elderly patients
process drug information: A test of a theory of information processing. Pharmaceutical
Research, 14, 1589–1596.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 33, 982–1003.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111–1132.
Dholakia, U. M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2003). As time goes by: How goal and implementation
intentions influence enactment of short-fuse behaviors. Journal of Applied Social
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Gopinath, M. (2007). How formulating implementation
plans and remembering past actions facilitate the enactment of effortful decisions.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 343–364.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2004). A social influence model of consumer
participation in network and small-group-based virtual communities. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 241–263.
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. K. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
online social interactions. Media Psychology, 9, 77–114.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). The role of desires in sequential
impulsive choices. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 179–194.
Dholakia, U. M., Gopinath, M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Nataraajan, R. (2006). The role of
regulatory focus in the experience and self-control of desire for temptations. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 16, 163–175.
Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & vander Lugt, A.
(2009). A sales force specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classic method
and functional MRI. Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 653–668.
Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In:
H. Howe & M. Page (Eds), Nebraska Symposium on motivation, 1979. Lincoln, NE: The
University of Nebraska Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gaither, C. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Kirking, D. M., & Ascione, F. J. (1994). Factors related to physicians’
attitudes and beliefs toward drug information sources. Drug Information Journal, 28, 817–827.
Gaither, C. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Ascione, F. J., & Kirking, D. M. (1996). A reasoned action approach to
physicians’ utilization of drug information sources. Pharmaceutical Research, 13, 1291–1298.
Gaither, C. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Ascione, F. J., & Kirking, D. M. (1997). The determinants
of physician attitudes and subjective norms toward drug information sources:
Modification and test of the theory of reasoned action. Pharmaceutical Research, 14,
1298–1308.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Goldman, A. I. (1970). A theory of human action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brandstatter, V. (1997). Implementation intentions and effective goal
pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186–199.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2005). First- and higher-order models of attitudes,
normative influence, and perceived behavioural control in the Theory of Planned
Behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 513–535.
Huston, S. A., Bagozzi, R. P., & Kirking, D. M. (2010). Decision-making about the use of
hormone therapy among perimenopausal Women. British Journal of Health Psychology,
16, 231–251.
Leone, L., Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2005). Emotions and decision making: Regulatory
focus moderates the influence of anticipated emotions on action evaluations. Psychology
Press, 19, 1175–1198.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science (pp. 95–96). New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Mannenbach, M. A., Ascione, F. J., Gaither, C. A., Bagozzi, R. P., Cohen, I., & Ryan, M.
L. (1999). Activities, functions, and structure of pharmacy and therapeutics
committees in large teaching hospitals. American Journal of Health Systems Pharmacy,
56, 623–627.
Morandin, G., Bagozzi, R. P., & Bergami, M. (2006). The hierarchical cognitive structure of
entrepreneurs motivation toward private equity financing. Venture Capital: An
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 8, 253–271.
Morandin, G., Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The motivation of entrepreneurs toward
private equity financing: A laddering approach. In: B. Clarysse, J. Roure & T. Schamp (Eds),
Entrepreneurship and the financial community: Starting up and growing new adventures: The
role of the financial community (pp. 77–90). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Nadkarni, A., Kucukarslan, S. N., Bagozzi, R. P., Yates, J. F., & Erickson, S. R. (2010). A
simple and promising tool to improve self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with
diabetes. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 3(1), 83–88.
Nair, K. V., Ascione, F. J., Bagozzi, R. P., & Mannebach, M. A. (2001). An organizational tool
to describe and evaluate group performance within the health care setting. Journal of the
American Pharmaceutical Association, 41, 608–617.
Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A
moderating influence attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 324–340.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-
directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behaviour. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 79–98.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004a). The distinction between desires and intentions.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 69–84.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004b). An alternative view of pre-volitional processes in
decision making: Conceptual issues and empirical evidence. In: G. Haddock &
G. R. Maio (Eds), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 169–
201). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chain approach to consumer
goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 227–244.
Rhee, S.-Y., Dutton, J. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Making sense of organizational actions with
virtue frames and its links to organizational attachment. The Journal of Management,
Spirituality & Religion, 3, 34–59.
Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 53, 367–372.
Sekerka, L. E., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). Moral courage in the workplace: Moving to and from
the desire and decision to act. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16, 132–149.
Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical challenges in the
workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring professional moral courage. Journal of
Business Ethics, 89, 565–579.
Shen, A. X. L., Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Chen, H. (2011). How social influence
affects we-intention to use instant messaging: The moderating effect of usage experience.
Information Systems Frontiers, 13(2), 157–169.
Shen, A. X. L., Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, H. (2010). Gender differences in
intentional social action: We-intention to engage in social network-facilitated team
collaboration. Journal of Information Technology, 25, 152–169.
Shimp, T. A., & Kavas, A. (1984). The theory of reasoned action applied to coupon usage.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 795–809.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflection and impulse as determinants of ‘‘conscious’’ and
‘‘unconscious’’ motivation. In: J. P. Forgas, K. Williams & S. Laham (Eds), Social motivation:
Conscious and unconscious processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sumpradit, N., Ascione, F. J., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). A cross-media content analysis of
motivational themes in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Clinical
Therapeutics, 26, 135–154.
Tam, L., Bagozzi, R. P., & Spanjol, J. (2010). When planning is not enough: The self-regulatory
effect of implementation intentions on changing snacking habits. Health Psychology, 29,
284–292.
Taylor, S. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Gaither, C. A. (2001). Gender differences in the self-regulation
of hypertension. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24, 469–487.
Taylor, S. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Gaither, C. A. (2005). Decision making and effort in the self-
regulation of hypertension: Testing two competing theories. British Journal of Health
Taylor, S. D., Bagozzi, R. P., Gaither, C. A., & Jamerson, K. A. (2006). The bases of goal
setting in the self-regulation of hypertension. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 141–162.
United Artists. (1935). Les Miserables, movie.
Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Sales call anxiety: Exploring what it means when fear
rules a sales encounter. Journal of Marketing, 64, 88–101.
Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). A situational analysis on how salespeople experience and
cope with shame and embarrassment. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 713–741(lead article).
Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2003). Exploring the role of self- and customer-provoked
embarrassment in personal selling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 233–258.
Verbeke, W., Belschak, F., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The adaptive consequences of pride in
personal selling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 386–402.
Verbeke, W., Belschak, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Wayts, S. (2011). Gaining access to intra-
firm knowledge: An internal market perspective on knowledge sharing. Human
Performance (in press).
Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation of the structure of expectancy-value attitude and its
implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6(2), 71–83.
LEGENDS IN MARKETING: A
REVIEW OF SHELBY D. HUNT’S
VOLUMES
Shelby D. Hunt and Shannon B. Rinaldo
ABSTRACT
The Legends in Marketing series presents compilations of the seminal

works of marketing scholars who have made significant contributions
to the discipline of marketing. This review discusses the structure
and contents of the volumes that comprise Legends in Marketing:
Shelby D. Hunt (Sage, forthcoming).
INTRODUCTION
The Legends in Marketing series presents compilations of the seminal works

of marketing scholars who have made significant contributions to the
discipline of marketing. Each Legend’s works are organized thematically
into volumes. Then, commentaries on the works are provided by
distinguished scholars, and the academic editor of each volume provides
an introduction to the compiled works and conducts an interview of each
Legend, which is then included in the volume. The purpose of this review is
to discuss the structure and contents of the volumes that comprise Legends

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008006
43
44 SHELBY D. HUNT AND SHANNON B. RINALDO
in Marketing: Shelby D. Hunt (Sage, forthcoming). Our procedure will be to

first discuss the thematic structure of the volumes and then provide
summaries of each article in each of the volumes.
STRUCTURE
As shown in Table 1, Hunt’s works are organized into 10 volumes. The
number of articles in each volume ranges from 10 to 16. The first three
volumes organize works on theory into: (1) Marketing Theory: The Nature
and Scope of Marketing, (2) Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science
Table 1. Legends in Marketing: Shelby D. Hunt, Overall

Table of Contents.
Volume Volume Name Number of Editor
Number Articles
1 Marketing Theory: The Nature 14 Paul Busch, Texas A&M

and Scope of Marketing University
2 Marketing Theory: Philosophy of 16 Jagdip Singh, Case Western
Science Foundations of University
Marketing
3 Marketing Theory: Philosophy of 16 Roy D. Howell, Texas Tech
Science Controversies in University
Marketing
4 Channels of Distribution 11 James R. Brown, West Virginia
University
5 Macromarketing, Ethics, and 12 Scott Vitell, University of
Social Responsibility: The Mississippi
Development Period
6 Macromarketing, Ethics, and 13 John R. Sparks, University of
Social Responsibility: The Dayton
Research Tradition Period
7 Marketing Management and 15 Rajan Varadarajan, Texas A&M
Strategy University
8 Relationship Marketing 10 Robert M. Morgan, University of
Alabama
9 Resource-Advantage Theory: The 12 O. C. Ferrell, University of New
Development Period Mexico
10 Resource-Advantage Theory: The 12 Dennis B. Arnett, Texas Tech
Research Tradition Period University
Legends in Marketing 45
Foundations of Marketing, and (3) Marketing Theory: Philosophy of

Science Controversies in Marketing. The editors are Paul Busch, Jagdip
Singh, and Roy Howell, respectively. Readers will note that the title of
Volume 1 comes from the article, ‘‘The Nature and Scope of Marketing’’
(Hunt, 1976b). The titles of Volumes 2 and 3 come from the subtitle of
Hunt’s latest marketing theory book, that is, Marketing Theory: Founda-
tions, Controversy, Strategy, Resource-Advantage Theory (Hunt, 2010).
Volume 4, Channels of Distribution, contains 11 articles and is edited by
Jim Brown. Many of the articles in this volume focus on channels of
distribution issues in the franchise system of distribution. Volumes 5 and 6
are both on Macromarketing, Ethics, and Social Responsibility, with
Volume 5 containing early articles (1976–1988) and Volume 6 containing
later articles (1989–2007). These volumes are edited by Scott Vitell and John
R. Sparks, respectively. Volume 5 contains ‘‘A General Theory of
Marketing Ethics’’ (Hunt & Vitell, 1986), which is a widely cited work on
ethics. Volume 6 contains the revised version of the theory (Hunt & Vitell,
2006).
Volume 7, Marketing Management and Strategy, is edited by Rajan
Varadarajan. It begins with Hunt’s first article, which focused on the
managerial implications of cognitive dissonance theory (Hunt, 1970). It ends
with an article that merges the service-dominant logic with resource–
advantage (R-A) theory (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008). Volume 8, Relation-
ship Marketing, is edited by Robert M. Morgan. It begins with the
‘‘commitment-trust’’ article (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), which is one of the
most widely cited articles in social science. It ends with two articles on
the explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory (Hunt,
Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006a, 2006b).
Volumes 9 and 10 are both on R-A theory, with Volume 9 containing
early articles (1995–2000) and 10 containing later articles (1989–2007).
These volumes are edited by O. C. Ferrell and Dennis Arnett,
respectively. Volume 9 contains ‘‘The Comparative Advantage Theory
of Competition’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 1995), which started the entire R-A
theory research stream. It ends with an article that merges resource-based
theory, evolutionary theory, and neoclassical theory with R-A theory
(Hunt, 2000b). Volume 10 begins with an article that discusses several
major issues concerning R-A theory (Hunt, 2001a). It ends with an article
that focuses on competitive advantage strategies in times of adversity
(Hunt, 2009).
The preceding provides an introduction to the structure of Hunt’s
volumes. We now provide a brief review of the contents of each.
VOLUME 1
The first article in Volume 1 is ‘‘The Nature and Scope of Marketing’’

(Hunt, 1976b). It won the Harold H. Maynard Award for the best
marketing theory article in the Journal of Marketing in 1976. Since then, it
has been cited over 300 times, reprinted in more than 10 readings books, and
noted as one of the most frequently assigned articles in marketing theory
courses (Bauerly & Johnson, 2005). It develops what has come to be called
the ‘‘three dichotomies model’’ of the scope of marketing, based on the
micro/macro, positive/normative, and profit sector/nonprofit sector
dichotomies. Using this model to help resolve the ‘‘nature of marketing’’
and ‘‘is marketing a science’’ controversies, it concludes that ‘‘the positive
dimensions of marketing can be appropriately referred to as marketing
science’’ (Hunt, 1976b, p. 28).
The second article is ‘‘A General Paradigm of Marketing: In Support of
the Three Dichotomies Model’’ (Hunt, 1978a). It notes that the 3-D model
has generated significant controversy, and it responded to critiques that
maintained that marketing cannot be a science, that the positive/normative
dichotomy is unnecessary, and that the model assumes that all positive
studies in marketing must be devoid of purpose or direct application. The
article concludes that the ‘‘ultimate usefulness of the ‘three dichotomies
model’ is an empirical questiony[and the] results appear promising’’ (Hunt,
1978a, p. 109–110).
The third article is ‘‘Consumer-Interest Study in Higher Education: A
Conceptual Analysis of an Emerging Discipline’’ (Kroll & Hunt, 1980). The
article began as Robert Kroll’s paper for the doctoral seminar on marketing
theory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It evaluates the emerging
area of consumer-interest study and contrasts it with the disciplines to which
it is most closely related: economics, home economics, and marketing. The
article concludes that ‘‘consumer-interest study has a distinct content focus
and distinct dimensional properties which qualify it for separate disciplinary
status’’ (Kroll & Hunt, 1980, p. 267).
The fourth article is ‘‘Marketing Education and Marketing Success: Are
They Related?’’ (Hunt, Chonko, & Wood, 1986). Using a sample of over
1,000 marketing practitioners, the study investigates two questions: (1) Does
an undergraduate education in marketing contribute to long-term career
success in marketing? (2) Does an MBA education contribute to long-term
career success in marketing? The study uses eleven different measures of
success and finds ‘‘no relationship between success and marketing
education and only a very weak relationship between success and an MBA’’
(Hunt et al., 1986, p. 10). These results were surprising and disappointing to
the authors.
The fifth article is ‘‘Marketing Research: Proximate Purpose and Ultimate
Value’’ (Hunt, 1987a), which explores the inclusivity of the AMA Board-
approved definition of ‘‘marketing research.’’ Six prototypical marketing
research questions are constructed and categorized according to the ‘‘Three
Dichotomies Model’’ (Hunt, 1976b). Then each research topic identified for
(1) who the primary researcher would be for such a project (practitioners
versus academicians), (2) whether the project would be publishable versus
not publishable, (3) the purpose or objectives served by such a project,
(4) the ultimate potential value versus consequences of such a project, and
(5) consistency with the recent AMA definition of marketing research.
Finding that the definition was not inclusive of academic research questions,
the article recommends changing the definition so that it is limited to
marketing research within the firm.
The sixth article is ‘‘The AMA Task Force on the Development of
Marketing Thought: A Comment’’ (Hunt, 1988), which is part of a series in
which members of the AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing
Thought comment on results of the Task Force’s study of how to develop,
disseminate, and utilize marketing knowledge. The article disagrees with
some of the task force’s assertions, while agreeing with other aspects. It
concludes that elements of the report would be disastrous for the field, while
other elements may be beneficial.
The seventh article is ‘‘The Rise and Fall of the Functional Approach to
Marketing: A Paradigm Displacement Perspective’’ (Hunt & Goolsby,
1988), which discusses the decline of the functional approach to the study of
marketing, a concept once described as the most significant contribution to
marketing science. Using the metaphor of the life cycle, the article
demonstrates the concept’s rise and fall, concluding that the functional
approach to marketing has lost its luster both in the classroom and as a
research paradigm.
The eighth article, ‘‘The Three Dichotomies Model of Marketing
Revisited: Is the Total Content of Marketing Thought Normative?’’ (Hunt,
1991b), is a reply to critics who maintained not only that the positive/
normative dichotomy is unnecessary and confusing, but that all of
marketing thought is normative .y While some arguments put forth are
shown to have merit, others are not credible. The article concludes that
nothing in science is beyond continued critical examination.
The ninth article is ‘‘Marketing Isy’’ (Hunt, 1992b) addresses the
question ‘‘What is marketing?’’ This article has been noted as one of the 13
most frequently assigned in marketing theory doctoral seminars (Bauerly &

Johnson, 2005). It systematically evaluates the domain of marketing and
concludes that ‘‘marketing is a university discipline that aspires to be a
professional discipline’’ (p. 310) that has responsibilities to society, students,
marketing practice, and the academy. What marketing will become is up to
those who warehouse, retail, and manufacture marketing knowledge.
The tenth article is ‘‘On Rethinking Marketing: Our Discipline, Our
Practice, Our Methods’’ (Hunt, 1994b), which has been cited over 100 times,
proposes an agenda for rethinking the discipline of marketing. With respect
to rethinking marketing practice, the article suggests that more research in
the areas of relationship building, commitment, and trust may bridge the
gap between the discipline and its stakeholders. As to research methods, it
suggests that the current structure of qualitative methods lends itself to
criticism from mainstream marketers because it seemingly embraces
relativism. The article calls for an adoption of critical pluralism and
scientific realism in an effort to build trust within the discipline.
The eleventh article is ‘‘Marketing as a Profession: On Closing
Stakeholder Gaps’’ (Hunt, 2002b). It revisits the debate concerning the gap
between marketing academe and marketing practice. The article suggests
that this debate has been lacking and would be more informed if
participants identifying stakeholders of academe use a professional
discipline view. For example, the marketing research–policy maker gap
may be reduced by the application of R-A theory, and the marketing
research–student gap suffers from marketing courses that ‘‘dumb down’’
material. The article concludes by calling on researchers to acknowledge
duties and responsibilities to stakeholders other than practitioners.
The twelfth article is ‘‘On the Service-Centered Dominant Logic for
Marketing,’’ (Hunt, 2004), which comments on Vargo and Lusch (2004).
The article amplifies and extends Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) view that
marketing is moving from a goods-centered to a service-centered
perspective, where value is co-created in a relationship between consumers
and providers. The article discusses the use of R-A theory in the service-
dominant approach. The article concludes that Vargo and Lusch’s (2004)
arguments are ‘‘historically informed, finely crafted, properly interdisci-
plinary, and logically sound’’ (p. 22).
The thirteenth article is entitled ‘‘On Reforming Marketing: For
Marketing Systems and Brand Equity Strategy’’ (Hunt, 2006), this article
builds on the work of others who have called for reform in marketing. The
article ‘‘argues for the study of dynamic marketing systems and for the use
of brand equity strategies in such systems’’ (p. 70). It examines the
antibranding arguments of antiglobalization activists, marketing academics,

and equilibrium economists and laments the absence of articles defending
brand strategy. Using R-A theory, the chapter explores the benefits to
marketing systems and society when firms implement brand equity
strategies.
The fourteenth article, ‘‘A Responsibilities Framework for Marketing as a
Professional Discipline’’ (Hunt, 2007a), develops a responsibilities frame-
work for exploring how marketing should be defined if it is viewed as a
profession. In discussing the marketing discipline’s responsibilities to the
academy, society, students, and practice, the article determines that AMA’s
2007 definition of marketing includes all entities to which marketing should
be responsible, whereas the 2004 definition was deficient.
VOLUME 2
The first article in Volume 2 is ‘‘The Morphology of Theory and the General
Theory of Marketing’’ (Hunt, 1971), which was reprinted in The Great
Writings of Marketing (Hunt, 1981b). The article first defines a classification
theory that encompasses most structures claiming to be theories and then
evaluates Bartels’ (1968) ‘‘general theory of marketing’’ with respect to the
defined structures. It finds that Bartels’ seven-component subtheories are
not theories, but classificational schemata, definitions, and exhortations.
These structures may be valuable in stimulating thought and discussion
within marketing. However, they fall short of being a general theory of
marketing.
The second article is ‘‘A Crucial Test for the Howard-Sheth Model of
Buyer Behavior’’ (Hunt & Pappas, 1972). It examines the Howard–Sheth
Model of Buyer Behavior (Howard & Sheth, 1969), explores the types of
hypotheses the model generates, evaluates published work that tests the
model, suggests an alternative model, and develops a crucial test for the
Howard–Sheth theory. The authors determine that the work published thus
far claiming to test the Howard–Sheth model falls short in that it does not
test for particular developmental linkages within the model.
The third article, ‘‘Lawlike Generalizations and Marketing Theory’’
(Hunt, 1973b), is a reply to Pinson, Anglemar, and Roberto (1972), who
appear to have misinterpreted a previous discussion of the basic nature of
theoretical structures. After further explaining and defining these structures,
the article provides additional arguments that Bartels’ ‘‘general theory of
marketing’’ is neither a theory nor a general theory of marketing.
The fourth article, ‘‘Is Management a Science?’’ (Gribbins & Hunt, 1978)
from Academy of Management Review, was reprinted in Samaras (1989).
This article examines whether management is a science, an art, or something
in between. It evaluates management on three dimensions: the existence of a
distinct subject matter, presumption of underlying regularities, and
application of the scientific method. Management is found, under the
dynamic view of science, to be appropriately labeled as science.
The fifth article, ‘‘Positive vs. Normative Theory in Marketing’’ (Hunt,
1979), argues that the entire scope of marketing can be categorized and
analyzed within three dichotomies: micro/macro, profit sector/nonprofit
sector, and positive/normative. The paper reviews and analyzes the
controversies surrounding the positive/normative dichotomy and returning
to the ‘‘three dichotomies model, finds it to be analytically useful,
pedagogically sound and conceptually robust’’ (p. 575).
The sixth article, ‘‘Deterministic Theory and Marketing’’ (Nakamoto &
Hunt, 1980), explores the nature of scientific explanations to analyze the
controversy between stochastic and deterministic models for theory
development. It finds a unity of goals in theory development for both
approaches and concludes, ‘‘deterministic theory in marketing is both
possible and desirable’’ (p. 247).
The seventh article, ‘‘The Morphology of Theory: A Retrospection’’
(Hunt, 1981b), is a follow-up comment on ‘‘The Morphology of Theory and
the General Theory of Marketing’’ (Hunt, 1971). It reviews the debate that
ensued after the publication of the original article on the morphology of
theory and agrees with El-Ansary’s (1979) conclusion that Bartels’ general
theory cannot be a theory because it simply consists of a broad statement of
the state of marketing. It argues for moving toward a philosophy of science
perspective on marketing theory.
The eighth article, ‘‘Alderson’s General Theory of Marketing: A
Formalization’’ (Hunt, Muncy, & Ray, 1981), has been reprinted in
Marketing Theory: Classic and Contemporary Dimensions (Sheth & Garrett,
1986) and A Twenty-First Century Guide to Aldersonian Marketing Thought
(Wooliscroft, Tamilia, & Shapiro, 2006). The article formalizes Alderson’s
general theory of marketing, so that it more meaningfully analyzed. The
article makes Alderson’s work to be comprehensible to many marketers who
have found Alderson to be a difficult read.
The ninth article, ‘‘Bartels’ Metatheory of Marketing: A Retrospective’’
(Hunt & Hunt, 1982), reviews the work of Bartels by examining the seven
axioms comprising Bartels’ metatheory of marketing (Bartels, 1970), which
are: (1) identification (a theory is consistent with the subject matter on which
it is built); (2) basic concepts (a theory is built on basic concepts);

(3) intraconcept differences (a theory contains subconcepts that constitute
refinement of categories of thought); (4) interconcept relationships (a theory
contains dependent and independent concepts that serve as the bases for
explanation and prediction); (5) generality of relationships (a theory is
valid when presumed relationships between concepts are generalizable);
(6) diversity of theories (a theory is normally characterized as individual and
diverse); (7) theory and epitheory (all theories within a discipline should be
embraceable and unifiable by a general theory). The article concludes that
Bartels’ metatheory is ‘‘a significant step in pushing all marketing
academicians toward more rigorous theory development’’ (p. 57).
The tenth article, ‘‘Are the Logical Empiricist Models of Explanation
Dead?’’ (Hunt, 1982), analyzes the reviews and evaluates attacks on the
logical empiricist models of explanation. After a discussion of views put
forth by critics of the Deductive-Nomological Model of Explanation, the
article concludes that it needs modification to require the inclusion of causal
mechanisms. After considering of views put forth by critics of the Inductive-
Statistical Model of Explanation, this model is also shown to be useful.
While both models may be improved, the logical empiricist models are
found to be the most viable models available for explaining phenomena.
The eleventh article, ‘‘The Pretest in Survey Research: Issues and Preliminary
Findings’’ (Hunt, Sparkman, & Wilcox, 1982), has been cited over 150 times. It
develops and pretests a questionnaire with known errors using a variety of
methods for questionnaire administration. Although the test conducted serves
only as a first step in understanding the utility of pretesting, the article finds that
(1) asking respondents to verbalize problems does not reveal all faulty questions
and (2) telephone protocols outperform personal interviews.
The twelfth article, ‘‘General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda
of Marketing’’ (Hunt, 1983), has been cited over 240 times. It received the
Harold H. Maynard Award for best theory article published in 1983 in the
Journal of Marketing, was recognized in Marketing Megaworks: The Top 150
Books and Articles (Alder & Johnson, 1987), has been noted as one of the 13
articles most frequently assigned for marketing theory doctoral seminars, and
has been reprinted in two publications, Marketing Theory: Distinguished
Contributions (Brown & Fisk, 1984) and Marketing Theory: Classic and
Contemporary Dimensions (Sheth & Garrett, 1986). It examines the nature of
theory in marketing, explores the characteristics of general theories in the
philosophy of science, proposes what a general theory of marketing would
explain and predict, sets a structure of general theories of marketing, and
evaluates the current status of a general theory of marketing.
The thirteenth article, ‘‘Philosophical and Methodological Foundations

of Consumer Research’’ (Hunt & Arnett, 1999), takes a historical
perspective in explaining positivism versus relativism in consumer research.
Determining that both positivism and relativism are not well suited for
consumer research, it introduces scientific realism as an alternative
philosophical foundation.
The fourteenth article, ‘‘The Influence of Philosophy, Philosophies, and
Philosophers on a Marketer’s Scholarship’’ (Hunt, 2001b), reviews how the
discipline of philosophy, specific philosophies, and specific philosophers
have influenced Hunt’s extensive body of work in the area of philosophy of
science. The article gives a history and timeline of events and publications
that focused on his development of theory in marketing.
The fifteenth article, ‘‘On the Foundations of Foundations of Marketing
Theory: A Reply to Fisk’’ (Hunt, 2003), replies to Fisk’s review of
Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing.
Fisk’s critique of Foundations and of R-A Theory maintains that they (1) are
too restrictive, (2) discount postmodernism, and (3) largely ignore
cooperation in favor of competition. Hunt (2003) concedes that Foundations
does restrict marketing science to ‘‘what is,’’ rather than ‘‘what ought to
be,’’ but this does not restrict the ability to address issues of taste and
preference and how these changes affect society. Although the focus of R-A
Theory is competition, the theory incorporates cooperation and trust and
shows how both can contribute or detract from profitability in a
competitive, market based economy.
The sixteenth article, ‘‘The Philosophical Foundations of Marketing
Research: For Scientific Realism and Truth’’ (Hunt & Hansen, 2009),
reviews the philosophy of scientific realism and explains why philosophers
of science rejected relativism in the 1970s. Using historical methodology, it
concludes that scientific realism seems to make the most sense for marketing
because it can account for the success of science while being (1) coherent
without being dogmatic, (2) critical without being nihilistic, (3) open
without being anarchistic, (4) tolerant without being relativistic, and
(5) fallible without being subjectivistic.
VOLUME 3
The first article in Volume 3, ‘‘Should Marketing Adopt Relativism?’’
(Hunt, 1984), examines the differences between science and nonscience and
whether marketing science should be marketed. It then examines the
knowledge claims of science versus nonscience to determine whether

relativists have yet to argue persuasively their position that nonscience
knowledge claims are as well justified as those of science. The article agrees
that marketing science should be marketed to society and that marketing
science should focus on theory-driven knowledge. Finally, the article
concludes that adopting relativism would be ‘‘Orwellian irony incarnate’’
(p. 34).
The second article, ‘‘Does Logical Empiricism Imprison Marketing?’’
(Hunt & Speck, 1985), analyzes arguments put forth by Arndt (1985) that
many serious problems in marketing can be traced to logical empiricism.
First, Arndt’s arguments that logical empiricism imprisons marketing are
outlined, followed by a discussion of logical empiricism. The article finds
that Arndt’s arguments do not stand up under rigorous examination.
The third article, ‘‘The Logical Positivists: Beliefs, Consequences and
Status’’ (Hunt, 1987b), clarifies logical empiricism and logical positivism by
explaining the history, beliefs, and consequences of both. The originators of
logical positivism shared four tenets: (1) empiricism (experience and
observation are fundamental sources of knowledge), (2) the analytic/
synthetic dichotomy (truth content of statements are ascertained in different
ways), (3) the purpose of philosophy (as an activity analyzing science as
opposed to a method of explaining phenomena), and (4) the verifiability
principle (propositions that cannot be verified are deemed meaningless).
Logical positivism set the research agenda for philosophy of science and was
the predecessor of logical empiricism.
The fourth article, ‘‘Naturalistic, Humanistic and Interpretive Inquiry:
Challenges and Ultimate Potential’’ (Hunt, 1989a), developed insights into
which paths researchers may follow in order for naturalistic, humanistic,
and interpretive (‘‘NHI’’) research to maximally benefit the marketing
literature. The article urges advocates of NHI research to avoid
mischaracterizations and caricaturizations of colleagues’ opposing views.
Second, it urges NHI advocates to demonstrate the value of their product by
showing their methodology to be knowledge creating, by appropriately
positioning papers for research journals, and by ensuring that their
contributions to the field are significant. Third, it suggests advocating
tolerant pluralism not relativism.
The fifth article, ‘‘Reification and Realism in Marketing: In Defense of
Reason’’ (Hunt, 1989b), won the 1991 Charles C. Slater Award from the
Journal of Macromarketing. It reviews the works of Monieson (1988) and
Dholakia (1988) that criticize positivism and positivistic social science. It
points out that these critics of ‘‘positivism’’ are incoherent in that they deny
that there are lawlike generalizations in marketing, while arguing this point
using lawlike generalizations. The critics falsely (1) equate rigor with
quantitative research, (2) equate reification (‘‘treat as real’’) with ‘‘treat as a
commodity.’’ Lastly, the critics misrepresent the author’s previous work by
stating that it denies realism, which it (of course) does not.
The sixth article, ‘‘Truth in Marketing Theory and Research’’ (Hunt,
1990b), has been noted as one of the 13 articles most frequently assigned in
marketing theory doctoral seminars and has been reprinted in Marketing:
Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (Baker, 2001). This paper
addresses the positions of those who advocate relativistic truth and critical
relativism, and it shows these views to be incoherent. Then the article argues
for scientific relativism, in which truth is the overriding objective of theory
and research.
The seventh article, ‘‘Positivism and Paradigm Dominance in Consumer
Research’’ (Hunt, 1991a), has been cited 90 times. This article employs
historical methodology to show that many misconceptions, misunderstand-
ings, misrepresentations, and mischaracterizations within the literature
debating philosophical and methodological foundations for consumer
research are due to an ill informed view of logical positivism. After rejecting
the view that consumer research is dominated by positivism, the article
advocates critical pluralism.
The eighth article, ‘‘For Reason and Realism in Marketing’’ (Hunt,
1992a), has been cited over 50 times. Responding to critics of Hunt (1990b),
this article argues for realism, realism’s defense of human reason, and
reason’s (1) use in academic discourse, (2) application to evidence, and
(3) potential for helping us understand the world.
The ninth article, ‘‘Truth, Laudan and Peirce: A View from the Trenches’’
(Hunt, 1993b), outlines the work of Peirce, who advocated that science is self-
correcting, which inches us closer and closer to truth. Peirce’s perspective
has been viewed as convergent realism, whereas Laudan’s claims have
been proven false. The article reveals the flaws in Laudan’s arguments by
showing them (1) to be incoherent and (2) to violate his own congruency
criterion.
The tenth article, ‘‘Objectivity in Marketing Theory and Research’’
(Hunt, 1993a), has been noted as one of the 13 articles most frequently
assigned in marketing theory doctoral seminars and has been cited over 65
times. It evaluates five arguments that have been used to deny objectivity in
marketing research: (1) linguistic relativism (language determines reality),
(2) paradigm incommensurability (objectivity is impossible because
all knowledge claims are imbedded in incommensurable paradigms),
(3) theories are underdetermined by facts (no conceivable number of facts

proves a theory’s truth), (4) perception is theory laden (cognitively held
theories determine what is perceived by researchers), and (5) epistemically
significant observations are theory-laden (raw observations in science are
interpreted through cognitively held theories). After countering the
arguments that objectivity in marketing research is doomed, the article
makes the ‘‘positive case’’ for seeking objectivity, which centers on the fact
that the outputs of marketing research are relied on by others.
The eleventh article, ‘‘A Realist Theory of Empirical Testing: Resolving
the Theory Ladenness/Objectivity Debate’’ (Hunt, 1994a), explores whether
the theory-ladenness of concepts makes empirical testing an insecure
foundation for objectivity. With the aid of path diagrams, the article
demonstrates the traditional empiricist view, the ‘‘new image’’ view, and a
realist theory of empirical testing. It concludes by urging realists to
incorporate the following beliefs: (1) theory independence of percepts
enables science to objectively test theory, (2) theory informs data based on
observation and this promotes objectivity in science, (3) percepts are
substantially veridical and scientific data are substantially trustworthy.
The twelfth article, ‘‘On the Rhetoric of Qualitative Methods: Toward
Historically Informed Argumentation in Management Inquiry’’ (Hunt,
1994c), uses historical method to analyze the qualitative/quantitative debate
in that management research. The article finds that qualitative and
quantitative research are not incommensurable and urges qualitative
researchers to recognize that these two types of research are complementary,
not adversarial.
The thirteenth article, ‘‘On Communication, Probative Force, and
Sophistry: A Reply to Van Eijkelenburg’’ (Hunt, 1995a), replies to Van
Eijkelenburg’s ‘‘A Comment on Hunt’’ (1994c). The article argues that
‘‘academic integrity is worth safe-guarding’’ (p. 212).
The fourteenth article, ‘‘On the Marketing of Marketing Knowledge’’
(Hunt & Edison, 1995), explores the implications of marketing knowledge.
The article points out that (1) a major source of authority is a discipline’s
commitment to objectivity, (2) the commodification argument is self-
destructive, and academics should focus on producing knowledge that is of
value to stakeholders. It argues that researchers should draw on original
sources and seminal works. Also marketing should continue to seek a
general theory.
The fifteenth article, ‘‘For Truth and Realism in Management Research’’
(Hunt, 2005), uses a historical approach to show that the quest for truth
based on a philosophical foundation of scientific realism is appropriate for
management research. This argument is based on (1) developing the four

tenets of scientific realism, (2) revealing previously published views of
scientific realism to be false, (3) developing a scientific realist model of truth,
and (4) establishing trust as a key component of the foundation for
management research.
The sixteenth article, ‘‘Realism’’ (Hunt, 2008), addresses many of the
other works in this volume by pointing out that realism is the most
commonly held position in philosophy and science today. Three types of
realism are discussed: fallibilistic realism, critical realism, and inductive
realism, which imply that (1) we can never be certain that what is shown in
science is true, (2) science must be continually, critically evaluated, and
(3) the long-term success of a theory gives grounds for believing that the
theory has truth content.
VOLUME 4
The first article in Volume 4, ‘‘The Socioeconomic Consequences of the

Franchise System of Distribution’’ (Hunt, 1972), examines franchising from
a socioeconomic perspective. It defines franchising as including (1) the
existence of a contract, (2) an ongoing cooperative relationship, and (3) the
fact that a franchisee operates under a trade name and market plan of a
franchisor. Five favorable and three unfavorable consequences of franchis-
ing are established from questionnaires administered to a sample of over
1,000 franchisees. The article concludes that franchising has a net positive
effect on the creation of new businesses.
The second article, ‘‘Experiential Determinants of Franchisee Success’’
(Hunt, 1973a), explores the rate of franchisee experience in success using
data collected from 1,000 franchisees, results suggest that prior experience
and prior self employment are not related to success, but education and
previous income level are. Furthermore, participation in franchisor-
provided training did predict success, which implies that franchisor claims
that training compensates for experience have merit.
The third article, ‘‘The Trend Toward Company-Operated Units in
Franchise Chains’’ (Hunt, 1973c), has been cited over 115 times. It identifies
six primary motivations for firms to seek franchised units: (1) lack of
available capital, (2) the franchising ethic (franchises managers are superior
to company store managers), (3) rapid expansion capabilities, (4) cost
efficiency for isolated units, (5) increased profitability of low-profit units,
(6) collection of franchising fees. The article then identifies four factors that
support the use of company-operated units: (1) instances where company

ownership is more profitable per unit, (2) the need for company control,
(3) legal problems, issues, and costs, and (4) new restrictive legislation. It finds
it improbable that successful franchise chains will ultimately become 100%
corporate owned, and cites three reasons: (1) contracts and formal systems
are difficult to reverse, (2) supervision of isolated units would prove difficult,
and (3) companies lack the motivation to purchase the least profitable units.
The fourth article, ‘‘Power in a Channel of Distribution’’ (Hunt & Nevin,
1974), has been cited over 540 times and has been reprinted in Franchising:
An International Perspective (Hoy & Stanworth, 2003). It focuses on power
in the franchisor/franchisee relationship, the sources of power, and how
franchisors use those specific sources of power. Findings reveal a significant
relationship between the power of a channel member and the sources of
power available to it. Furthermore, franchisors are shown more likely to use
coercive than noncoercive power when exercising power over franchisees.
Franchisee satisfaction is shown to be dependent on type of power exercised,
with a positive relationship between satisfaction and noncoercive power and
a negative relationship between satisfaction and coercive power.
The fifth article, ‘‘Tying Agreements in Franchising’’ (Hunt & Nevin,
1975), has been reprinted in Marketing Channels (Boone & Johnson, 1977)
and Marketing: Contemporary Dimensions (Robicheaux, Pride, & Ferrell,
1977). Data show that the practice of tying arrangements is widespread
amongst franchisors. Requirements to have franchisees purchase supplies
from franchisors are shown to affect franchisee’s income and satisfaction
with the relationship. Specifically, franchisees required to purchase supplies
from franchisors reported lower income and lower satisfaction.
The sixth article, ‘‘Franchising as an Investment Opportunity: An
Evaluation’’ (Hunt & Jackobs, 1976), examines why firms choose to go
into franchising, evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of franchising
from the franchisee’s perspective, discusses legal issues in franchising,
provides guidelines for franchisees considering these opportunities, and
suggests additional sources of information on franchising. It concludes that
investors have many reasons for choosing a franchising agreement, the most
common being the significant opportunity for owning one’s own business.
The article urges franchisees to investigate thoroughly before entering into
franchise contracts.
The seventh article, ‘‘Full Disclosure Laws in Franchising: An Empirical
Evaluation’’ (Hunt & Nevin, 1976), explores empirically the advantages and
disadvantages of full disclosure laws in franchising. The advantages are a
lower incidence of franchisees being misled and an increased ability for
franchisees to seek restitution for misleading information. Disadvantages

include the cost to state governments to enforce these laws, cost to
franchisors to comply with the laws, costs to franchisees as they pay
additional fees incurred by franchisors, and opportunity costs to potential
franchisees as they lose opportunities when franchisors decline to operate in
states enforcing these laws.
The eighth article, ‘‘Franchising: Promises, Problems, Prospects’’ (Hunt,
1977), has been reprinted in both Dynamics in Marketing Principles
(Kinnear & Bernhardt, 1983) and Franchising: An International Perspective
(Hoy & Stanworth, 2003). The article examines the benefits of franchising
that were forecasted for society, franchisees, and franchisors. It then
analyzes the misfortunes of franchising and discusses its future.
The ninth article, ‘‘Women and Franchising’’ (Hunt, 1978b), explores
empirically the extent to which women have become involved with
franchising, how successful women have been in franchise management,
and future prospects for women in franchising. It finds that although
franchising has not fulfilled all women’s aspirations of owning and
managing their own businesses, women owned a higher percentage of
franchised than other businesses and franchisors generally gave high marks
to women-owned units. The article predicts continued success for women in
franchising.
The tenth article, ‘‘The Impact of Fair Practice Laws on a Franchise
Channel of Distribution’’ (Nevin, Hunt, & Ruekert, 1980), has been
reprinted in Marketing: Contemporary Dimensions (Robicheaux, Pride, &
Ferrell, 1977). Using the retail gasoline industry as a focal point, the article
explores arguments for and against legislation concerning unfair practices in
franchising. Results show that abuses in franchising within the retail
gasoline industry are not as widespread as predicted and that state laws
seem not to have led to a reduction in unfair practices.
The eleventh article, ‘‘Legal Remedies for Deceptive and Unfair Practices
in Franchising’’ (Nevin, Hunt, & Levas, 1981), focuses on deceptive
practices on selling franchises and unfair practices on the operations side.
The state attorneys general surveyed indicated that state full disclosure laws
were either effective or very effective. Furthermore, they believed that the
most effective method for enforcing full disclosure laws is the requirement to
file a prospectus with a state agency.
The twelfth article, ‘‘Behavioral Dimensions of Channels of Distribution:
Review and Synthesis’’ (Hunt, Ray, & Wood, 1985), has been cited over 50
times, reviews and synthesizes the research in the area of behavioral
dimensions of channels of distribution. It recommends more research on
areas of cooperation, relationship roles, satisfaction, values, attitudes,

loyalty, alienation, stress, group influences, socialization, and attribution
theory. It also calls for longitudinal studies, new analytical techniques in
cross-sectional studies, and an operationalization of the political-economy
paradigm.
VOLUME 5
The first article in Volume 5, ‘‘Informational vs. Persuasive Advertising: An

Evaluation’’ (Hunt, 1976a), evaluates the argument put forth by critics of
advertising that informational advertising is okay, but persuasive advertis-
ing is not. After showing the information–persuasion dichotomy to be
illogical, the article evaluates the high information versus low information
dichotomy. This dichotomy is then shown to be difficult to operationalize,
as different people will perceive differing levels of information value in the
same advertisement.
The second article, ‘‘Macromarketing as a Multi-Dimensional Construct’’
(Hunt, 1981a), explores the nature of macromarketing. It defines macro-
marketing as ‘‘the study of (1) marketing systems, (2) the impact and
consequence of marketing systems on society, and (3) the impact and
consequence of society on marketing systems’’ (p. 8). This definition was
later adopted by the Journal of Macromarketing.
The third article, ‘‘Why Consumers Believe They are Being Ripped Off’’
(Hunt & Nevin, 1981), develops a conceptual framework for determining
what consumers mean when they claim that they have been ‘‘ripped off.’’ It
focuses on three meanings: consumers feel ripped off when (1) they believe
the value of the product is not worth the price, (2) they perceive companies
to be making unfair profits, and (3) the price of a product exceeds a mental
reference price based on past experience. The first perception is shown to be
illogical and the second to be uninformed. As to the third, the article calls
for increased consumer education so that their perceptions begin to match
the reality of pricing structures.
The fourth article, ‘‘The Macromarketing/Micromarketing Dichotomy: A
Taxonomical Model’’ (Hunt & Burnett, 1982), clarifies the domains of
macromarketing versus micromarketing by introducing a taxonomy for
both concepts. Using a sample of AMA members, it proposes a polythetic
taxonomical model that incorporates three classificatory criteria: the level of
aggregation of the unit of analysis, the level of analysis of the viewer (i.e., is
the analysis being viewed from the societal or individual firm perspective?)
and the level of the entity experiencing consequences of the unit of analysis
(i.e., society or individual).
The fifth article, ‘‘Ethical Problems of Marketing Researchers’’ (Hunt,
Chonko, & Wilcox, 1984), which has been cited over 160 times, reports
results of a study of marketing practitioners who cited ethical problems they
face in their jobs. They named research integrity, research confidentiality,
marketing mix social issues, personnel issues, treatment of respondents/
clients/employees, interviewer (dis)honesty, gifts, treatment of suppliers,
legal issues, and (mis)use of funds. The article shows that the AMA code of
ethics covers most of these concerns. Results also show that unethical
behavior does not appear to be widespread. And the actions of top
management, but not the existence of a company code of ethics, drive ethical
behaviors in companies.
The sixth article, ‘‘Marketing and Machiavellianism’’ (Hunt & Chonko,
1984), has been cited on more than 170 times and surveys over 1,000
marketers to explore the issue of Machiavellianism in marketing. Using a
scale measuring Machiavellianism, the article finds (1) marketing is no more
Machiavellianism than society in general and (2) that Machiavellianism is
not related to success in marketing.
The seventh article, ‘‘Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical
Examination’’ (Chonko & Hunt, 1985), which has been cited over 275 times,
received the ‘‘Exceptional Quality and High Scholarly Impact’’ Award in
2000 from the Journal of Business Research and has been reprinted in
Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (Baker, 2001).
A sample of over 1,000 marketing practitioners indicated the top 10 ethical
issues in marketing management to be: bribery, fairness, honesty, price,
product, personnel, confidentiality, advertising, manipulation of data, and
purchasing concerns. The AMA code of ethics appears to address several of
these concerns, but not others. Top management are less likely to see
unethical behavior in their organizations than are lower level employees,
men are more likely than women, and those with technical backgrounds are
more likely than those with business or social science educations. Lastly, top
management behavior toward discouraging unethical behavior was corre-
lated negatively with unethical behavior, while the existence of codes of
ethics was not related.
The eighth article, ‘‘A General Theory of Marketing Ethics’’ (Hunt &
Vitell, 1986), has been cited over 1,000 times and been reprinted in Ethics in
Marketing (Smith & Quelch, 1993). This article diverges from most of the
ethics literature by proposing a descriptive model for explaining the decision
making process of individuals when they are faced with an ethical problem. In
the theory, the individual first must perceive the problem to have ethical
content. Once the problem is perceived as an ethical issue, the individual
evaluates alternatives. In the deontological evaluation, the individual
evaluates the inherent rightness or wrongness of each alternative using a set
of previously held norms. The teleological evaluation, in contrast, involves
examining perceived consequences of each alternative for stakeholders, the
probability that each consequence will occur, and the desirability or
undesirability of each consequence. After incorporating both the deontolo-
gical and the teleological evaluations, an ethical judgment is made, intentions
are formed, actual behavior follows, and actual consequences are realized.
These consequences feed back into personal experience, which in turn,
influences how the individual evaluates the next ethical problem.
The ninth article, ‘‘Social Responsibility and Personal Success: Are They
Incompatible?’’ (Wood, Chonko, & Hunt, 1986), explores empirically
whether ethical behavior is compatible with personal success. Results
indicate that social responsibility is not significantly related to income,
professional title, or job satisfaction.
The tenth article, ‘‘Ethics and the American Advertising Federation
Principles’’ (Chonko, Hunt, & Howell, 1987), evaluates empirically the
ethics guidelines promoted by the American Advertising Federation. Most of
the advertising executives believed that their agencies produced advertising
that conforms to the guidelines, that top management sets the standard for
ethical behavior within the company, and that top management takes action
in response to unethical behavior in their firms.
The eleventh article, ‘‘Ethical Problems of Advertising Agency Execu-
tives’’ (Hunt & Chonko, 1987), which has been cited on over 50 times,
explores empirically the primary ethical concerns faced in the advertising
industry. In order of how frequently respondents mentioned the concern,
the ethical issues cited in the study are: treating clients fairly, creating
honest/nonmisleading/socially desirable advertisements, representing clients
with unhealthy/unneeded/useless/unethical products or services, being fair
to suppliers/vendors/media, being fair to employees and management, and
being fair to other agencies.
The twelfth article, ‘‘Ethical Problems in Public Accounting: The View
from the Top’’ (Finn, Chonko, & Hunt, 1988), has been cited over 75
times. It uses survey responses from over 300 certified public accountants
(CPAs) to determine that top ethical issues cited by accounting
professionals are: client proposals of tax alteration and tax fraud, conflict
of interest and independence, client proposals of alterations of financial
statements, and fee administration. The article notes that the American
Institute of CPAs (AICPA) code of ethics sufficiently covers the ethical

concerns brought up in the study. Very few of the respondents agreed that
unethical behavior leads to success. Most CPAs believed that fewer
members of their firms engage in unethical behaviors than do the CPAs of
competitor firms. Finally, top management’s actions against unethical
behaviors were related to a decline in unethical behavior.
VOLUME 6
The first article in Volume 6, ‘‘Corporate Ethical Values and Organizational

Commitment in Marketing’’ (Hunt, Wood, & Chonko, 1989), has been cited
over 275 times and compares professionals within marketing to those in
advertising. Results show that advertising agency managers perceive their
companies to have the highest ethical standards, followed by marketing
managers and researchers. Furthermore, organizational commitment is
shown to have a significant relationship with perceived ethical values of the
organization as well as perceived job characteristics, such as autonomy,
variety, and feedback from superiors.
The second article, ‘‘Social Responsibility and Personal Success: A
Research Note’’ (Hunt, Kiecker, & Chonko, 1990), partially replicates an
earlier study by Wood et al. (1986) and develops an improved scale of social
responsibility, which is then used to reexamine the relationship between
social responsibility and success. Using data from a sample of advertising
executives, the article confirms the original study’s findings that profes-
sionals are not rewarded or penalized for social responsibility.
The third article, ‘‘The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A Partial Test
of the Model’’ (Vitell & Hunt, 1990), which has been cited over 50 times,
empirically tests the model proposed by the Hunt–Vitell Theory of Marketing
Ethics (Hunt & Vitell, 1986). In examining the major constructs and structural
relationships, the study finds that decision makers do indeed depend on both
deontological and teleological factors when faced with an ethical judgment.
Likewise, decision makers do use ethical judgment and teleological
considerations when forming intentions and deciding on behaviors.
The fourth article, ‘‘Commentary on an Empirical Investigation of a
General Theory of Marketing Ethics’’ (Hunt, 1990a), which has been cited
on over 65 times, reviews an investigation of the Hunt–Vitell Model
published by Mayo and Marks (1990). The article compliments Mayo and
Marks on two important issues: (1) they used actual professionals as
participants and (2) they were careful in interpreting the theory they were
testing, resulting in a high degree of fidelity. The article suggests to future

researchers examining the Hunt–Vitell model to (1) construct scenarios with
meaningful ethical dilemmas, (2) avoid terms that will assume the basic
premises of the model, (3) carefully discriminate visual representations from
the theory itself, and (4) focus measures of deontological norms on specific
behaviors and actions related to alternatives.
The fifth article, ‘‘Cognitive Moral Development and Marketing’’
(Goolsby & Hunt, 1992), which has been cited over 135 times, compares
the level of moral cognitive development of marketing professionals with
other types of professionals, explores the relationship between cognitive
moral development and social responsibility, examines whether cognitive
moral development is related to success, and attempts to determine personal
characteristics that might explain cognitive moral development. Using a
sample of approximately 270 marketing professionals, results indicated that
(1) marketers did not have lower scores on cognitive moral development
than others of similar age and education, (2) women had higher cognitive
moral development than men, (3) those scoring high on cognitive moral
development tend to put duties to society before duties to their company
and also tend to have a more favorable attitude toward social responsibility,
but (4) those with higher cognitive moral development were not more likely
to be successful, as measured by job level or income.
The sixth article, ‘‘Organizational Consequences, Marketing Ethics and
Salesforce Supervision’’ (Hunt & Vasquez-Parraga, 1993), which has been
cited over 140 times, uses an experimental design to explore ethical issues in
salesforce supervision. The data show that managerial decisions to discipline
or reward salesperson ethical or unethical behavior are primarily based on
the inherent evaluation of salesperson behavior as right or wrong
(deontological factors) and only secondarily based on the consequences the
behavior may have on the organization (teleological factors). It concludes
that behavioral-based control systems may be more effective for controlling
salesforce behavior and for changing corporate culture.
The seventh article, ‘‘Marketing Researcher Ethical Sensitivity: Con-
ceptualization, Measurement, and Exploratory Investigation’’ (Sparks &
Hunt, 1998), which has been cited over 135 times, examines two competing
definitions of ethical sensitivity and develops a scale that distinguishes
between them. Results show that ethical sensitivity is learned, as age and
socialization to both the organization and the profession are significantly
correlated with scores on ethical sensitivity. Ethical sensitivity scores also
correlated with perspective taking, ethics education, and empathy, but did
not correlate with emotional contagion, or relativism.
The eighth article, ‘‘Ethics and Marketing Management: A Retrospective

and Prospective Commentary’’ (Chonko & Hunt, 2000), reviews the work
published in the area of marketing ethics since the publication of the
authors’ seminal publication, ‘‘Ethics in Marketing Management’’ (Chonko &
Hunt, 1985). The authors first review the major findings of their original
article by recalling its six major conclusions. The subsequent researchers
who cited the original work are then discussed with regard to the scope,
research extension, quality of data, and context. It suggests six fertile areas
for future research.
The ninth article, ‘‘Competitive Irrationality: The Influence of Moral
Philosophy’’ (Arnett & Hunt, 2002), explores empirically why some
managers engage in competitive irrationality while others do not. The
study shows that deontological orientation, cognitive moral development,
and idealism all have a significant negative relationship with competitive
irrationality, while relativism was shown to have a significant positive effect.
The tenth article, ‘‘Experiential Learning and the Hunt-Vitell Theory of
Ethics: Teaching Marketing Ethics by Integrating Theory and Practice’’
(Hunt & Laverie, 2004), focuses on using the Hunt–Vitell Theory of Ethics
incorporate experiential learning techniques in business ethics courses. The
article describes how the H-V Model is used in conjunction with a case
scenario to offer students an experiential learning opportunity when
studying ethical issues. Because it is often difficult for students to address
multiple perspectives when studying business ethics, pairing the H-V theory
with practical situations allows students to engage more deeply with the
ethical dilemmas.
The eleventh article, ‘‘Personal Moral Codes and the Hunt-Vitell Theory
of Ethics: Why Do People’s Ethical Judgments Differ?’’ (Hunt & Vitell,
2005), uses the Hunt–Vitell Theory of Ethics to examine the processes of
ethical decision making and the construction of personal moral codes. It
addresses how differing moral codes lead some people to conclude that
particular behaviors are ethical and acceptable, while others find the same
behaviors to be unacceptable and unethical. The theory helps in under-
standing the basis for ethical conflict and assists in understanding the
‘‘utility maximization’’ personal moral code in neoclassical economics.
The twelfth article, ‘‘The General Theory of Marketing Ethics: A
Revision and Three Questions’’ (Hunt & Vitell, 2006), puts forth a revised
theory and addresses three questions often posed. First, as to the question
‘‘What is the justification for using normative ethical theory as a starting
point for positing a positive ethical theory?’’ the article points out that, as a
positive theory, the model provides a framework for understanding the
processes by which ethical decisions are actually made. Indeed, both positive
and normative theories are valuable in ethics research. The second question,
‘‘Is the Hunt-Vitell model a causal model?’’ is addressed by pointing out that
this is a process model that may lead to the development of causal models.
In discussing third question, ‘‘How, specifically, can the H-V model of
theory be used to teach marketing and business ethics?’’ the authors point
out that the H-V model provides a framework that students and professors
may use for applying and evaluating situations that may result in ethical
dilemmas in the business world.
The thirteenth article, ‘‘Understanding Ethical Diversity in Organiza-
tions’’ (Hunt & Hansen, 2007), applies the Hunt–Vitell model in an effort to
understand the ethical diversity displayed in ethical judgments within
organizations. Specific issues addressed relate to operations management,
human resources management, organizational downsizing, risk manage-
ment, and organizational governance. The article concludes with three
points that should be addressed by any organization seeking to investigate
their organizations’ ethical decision. First, the existing moral codes of
employees must be determined. Second, desired moral codes must be
determined. Third, policies, procedures, and communications must be
established that will facilitate the desired moral codes and eliminate the
undesired moral codes within the organization. Suggestions are given on
how to accomplish each of these objectives.
VOLUME 7
The first article in Volume 7, ‘‘Post-Transaction Communications and

Dissonance Reduction’’ (Hunt, 1970), is Hunt’s first published article. It has
been reprinted in Buyer Behavior (Howard & Ostlund, 1973). It reviews the
theory of cognitive dissonance and evaluates some decision-oriented
marketing implications of the theory. The study investigates what retailers
can and should do about dissonance using an experiment in which
customers who purchased a refrigerator either received (1) a letter of
reassurance, (2) a telephone call of reassurance, or (3) no communication.
Results indicated that customers who had been reassured after purchase
with a letter experienced less dissonance, had more favorable attitudes
toward the store, and had higher intentions of future purchase than
customers who received no reassurances. However, those customers
receiving the telephone call were worse off than those in the control group
(who received no reassurances). The article concludes that retailers should
be cautious in implementing programs designed to alleviate customers’

cognitive dissonance.
The second article, ‘‘Attributional Processes and Effects in Promotional
Situations’’ (Smith & Hunt, 1978), which has been cited over 80 times,
examines attribution theory by means of an experiment that investigates (1)
whether consumers make attributions, (2) which model best explains
consumer behavior using attributions, and (3) if attributions increase
perceived source credibility. Results show that customers make attributions
in open-ended responses. Also, consumers attributed internal or external
causes to product claims based on the prior probability of an event.
Furthermore, consumers considered product messages with varied product
claims (ad claims from multiple sides) to be more truthful that those with
non-varied product claims (ads with only one-sided claims).
The third article, ‘‘Organizational Commitment and Marketing’’ (Hunt,
Chonko, & Wood, 1985),which has been cited over 130 times, examines
organizational commitment as a factor in job performance. With a sample of
over 900 marketing managers, the overall model states that personal
attributes, personal investments, anticipatory socialization, job search
behavior, work relationships, and job characteristics serve as antecedents to
organizational commitment and that consequences of organizational commit-
ment include satisfaction, performance, turnover, and absenteeism. The
results show that both job characteristics and personal characteristics predict
commitment. Also, organizational commitment, personal characteristics, and
job characteristics work together to strongly predict job satisfaction.
The fourth article, ‘‘Metaphors and Competitive Advantage: Evaluating
the Use of Metaphors in Theories of Competitive Strategy’’ (Hunt &
Menon, 1995), which has been cited over 60 times, discusses the nature of
metaphor, explains the use of metaphors in marketing, and develops a
framework for evaluating the dimensions of metaphoric transfer in the
marketing literature. It shows that metaphors in marketing are typically
literary as opposed to theoretical and many (supposed) metaphors within
marketing are extinct, dormant, or have never been metaphors at all. Those
using metaphors in marketing should be mindful that metaphors should be
reasonably systematic and thoughtful, that metaphors are not just ‘‘things’’
to describe other ‘‘things’’ but (1) are denotatively false and connotatively
true, (2) the transfer of metaphors is a system of multiple, integrated
elements instead of isolated elements, and (3) there are distinctions between
literary and scientific metaphors.
The fifth article, ‘‘Marketing’s Contribution to Business Strategy: Market
Orientation, Relationship Marketing, and Resource-Advantage Theory’’
(Hunt & Lambe, 2000), has been cited over 100 times. It first examines
significant contribution the marketing literature has had on the area of
business strategy by first reviewing industry-based theory, resource-based
theory, and competence-based theory. Then it reviews market orientation,
R-A theory, and relationship marketing. These three theories are discussed
as uniquely marketing, and each is able to contribute to the industry-based,
resource-based, and competence-based views on strategy. Finally, the article
shows how R-A theory can integrate both marketing and nonmarketing
theories of business strategy.
The sixth article, ‘‘Salesperson Cooperation: The Influence of Relational,
Task, Organizational, and Personal Factors’’ (Yilmaz & Hunt, 2001),
develops a model of salesperson cooperation, in which relational,
organizational, and personal factors contribute to cooperation among
salespersons. Data from over 500 auto dealerships provide moderately
strong support that collectivist organizational norms contribute to sales-
person cooperation, which highlights the need for norm development and
enforcement among sales forces.
The seventh article, ‘‘Alliance Competence, Resources, and Alliance
Success: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Initial Test’’ (Lambe,
Spekman, & Hunt, 2002), has been cited over 140 times. This article
develops and tests a model examining how joint alliance competence affects
joint alliance success directly and indirectly through complementary and
idiosyncratic resources acquired and created. The model is tested using data
collected from 145 alliances, and the hypothesized structural relationships
are supported.
The eighth article, ‘‘Determining Marketing Strategy: A Cybernetic
Systems Approach to Scenario Planning’’ (Morgan & Hunt, 2002), draws
from strategic choice theory and R-A theory to address the issue of how
firms strategically co-evolve with their environments. Using a scenario-
based group methodology to create a ‘‘think tank’’ scenario, decision
makers read the description of the marketing analysis of environmental
context, which leads to a series of marketing strategy recommendations to fit
the changing environment.
The ninth article, ‘‘The Normative Imperatives of Business and Marketing
Strategy: Grounding Strategy in Resource-Advantage Theory’’ (Hunt &
Derozier, 2004), argues that R-A theory serves to ground theories of
business (i.e., industry-based, resource-based, and competence-based
theories) and marketing strategy (i.e., market orientation, relationship
marketing, and resource-based theories). Because the strategic thrust of the
firm is crucial to the role of top management, this article serves to explain
the role of R-A theory and its relation to industry factors, resource factors,
competencies, market orientation, and relationship marketing. This article is
especially useful as an assigned reading in marketing strategy courses.
The tenth article, ‘‘Market Segmentation, Competitive Advantage, and
Public Policy: Grounding Segmentation Strategy in Resource-Advantage
Theory’’ (Hunt & Arnett, 2004b), argues that R-A theory provides for the
existence of demand heterogeneity, serves to explain why firms choose to
produce and market various offerings, and provides a mechanism by which
market segmentation strategy leads to superior financial performance. As a
theoretical foundation for market segmentation strategy, R-A theory
promotes public welfare through firm level, industry level, and societal
level productivity.
The eleventh article, ‘‘Market Segmentation Strategy and Resource-
Advantage Theory: A Response to Cadeaux and Dowling’’ (Hunt & Arnett,
2004a), responds to questions raised by Cadeaux (2004) and Dowling
(2004). Because the authors feel that the questions raised by Cadeaux and
Dowling originate in a misunderstanding of R-A theory, the article focuses
on clarification of the theory for critics and other readers. The authors
address Dowling’s comments by explaining the distinction between R-A
theory and the resource-based view of the firm, dispelling the claim that R-A
theory is ancestral to segmentation theory, it defines assets and resources as
conceptualized in R-A theory, which clarifies how R-A theory is a
contingency theory by design. Cadeaux’s comments are further explained,
as they are misinformed on the origins and perspectives of R-A theory. The
article concludes by urging readers to remember that R-A theory is toward a
general theory of marketing, the authors do not claim that it is a general
theory.
The twelfth article, ‘‘The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing:
Theoretical Foundations, Pedagogy, and Resource-Advantage Theory’’
(Hunt & Madhavaram, 2006b), builds on recommendations of Vargo and
Lusch (2004) by using R-A theory to further explicate the service-dominant
logic of marketing and to examine how strategy courses may incorporate
R-A theory with service-dominant logic. By showing that R-A theory
provides a theoretical foundation for service dominant logic, the authors
also show how R-A theory provides an integrative tool for teaching
marketing strategy within the service dominant logic.
The thirteenth article, ‘‘Teaching Marketing Strategy: Using Resource-
Advantage Theory as an Integrative Theoretical Foundation’’ (Hunt &
Madhavaram, 2006a), addresses the need for an overall, integrative theory
in teaching marketing strategy. The article investigates current methods of
teaching marketing strategy and makes the case that R-A theory is an
‘‘appropriate, positive, integrative theoretical foundation for teaching
marketing strategy’’ (p. 93). As a theory that grounds both business and
marketing strategy, the authors argue that conceptual frameworks of R-A
theory provide an overarching base for the course. Lastly, the article gives
suggestions for when to introduce R-A theory to students, how to order
present material for the best flow, and how to address problems that arise as
students seek to understand the theory.
The fourteenth article, ‘‘Inducing Salespeople to Sell Proprietary
Products: Do Transaction Cost Factors Hinder? Do Relational Factors
Help?’’ (Edison, Hunt, & Madhavaram, 2007), develops a model that
incorporates traditional factors (i.e., training, attention, and quota),
transaction cost factors (i.e., fear of loyalty and fear of mobility), and
relational factors (i.e., trust and commitment) as antecedents to sales results
of proprietary products. Using almost 200 salespeople of veterinary supplies
responded to test their model, the data did not indicate that transactional
cost or relational factors have direct influence on a salesperson selling
proprietary products. The data did show, however, that quotas negatively
affected sales of proprietary product sales, and this relationship is
moderated by trust.
The fifteenth article, ‘‘The Service-Dominant Logic and a Hierarchy of
Operant Resources: Developing Masterful Operant Resources and Implica-
tions for Marketing Strategy’’ (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008), uses R-A
theory to (1) propose a hierarchy of operand (i.e., physical) and operant
(i.e., intangible and human) resources and (2) extend operant resources to
the area of service dominance in marketing. The article proposes that firms
may become masters in developing their operant resources, leading to
strategic advantages within the service dominant logic.
VOLUME 8
The first article in Volume Eight, ‘‘The Commitment-Trust Theory of

Relationship Marketing’’ (Morgan & Hunt, 1994), with over 6,500 citations,
has been identified as the most frequently cited article from 1993 to 2003 in
the economics–business literature and has been reprinted in Marketing:
Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (Baker, 2001) and the
Russian Management Journal (2004). The article explores the concept of
relationship marketing in theory and practice and theorizes that successful
relationship marketing requires commitment and trust. Using a sample of
independent automobile tire retailers, the authors test two competing

models for exploring the role commitment and trust play in relationship
marketing. One model maintains that trust and commitment are ‘‘key
mediating variables’’ in the relationships between antecedents and
consequences of relationship marketing, while the competing model treats
all antecedents as having direct relationships with outcomes. Results show
that trust and commitment play a key mediating role.
The second article, ‘‘Organizational Commitment: One of Many
Commitments or Key Mediating Construct?’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 1994a),
explores the role of global organizational commitment in producing
favorable outcomes. Results indicate that global organizational commit-
ment appears to be a key mediator in the relationship between
constituency-specific commitments and important organizational out-
comes.
The third article, ‘‘Relationship Marketing in the Era of Network
Competition’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 1994b), has been cited over 140 times and
reprinted in Relationship Marketing (Egan, 2005). It discusses how firms can
create successful partnerships as they move from being multinational to
global corporations. Because the threat of opportunism in these relation-
ships is high, it recommends choosing partners carefully, structuring
partnerships carefully, allowing time for the relationship to mature,
maintaining open lines of communication, maintaining a corporate culture
of trust, and being cooperative. In global alliances, as is the case in other
types of relationship marketing, trust and commitment are key variables in
partnerships.
The fourth article, ‘‘Competing Through Relationships: Grounding
Relationship Marketing in Resource Advantage Theory’’ (Hunt, 1997a),
cited over 180 times and has been reprinted in Relationship Marketing
(Egan, 2005). It first demonstrates how R-A theory can serve as a theoretical
foundation for relationship marketing. Then, it argues that firms should
focus on a diverse relationship portfolio that is made up of relational
resources.
The fifth article, ‘‘Relationship-Based Competitive Advantage: The Role
of Relationship Marketing in Marketing Strategy’’ (Morgan & Hunt, 1999),
which has been cited over 150 times, addresses the strategic impact of
relationship marketing. From a resource-based approach, it clarifies the
kinds of resources gained through relationships. It also introduces methods
for assessing the strategic worth of the resources to the relationships.
The sixth article, ‘‘Interimistic Relational Exchange: Conceptualization
and Propositional Development’’ (Lambe, Spekman, & Hunt, 2000),
which has been cited over 85 times, introduces interimistic relational

exchange. Interimistic exchange is defined as ‘‘a close, collaborative, fast-
developing, short-lived exchange relationship in which companies pool
their skills and/or resources to address a y business opportunity and/or
threat’’ (p. 212). Interimistic exchange is then (1) contrasted with
enduring relational exchange and (2) shown to lead to new potential
research streams.
The seventh article, ‘‘A Theory and Model of Business Alliance Success’’
(Hunt, Lambe, & Wittman, 2002), develops a model to explain why some
alliances are successful, while others fail. Using the view that alliance success
serves as a competitive advantage (i.e., competitive advantage view), the
authors show how alliance competence (i.e., a competence based view),
resources (i.e., from a resource-based view), and relational factors (i.e., from
a relationship marketing perspective) contribute to an integrative model of
alliance success. Further, the article argues that R-A theory of competition
grounds the overall proposed model.
The eighth article, ‘‘The Identity Salience Model of Relationship
Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing’’ (Arnett, German, &
Hunt, 2003), which has been cited over 100 times, examines whether the
relationship characteristics traditionally studied in for-profit and B-to-B
marketing, are relevant to nonprofit contexts. Specifically, the authors use
survey responses from over 900 respondents to test two competing models of
factors that may lead to relationship success, as measured by resulting
donations and promotion. Results indicate that identity salience plays an
important role in nonprofit relationship marketing.
The ninth article, ‘‘The Explanatory Foundations of Relationship
Marketing Theory’’ (Hunt et al., 2006b), draws on R-A theory and other
literature to develop factors that lead to successful partnerships. It proposes
eight types of factors: relational, resource, competence, internal marketing,
information technology, marketing offering, historical, and public policy
factors. The article concludes that the area of relationship marketing is a
fertile area for researchers.
The tenth article, ‘‘For Dynamic Relationship Marketing Theory: A
Reply to Rese’’ (Hunt et al., 2006a), replies to Mario Rese, and his problems
with relationship marketing. The reply clarifies the eight types of factors that
affect the success of relationship marketing based strategy, and agrees with
Rese that research on relationship marketing strategy should integrate the
stated factors. However it disagrees with Rese’s static approach and urges
the adoption of dynamic research to explore such phenomena as innovation
and organizational learning in relationship marketing.
VOLUME 9
The first article in Volume Nine, ‘‘The Comparative Advantage Theory of

Competition’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 1995), won the Howard H. Maynard
Award for the best theory article in Journal of Marketing for 1995, won the
2004 Sheth Foundation/Journal of Marketing award for its long-term
contribution to the field of marketing and marketing theory. It has been
noted as one of 13 articles most frequently assigned in marketing theory
doctoral seminars, has been reprinted in Marketing: Critical Perspectives on
Business and Management (Baker, 2001), and has been cited over 850 times.
It identifies phenomena that any theory of competition should explain in
order to be considered satisfactory and evaluates neoclassical theory. The
Comparative Advantage Theory is then introduced and shown to perform
better than the neoclassical theory on explaining the phenomena. The
Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition was later re-labeled as
‘‘Resource-Advantage Theory.’’
The second article, ‘‘The Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition:
Toward Explaining Productivity and Economic Growth’’ (Hunt, 1995b),
has been cited over 50 times. It combines the resource-based theory of the
firm with Austrian economics and heterogeneous demand theory to develop
a foundation for R-A theory. The article shows how R-A theory stresses the
importance of both tangible and intangible resources that can be leveraged
for competitive advantage. Furthermore, R-A theory has macro and public
policy implications.
The third article, ‘‘The Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition,
Dynamics, Path Dependencies, and Evolutionary Dimensions’’ (Hunt &
Morgan, 1996), replies to comments by Dickson (1996) and others, who
expressed concerns about R-A theory’s appearance of being a static theory
that ignores path dependencies. The article shows how R-A competition is
necessarily dynamic and how the theory accommodates path dependencies.
The fourth article, ‘‘Resource Advantage Theory: An Evolutionary
Theory of Competitive Firm Behavior?’’ (Hunt, 1997c), which has been
cited over 115 times, addresses the issues of whether R-A theory is an
evolutionary theory of competitive firm behavior and how institutional
economic theory relates to R-A theory. After an overview of R-A theory, it
concludes that the theory is fully evolutionary in nature and very congruent
with institutional economic theory.
The fifth article, ‘‘Resource-Advantage Theory and the Wealth of
Nations: Developing the Socio-Economic Research Tradition’’ (Hunt,
1997d), establishes R-A theory as an avenue for explaining the absence of
wealth in some market-based economies and how trust-promoting institu-

tions can be productive. In doing so, it concludes that R-A theory and its
propositions contribute to developing a socioeconomic research tradition.
The sixth article, ‘‘Resource-Advantage Theory: A Snake Swallowing Its
Tail or a General Theory of Competition?’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 1997), which
has been cited over 115 times, evaluates arguments put forth by Deligonul
and Cavusgil (1997), who state that R-A theory has the same origin as
perfect competition theory and, therefore, cannot replace it. The reply
shows that R-A theory is a general theory of competition that incorporates
perfect competition as a special case.
The seventh article, ‘‘Evolutionary Economics, Endogenous Growth
Models, and Resource-Advantage Theory’’ (Hunt, 1997b), proposes that
evolutionary economics may be used to develop process theories that will
lead to formal models in the neoclassical tradition, which effectively narrows
the gap between evolutionary and neoclassical economics. Because R-A
theory provides a foundation for models of endogenous economic growth,
R-A theory and neoclassical theory complement, rather than compete with,
each other.
The eighth article, ‘‘Productivity, Economic Growth, and Competition:
Resource Allocation or Resource Creation?’’ (Hunt, 1998), uses R-A theory
to argue that resource creation instead of resource allocation drives
productivity and economic growth in market-based economies. Further-
more, the article reviews how neoclassical economists in the ‘‘socialist
calculation debate’’ came to view their research tradition as indifferent
between market-based and command economies on the issue of resource-
allocation efficiency. The question remains: how can public policy promote
resource creation?
The ninth article, ‘‘The Strategic Imperative and Sustainable Competitive
Advantage: Public Policy Implications of Resource-Advantage Theory’’
(Hunt, 1999), which has been cited over 65 times, addresses this question:
Why do both neoclassical perfect competition and traditional industrial
organizational economics consider the goal of firms (which is to achieve
superior financial performance through sustainable, competitive advantage)
to be anticompetitive and detrimental to society? By grounding strategy
theory with R-A theory, the article concludes that strategy contributes to
competition, which contributes to social welfare in promoting economic
growth and spurring technological progress.
The tenth article, ‘‘The Competence-Based, Resource-Advantage, and
Neoclassical Theories of Competition: Toward a Synthesis’’ (Hunt, 2000c),
demonstrates that R-A and competence-based competition theories have
similar origins and complement each other. Further, the paper shows that
perfect competition theory is a special case of the general case of
competition represented in R-A theory.
The eleventh article is ‘‘A General Theory of Competition: Too Eclectic
or Not Eclectic Enough? Too Incremental or Not Incremental Enough? Too
Neoclassical or Not Neoclassical Enough?’’ (Hunt, 2000a), addresses
questions and comments about the Hunt’s book, A General Theory of
Competition raised by Foss (2000), Savitt (2000), and Hodgson (2000). The
article systematically addresses each issue and concludes that not one of the
book’s substantive claims is discredited by any of the book’s critics.
The twelfth article, ‘‘Synthesizing Resource-Based, Evolutionary, and
Neoclassical Thought: Resource-Advantage Theory as a General Theory of
Competition’’ (Hunt, 2000b), addresses two questions: First, to what extent
is R-A theory’s resource-based view of the firm consistent or inconsistent
with the evolutionary, competence perspective? The article argues that R-A
theory fully accommodates the competence perspective by viewing
competences as higher-order resources that are comprised of distinct
packages or bundles or basic resources. The second question is: Because
both R-A theory and its theory of the firm are evolutionary, how do they
relate to such static-equilibrium theories as perfect competition? The article
argues the structure and foundational propositions of R-A theory represent
the descriptively realistic, general case of competition, of which the structure
and foundational propositions of perfect competition are a special case.
VOLUME 10
The first article in Volume 10, ‘‘A General Theory of Competition: Issues,
Answers and an Invitation’’ (Hunt, 2001a), gives a brief overview of R-A
theory and then answers critics of the theory who have questioned R-A
theory’s (1) objective of superior financial performance and (2) incorpora-
tion of other theories, including perfect competition. It concludes with an
invitation for critical discussion of R-A theory in the literature. Such
discussion should focus especially on R-A theory and public policy issues
related to wealth creation, productivity, and economic growth.
The second article, ‘‘Competition as an Evolutionary Process and
Antitrust Policy’’ (Hunt & Arnett, 2001), explores the nature of the
antitrust debate by reviewing a key component of the debate, the efficiency
versus wealth transfer argument. It then (1) illustrates how the equilibrium-
based tradition has misguided the debate, (2) sketches an alternative view of
competition, R-A theory, and (3) discusses the implications of using R-A
theory as a basis for antitrust policy.
The third article, ‘‘Competition in the Third Millennium: Efficiency or
Effectiveness?’’ (Hunt & Duhan, 2002), points out that neoclassical
economic wisdom holds that competition is, exclusively, an efficiency-
seeking enterprise. For neoclassical theory, therefore, competition in the
third millennium will be, can only be, efficiency seeking. In contrast,
conventional business wisdom is that competition in the third millennium
will primarily be an effectiveness-seeking enterprise. This article uses R-A
theory to explore whether efficiency or effectiveness – or both – will drive
competition in the third millennium. R-A theory maintains that competition
will be both efficiency and effectiveness-seeking.
The fourth article is ‘‘Resource-Advantage Theory and Austrian
Economics’’ (Hunt, 2002c). This article initiates an ‘‘Austrian’’ evaluation
of R-A theory. First, it provides a brief overview of the theory and shows
how it addresses the crucial issue of productivity. The article then argues
that R-A theory is consistent with Austrian economics on the economic
problem a society must solve and the nature of the constructs ‘‘value,’’
‘‘resources,’’ and ‘‘competences.’’ Therefore, R-A theory provides the
foundations for an Austrian theory of competition.
The fifth article, ‘‘Marketing and A General Theory of Competition’’
(Hunt, 2002a), is a reply to several commentaries on the monograph, A
General Theory of Competition (Hunt, 2000a), published in a special
symposium in The Journal of Marketing Management. The reply points out
the commentators find no fault in any of the nine foundational premises of
R-A theory. Also, neither commentator raises a single issue with respect to
R-A theory’s depiction of the process of competition. That is, neither
commentator raises a single issue with respect to the key components of R-A
theory or its claims to explain and predict phenomena. The article concludes
pointing out that numerous academics are using R-A theory as the
foundation for teaching, researching, and understanding strategy.
The sixth article, ‘‘Resource-Advantage Theory and Embeddedness:
Explaining R-A Theory’s Explanatory Success’’ (Hunt & Arnett, 2003),
points out that R-A theory’s explanatory and predictive successes have
resulted in its being well received by both marketing and non-marketing
scholars. This article examines the characteristics of R-A theory that have
enabled the theory to successfully explain and predict marketing phenom-
ena. Specifically, the thesis of the article is that R-A theory is a moderately
socialized, embedded theory of competition. Therefore the theory provides a
theoretical foundation for the frequently made claim that, at least in some
circumstances, social structures and trust-based governance can be

competition-enhancing.
The seventh article, ‘‘The Resource-Advantage Theory of Competition: A
Review’’ (Hunt & Morgan, 2005), points out that, since its original
conceptualization in Hunt and Morgan (1995), the theory of competition
known as R-A theory has been developed in numerous articles, books, and
book chapters in the marketing, management/general business, and
economics literatures. The article reviews the progress and prospects of
R-A theory. Specifically, it (1) provides a brief overview of R-A theory,
(2) discusses the progress made to date in developing R-A theory’s research
program, (3) examines in detail the theory’s foundational premises,
(4) shows how R-A theory can theoretically ground (and be used to teach)
business and marketing strategy, and (5) discusses the theory’s future
prospects.
The eighth article, ‘‘Does Marketing Success Lead to Market Success?’’
(Hunt & Arnett, 2006a), addresses the question: Is the practice of marketing
bad for the economy and, therefore, bad for society? First, it examines the
concept of ‘‘market success’’ in the context of the dynamic competition
perspective of R-A theory and argues that successful markets are
characterized by competitive processes that lead to five specific outcomes.
Second, it examines the nature of marketing, conceptualizes it as a kind of
firm process, and argues that ‘‘marketing success’’ occurs when organiza-
tions develop competences in that process. Third, it examines whether
marketing success leads to the five specific outcomes of market success.
Fourth, it examines the relationship between marketing success and public
policy. Fifth, it shows how the R-A theory approach provides a framework
for investigating marketing abuses.
In the ninth article, ‘‘Toward A General Theory of Marketing: Resource-
Advantage Theory as an Extension of Alderson’s Theory of Market
Processes’’ (Hunt & Arnett, 2006b), Wroe Alderson influenced considerably
the development of marketing theory and practice. This article explicates
how Alderson’s differential advantage theory of competition grounds his
theory of market processes. It then shows how R-A theory incorporates and
extends Alderson’s key concepts and generalizations. Consequently, R-A
theory is toward a general theory of marketing.
The tenth article is ‘‘Economic Growth: Should Policy Focus on
Investment or Dynamic Competition?’’ (Hunt, 2007b). Why do economies
grow? Reviews and contrasts the two major, rival ways to account for
economic growth: (1) the neoclassical model, which maintains that growth
results from increases in investment and (2) the dynamic competition model,
which maintains that growth results from the innovations that stem from
the process of competition. This issue in which approach best accounts for
economic growth is important because the two approaches imply very
different decisions in the public policy arena. The article finds that the
dynamic-competition model, as represented by R-A theory, best explains
economic growth. Therefore, public policy should focus on promoting R-A
competition.
The eleventh article is ‘‘Grounding Supply Chain Management in
Resource-Advantage Theory’’ (Hunt & Davis, 2008). Can purchasing be a
source of long-term competitive advantage? This article explains why works
in strategic management and supply chain management come to such
radically different conclusions on purchasing strategy. Specifically, this
article points out that the negative conclusion concerning purchasing
strategy is derived from theories of competition based on the neoclassical,
equilibrium economics research tradition. Therefore, the positive case for
strategic purchasing needs to be grounded in a research tradition that
provides a clean break from the neoclassical research tradition. Specifically,
the article discusses why R-A theory is an appropriate theory for grounding
purchasing strategy, in particular, and supply chain management, in
general.
The twelfth article, ‘‘Competitive Advantage Strategies in Times of
Adversity’’ (Hunt, 2009), maintains that, in times of adversity, managers
should understand how the different approaches to strategy development
apply in different contexts, understand the process of real-world competi-
tion, understand the many dimensions of competitive advantage, and
understand the role of institutions in competition. It discusses how the R-A
theory of competition, (1) provides a perspective for managers that shows
how competition is a dynamic process, (2) explicates in detail the concept of
competitive advantage, (3) explains how institutions affect the process of
competition, and (4) integrates the fragmented strategy literature.
A FINAL COMMENT
This review has attempted to provide summaries of the 10 volumes that

comprise Legends in Marketing: Shelby D. Hunt (Sage, forthcoming).
Readers are advised, however, that this series of summaries cannot do
justice to the detailed richness of the individual articles.
REFERENCES
Alder, R. D., & Johnson, L. M. (1987). Marketing megaworks: The top 150 books and articles.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Arndt, L. (1985). The tyranny of paradigms: The case for paradigmatic pluralism in marketing.
In: N. Dholakia & J. Arndt (Eds), Changing the course of marketing: Alternative
paradigms for widening marketing theory. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship
marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(April),
89–105.
Arnett, D. B., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Competitive irrationality: The influence of moral
philosophy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(3), 279–303.
Baker, M. (2001). Marketing: Critical perspectives on business and management. London:
Routledge.
Bartels, R. (1968). The general theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 32, 29–33.
Bartels, R. (1970). Marketing theory and metatheory. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Bauerly, R. J., & Johnson, D. T. (2005). An evaluation of journals used in doctoral marketing
programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 313–329.
Boone, L. E., & Johnson, J. E. (1977). Marketing channels. Tulsa: Petroleum Publishing
Company.
Cadeaux, J. (2004). Market segmentation, target market selection, and competitive advantage.
Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 30–31.
Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing management: An empirical
examination. Journal of Business Research, 13(August), 339–359.
Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (2000). Ethics and marketing management: A retrospective and
prospective commentary. Journal of Business Research, 50(3), 235–244.
Chonko, L. B., Hunt, S. D., & Howell, R. D. (1987). Ethics and the American advertising
federation principles. International Journal of Advertising, 6, 265–274.
Deligonul, Z. S., & Cavusgil, S. T. (1997). Does the comparative advantage theory of
competition really replace the neoclassical theory of perfect competition? Journal of
Marketing, 61(October), 65–73.
Dholakia, N. (1988). Interpreting Monieson: Creative and destructive tensions. Journal of
Macromarketing, 8, 11–14.
Dickson, P. R. (1996). The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: A comment on
Hunt and Morgan’s comparative advantage theory. Journal of Marketing, 60(October),
102–106.
Dowling, G. R. (2004). Market segmentation and the resource-advantage theory of the firm:
A comment on Hunt and Arnett’s contribution. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 30–31.
Edison, S., Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2007). Inducing salespeople to sell proprietary
products: Do transaction cost factors hinder? Do relational factors help? The Marketing
Management Journal, 17(1), 1–14.
Egan, J. (2005). Relationship marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
El-Ansary, A. I. (1979). The general theory of marketing revisited. In: Ferrell, Brown & Lamb
(Eds), Conceptual and theoretical developments in marketing. Chicago: American
Marketing Association.
Finn, D. W., Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1988). Ethical problems in public accounting: The
view from the top. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(8), 605–615.
Foss, N. J. (2000). The dangers and attractions of theoretical eclecticism. Journal of

Macromarketing, 20(I), 65–67.
Goolsby, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1992). Cognitive moral development and marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 56(1), 55–68.
Gribbins, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Is management a science? Academy of Management
Review, 3(1), 139–144.
Hodgson, G. M. (2000). The marketing of wisdom: Resource-advantage theory. Journal of
Macromarketing, 20(I), 68–72.
Howard, J. A., & Ostlund, L. E. (1973). Buyer behavior. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.
Hoy, F., & Stanworth, J. (2003). Franchising: An international perspective. London: Routledge.
Hunt, S. D. (1970). Post-transaction communications and dissonance reduction. Journal of
Marketing, 34(3), 46–51.
Hunt, S. D. (1971). The morphology of theory and the general theory of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 35(2), 65–68.
Hunt, S. D. (1972). The socioeconomic consequences of the franchise system of distribution.
Journal of Marketing, 36(3), 32–38.
Hunt, S. D. (1973a). Experiential determinants of franchisee success. Journal of Economics and
Business, 26(1), 81–83.
Hunt, S. D. (1973b). Lawlike generalizations and marketing theory. Journal of Marketing,
37(3), 69–70.
Hunt, S. D. (1973c). The trend toward company-operated units in franchise chains. Journal of
Retailing, 49(2), 3–12.
Hunt, S. D. (1976a). Informational vs. persuasive advertising: An appraisal. Journal of
Advertising, 5(3), 5–8.
Hunt, S. D. (1976b). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40(3), 17–26.
Hunt, S. D. (1977). Franchising: Promises, problems, prospects. Journal of Retailing, 53(3), 71–84.
Hunt, S. D. (1978a). A general paradigm of marketing: In support of the 3-dichotomies model.
Hunt, S. D. (1978b). Women and franchising. MSU Business Topics, 26(2), 25–28.
Hunt, S. D. (1979). Positive vs. normative theory in marketing: The three dichotomies model as
a general paradigm for marketing, conceptual and theoretical developments in
marketing. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Marketing Theory
Conference, pp. 567–576.
Hunt, S. D. (1981a). Macromarketing as a multidimensional concept. Journal of Macromarketing,
1(1), 7–8.
Hunt, S. D. (1981b). The morphology of theory and the general theory of marketing. In:
H.A. Thompson (Ed.), The great writings of marketing (2nd ed.). Tulsa: PPC books
(Original work published 1971).
Hunt, S. D. (1982). Are the logical empiricist models of explanation dead? In: R. Bush &
S. Hunt (Eds), Marketing theory: Philosophy of science perspectives (pp. 7–10). Chicago:
Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 47(4), 9–17.
Hunt, S. D. (1984). Should marketing adopt relativism? In: M. J. Ryan & P. F. Anderson (Eds),
Marketing theory: Philosophy and sociology of science perspectives (pp. 30–34). Chicago:
Hunt, S. D. (1987a). Marketing research: Proximate purpose and ultimate value. In Belk, et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1987 Winter Marketing Educators’ Conference (pp. 209–213).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hunt, S. D. (1987b). The logical positivists: Beliefs, consequences and status. In: D. Sudharshan
and F. W. Winter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Paul D. Converse Award Symposium
(pp. 24–33). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hunt, S. D. (1988). The AMA task force on the development of marketing thought: A
comment. Journal of Marketing, 52(October), 42–47.
Hunt, S. D. (1989a). Naturalistic, humanistic and interpretive inquiry: Challenges and ultimate
potential. In: E. Hirschman (Ed.), Interpretive consumer research (pp. 185–198). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Hunt, S. D. (1989b). Reification and realism in marketing: In defense of reason. Journal of
Macromarketing, 9(Fall), 4–10.
Hunt, S. D. (1990a). Commentary on an empirical investigation of a general theory of
marketing ethics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 173–177.
Hunt, S. D. (1990b). Truth in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 54(July),
1–15.
Hunt, S. D. (1991a). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: Toward critical
pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 32–44.
Hunt, S. D. (1991b). The three dichotomies model of marketing revisited: Is the total content of
marketing thought normative? In: T. L. Childers, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1991
AMA Winter Educators’ Conference (pp. 425–430). Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Hunt, S. D. (1992a). For reason and realism in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 56(April),
89–102.
Hunt, S. D. (1992b). Marketing is y. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(Fall),
301–311.
Hunt, S. D. (1993a). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing,
57(April), 76–91.
Hunt, S. D. (1993b). Truth, Laudan and Peirce: A view from the trenches. In: C. Moore (Ed.),
Charles S. Peirce and the philosophy of Science: Papers from the Harvard sesquicentennial
congress (pp. 119–129). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Hunt, S. D. (1994a). A realist theory of empirical testing: Resolving the theory ladenness/
objectivity debate. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 24(2), 133–158.
Hunt, S. D. (1994b). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods.
European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13–25.
Hunt, S. D. (1994c). On the rhetoric of qualitative methods: Toward historically informed
argumentation in management inquiry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 3(September),
221–234.
Hunt, S. D. (1995a). On communication, probative force, and sophistry: A reply to Van
Eijkelenburg. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(June), 211–213.
Hunt, S. D. (1995b). The resource-advantage theory of competition: Toward explaining
productivity and economic growth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(4), 317–332.
Hunt, S. D. (1997a). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationship marketing in
resource advantage theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 13, 431–445.
Hunt, S. D. (1997b). Evolutionary economics, endogenous growth models, and resource-
advantage theory. Eastern Economic Journal, 23(4), 427–441.
Hunt, S. D. (1997c). Resource advantage theory: An evolutionary theory of competitive firm

behavior? Journal of Economic Issues, 31(1), 59–77.
Hunt, S. D. (1997d). Resource-advantage theory and the wealth of nations: Developing the
socio-economic research tradition. Journal of Socio-Economics, 26(4), 335–357.
Hunt, S. D. (1998). Productivity, economic growth, and competition: Resource allocation or
resource creation? Business and the Contemporary World, 10(3), 367–394.
Hunt, S. D. (1999). The strategic imperative and sustainable competitive advantage: Public
policy implications of resource-advantage theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27(2), 144–159.
Hunt, S. D. (2000a). A general theory of competition: Too eclectic or not eclectic enough? Too
incremental or not incremental enough? Too neoclassical or not neoclassical enough?
Journal of Macromarketing, 20(1), 77–81.
Hunt, S. D. (2000b). Synthesizing resource-based, evolutionary, and neoclassical thought:
Resource-advantage theory as a general theory of competition. In: N. J. Foss &
P. Robertson (Eds), Resources, technology, and strategy (pp. 53–79). London: Routledge.
Hunt, S. D. (2000c). The competence-based, resource-advantage, and neoclassical theories of
competition: Toward a synthesis. In: R. Sanchez & A. Heene (Eds), Theory development
for competence-based management. Vol. 6(A). In advances in applied business strategy
series (pp. 177–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hunt, S. D. (2001a). A general theory of competition: Issues, answers and an invitation.
European Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), 524–548.
Hunt, S. D. (2001b). The influence of philosophy, philosophies, and philosophers on a
marketer’s scholarship. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 117–122.
Hunt, S. D. (2002a). Marketing and a general theory of competition. Journal of Marketing
Management, 18(1–2), 239–247.
Hunt, S. D. (2002b). Marketing as a profession: On closing stakeholder gaps. European Journal
of Marketing, 36(3), 305–312.
Hunt, S. D. (2002c). Resource-advantage theory and Austrian economics. In: N. J. Foss &
P. G. Klein (Eds), Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian perspectives on economic
organization (pp. 248–272). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Hunt, S. D. (2003). On the foundations of foundations of marketing theory: A reply to Fisk.
Journal of Macromarketing, 23(1), 52–54.
Hunt, S. D. (2004). On the service-centered dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,
68(1), 21–22.
Hunt, S. D. (2005). For truth and realism in management research. Journal of Management
Inquiry, 14(2), 127–138.
Hunt, S. D. (2006). On reforming marketing: For marketing systems and brand equity strategy.
In: J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia (Eds), Does marketing need reform? (pp. 69–77). Armonk,
NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hunt, S. D. (2007a). A responsibilities framework for marketing as a professional discipline.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 277–283.
Hunt, S. D. (2007b). Economic growth: Should policy focus on investment or dynamic
competition? European Business Review, 19(4), 274–291.
Hunt, S. D. (2008). Realism. In: R. Thorpe & R. Holt (Eds), The Sage dictionary of qualitative
management research (pp. 181–183). London: Sage Publications.
Hunt, S. D. (2009). Competitive advantage strategies in times of adversity. Journal of Customer
Behaviour, 8(Summer), 137–153.
Hunt, S. D. (2010). Marketing theory: Foundations, controversy, strategy, resource advantage

theory. M.E. Sharpe: New York.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. (1999). Philosophical and methodological foundations of consumer
research. In: P. E. Earl & S. Kemp (Eds), Consumer research and economic psychology
(pp. 437–444). Cheltanham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2001). Competition as an evolutionary process and antitrust
policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20(1), 15–26.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2003). Resource-advantage theory and embeddedness:
Explaining R-A theory’s explanatory success. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
11(1), 1–17.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2004a). Market segmentation strategy and resource-advantage
theory: A response to Cadeaux and Dowling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 12(1), 32–36.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2004b). Market segmentation, competitive advantage, and public
policy: Grounding segmentation strategy in resource-advantage theory. Australasian
Marketing Journal, 12(1), 7–25.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2006a). Does marketing success lead to market success? Journal of
Business Research, 59, 820–828.
Hunt, S. D., & Arnett, D. B. (2006b). Toward a general theory of marketing: Resource-
advantage theory as an extension of Alderson’s theory of market processes. In:
B. Wooliscroft, R. D. Tamilia & S. J. Shapiro (Eds), A twenty-first century guide
to Aldersonian marketing thought (pp. 453–472). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006a). For dynamic relationship marketing
theory: A reply to Rese. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 92–93.
Hunt, S. D., Arnett, D. B., & Madhavaram, S. (2006b). The explanatory foundations of
relationship marketing theory. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(2), 72–87.
Hunt, S. D., & Burnett, J. J. (1982). The macromarketing/micromarketing dichotomy: A
taxonomical model. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 11–26.
Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1984). Marketing and Machiavellianism. Journal of Marketing,
48(Summer), 30–42.
Hunt, S. D., & Chonko, L. B. (1987). Ethical problems of advertising agency executives. Journal
of Advertising, 16(4), 16–24.
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wilcox, J. B. (1984). Ethical problems of marketing researchers.
Journal of Marketing Research, XXI(August), 309–324.
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wood, V. R. (1985). Organizational commitment and marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 49(Winter), 112–124.
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wood, V. R. (1986). Marketing education and marketing
success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 8(8), 2–13.
Hunt, S. D., & Davis, D. F. (2008). Grounding supply chain management in resource-
advantage theory. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(1), 10–21.
Hunt, S. D., & Derozier, C. (2004). The normative imperatives of business and marketing
strategy: Grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 19(1), 5–22.
Hunt, S. D., & Duhan, D. F. (2002). Competition in the third millennium: Efficiency or
effectiveness? Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 97–102.
Hunt, S. D., & Edison, S. (1995). On the marketing of marketing knowledge. Journal of
Marketing Management, 11(7), 635–639.
Hunt, S. D., & Goolsby, J. (1988). The rise and fall of the functional approach to marketing: A
paradigm displacement perspective. In: T. Nevett & R. A. Fullerton (Eds), Historical
perspectives in marketing: Essays in Honor of Stanley G. Hollander (pp. 35–54).
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co.
Hunt, S. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2007). Understanding ethical diversity in organizations.
Organizational Dynamics, 36(2), 202–216.
Hunt, S. D., & Hansen, J. M. (2009). The philosophical foundations of marketing research: For
scientific realism and truth. In: P. Maclaran, M. Saren, B. Stern & M. Tadajewski (Eds),
The Sage handbook of marketing theory (pp. 111–125). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hunt, S. D., & Hunt, K. A. (1982). Bartels’ metatheory of marketing: A retrospective. In:
D. M. Gardner & F. W. Winter (Eds.), Proceedings of Paul D. Converse awards
symposium (pp. 50–58). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hunt, S. D., & Jackobs, H. D. (1976). Franchising as an investment opportunity: An
evaluation. Marquette Business Review, 20(Winter), 135–142.
Hunt, S. D., Kiecker, P. L., & Chonko, L. B. (1990). Social responsibility and personal success:
A research note. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(3), 239–244.
Hunt, S. D., & Lambe, C. J. (2000). Marketing’s contribution to business strategy: Market
orientation, relationship marketing, and resource-advantage theory. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 17–44.
Hunt, S. D., Lambe, C. J., & Wittman, C. M. (2002). A theory and model of business alliance
success. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(1), 17–35.
Hunt, S. D., & Laverie, D. A. (2004). Experiential learning and the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics:
Teaching marketing ethics by integrating theory and practice. Marketing Education
Review, 14(3), 1–14.
Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006a). Teaching marketing strategy: Using resource-
advantage theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing
Education, 28(2), 93–105.
Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006b). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Theoretical
foundations, pedagogy, and resource-advantage theory. In: R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo
(Eds), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 85–90).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hunt, S. D., & Menon, A. (1995). Metaphors and competitive advantage: Evaluating the use
of metaphors in theories of competitive strategy. Journal of Business Research, 33(2),
81–90.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994a). Organizational commitment: One of many commitments
or key mediating construct? Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1568–1587.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1994b). Relationship marketing in the era of network
competition. Marketing Management, 3(1), 19–28.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition.
Journal of Marketing, 59(April), 1–15.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1996). The resource-advantage theory of competition:
Dynamics, path dependencies, and evolutionary dimensions. Journal of Marketing,
60(October), 107–114.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: A snake swallowing its tail
or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 61(October), 74–82.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (2005). The Resource-advantage theory of competition:
A review. Review of Marketing Research, 1, 153–206.
Hunt, S. D., Muncy, J. A., & Ray, N. M. (1981). Alderson’s general theory of marketing: A
formalization. In: B. Enis & K. J. Roering (Eds), Review of marketing – 1981 (pp. 267–272).
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1974). Power in a channel of distribution: Sources and
consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, XI(May), 186–193.
Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1975). Tying agreements in franchising. Journal of Marketing,
39(3), 20–26.
Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1976). Full disclosure laws in franchising: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Marketing, 40(2), 53–62.
Hunt, S. D., & Nevin, J. R. (1981). Why consumers believe they are being ripped off. Business
Horizons, 24(3), 48–52.
Hunt, S. D., & Pappas, J. L. (1972). A crucial test for the Howard-Sheth model of buyer
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, IX(August), 346–348.
Hunt, S. D., Ray, N. M., & Wood, V. R. (1985). Behavioral dimensions of channels of distribution:
Review and synthesis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(3), 1–24.
Hunt, S. D., Sparkman, R. D., Jr., & Wilcox, J. B. (1982). The pretest in survey research: Issues
and preliminary findings. Journal of Marketing Research, XIX(May), 269–273.
Hunt, S. D., & Speck, P. S. (1985). Does logical empiricism imprison marketing? In:
N. Dohlakia & J. Arndt (Eds), Changing the course of marketing: Alternative paradigms
for widening marketing theory (pp. 27–35). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hunt, S. D., & Vasquez-Parraga, A. (1993). Organizational consequences, marketing ethics and
salesforce supervision. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(Feb.), 78–90.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of
Macromarketing, 6(Spring), 5–16.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2005). Personal moral codes and the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics:
Why do people’s ethical judgments differ? In: R. A. Peterson & O. C. Ferrell (Eds),
Business ethics: New challenges for business schools and corporate leaders (pp. 18–37).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Inc.
Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2006). The general theory of marketing ethics: A revision and three
questions. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(2), 143–153.
Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational
commitment in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 79–90.
Kinnear, T. C., & Bernhardt, K. L. (1983). Dynamics in marketing principles. Scott-Foresman.
Kroll, R., & Hunt, S. D. (1980). Consumer-interest study in higher education: A
conceptual analysis of an emerging discipline. Journal of Consumer Affairs (Winter),
267–285.
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2000). Interimistic relational exchange:
Conceptualization and propositional development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(2), 212–225.
Lambe, C. J., Spekman, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Alliance competence, resources, and
alliance success: Conceptualization, measurement, and initial test. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 30(2), 141–158.
Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant
resources: Developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing
strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 67–82.
Mayo, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1990). An empirical investigation of a general theory of
marketing ethics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(2), 163–171.
Monieson, D. D. (1988). Intellectualization in Macromarketing: A world disenchanted. Journal

of Macromarketing, 8(Fall), 4–10.
Morgan, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (2002). Determining marketing strategy: A cybernetic
systems approach to scenario planning. European Journal of Marketing, 36(4),
450–478.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(July), 20–38.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1999). Relationship-based competitive advantage: The role
of relationship marketing in marketing strategy. Journal of Business Research, 46(3),
281–290.
Nakamoto, K., & Hunt, S. D. (1980). Deterministic theory and marketing, theoretical
developments in marketing. In: C. W. Lamb Jr., & P. M. Dunne (Eds.), Proceedings of
the American Marketing Association Theory Conference (pp. 244–247). Chicago:
Nevin, J. R., Hunt, S. D., & Levas, M. G. (1981). Legal remedies for deceptive and unfair
practices in franchising. Journal of Macromarketing, 1(1), 23–34.
Nevin, J. R., Hunt, S. D., & Ruekert, R. W. (1980). The impact of fair practice laws on a
franchise channel of distribution. Business Topics (Summer), 27–37.
Pinson, C. R. A., Anglemar, R., & Roberto, E. L. (1972). An evaluation of the general theory of
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36, 66–69.
Robicheaux, R. A., Pride, W., & Ferrell, O. C. (1977). Marketing: Contemporary dimensions.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Samaras, J. T. (1989). Management applications: Exercises. Cases and readings. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Savitt, R. (2000). A philosophical essay about A general theory of competition: Resources,
competences, economic growth. Journal of Macromarketing, 20(l), 73–76.
Sheth, J. N., & Garrett, D. M. (1986). Marketing theory: Classic and contemporary dimensions.
Southwestern Publishing Co. New York: Wiley.
Smith, N. C., & Quelch, J. A. (1993). Ethics in marketing. Burr Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Smith, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional
situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(3), 149–158.
Sparks, J. R., & Hunt, S. D. (1998). Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity:
Conceptualization, measurement, and exploratory investigation. Journal of Marketing,
62(2), 92–109.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vitell, S. J., & Hunt, S. D. (1990). The general theory of marketing ethics: A partial test of the
model. In: J. N. Sheth (Ed.), Research in marketing (Vol. 10, pp. 237–265). Stamford,
Connecticut: JAI Press.
Wood, V. R., Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1986). Social responsibility and personal success:
Are they incompatible? Journal of Business Research, 14(3), 193–212.
Wooliscroft, B., Tamilia, R. D., & Shapiro, S. J. (2006). A twenty-first century guide
to Aldersonian marketing thought (pp. 453–472). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Yilmaz, C., & Hunt, S. D. (2001). Salesperson cooperation: The influence of relational, task,
organizational, and personal factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
29(4), 335–357.
PHILIP KOTLER’S CONTRIBUTIONS
TO MARKETING THEORY AND
PRACTICE
Philip Kotler
ABSTRACT
The author describes how he entered the marketing field and describes his
contributions in four sections: articles written, books published, students
nurtured, and executives consulted and trained. He describes his contribu-
tions to the marketing field in nine areas: marketing theory and
orientations, improving the role and practice of marketing, analytical
marketing, the social and ethical side of marketing, globalization and
international marketing competition, marketing in the new economy,
creating and managing the product mix, strategic marketing, and broad-
ening the concept and application of marketing.
It is an honor to be invited by the Review of Marketing Research to write an

article about my contributions in the field of marketing.
Because this will largely be an intellectual article, I would like to supply
some background on how I entered the field of marketing. I received my
MA in economics in 1953 at the University of Chicago where I studied
under Nobel economist Milton Friedman and I became a ‘‘free market’’
economist. I went for my Ph.D. in economics to M.I.T. and I studied under

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008007
87
88 PHILIP KOTLER
Nobel economists Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow. Needless to say, I

became a Keynesian economist, believing that the government had a
positive role to play in resuscitating an economy that was in the throes of a
recession or depression.
When I was invited to join the business school faculty at Northwestern
University in 1962, I was given a choice between teaching economics and
marketing. I decided to teach marketing for two reasons. The first was that
if such gifted Nobel prize-winning economists could not agree, I was
unlikely to develop a new theory to bridge the gap between these different
views of economic science. The second was that marketing appealed to me
as an area of economics that economists had failed to cover. Economists
spoke mostly about the role of the price system in determining the demand
for goods and services, and they said very little about the role of other
demand factors – advertising, sales force, sales promotions, product
features, and channels of distribution – in affecting demand. My hope was
to study and teach marketing so that it would become part of the corpus of
economic theory. I called myself a ‘‘market economist’’ in contrast to a
macro-economist or a micro-economist. I felt that economists needed to
model the real-world dynamics of the marketplace, and this would help
enrich their diagnoses and prescriptions.
My work in marketing started in 1962 at Northwestern University’s
Business School (later named the Kellogg School of Management). I have
been thinking and doing marketing for 48 years.
I believe that my contributions to the field of marketing came about in the
following four ways:
1. Articles written
2. Books published
3. Students nurtured
4. Executives consulted and trained
I will comment on each of these in the following.
CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH ARTICLES WRITTEN
I have published 147 articles in peer-reviewed journals. When Professor

Jagdish Sheth invited me to be published as a Legend in Marketing, I
proceeded to group my 147 articles into nine categories. A volume would
appear in each category containing my relevant articles along with the
comments of three or four professors familiar with that category who would
Philip Kotler’s Contributions to Marketing Theory and Practice 89
assess my contributions. Readers of this article can check the assessments of

other scholars of my work in the Legend series.
The nine volumes containing my articles are listed below along with the
commentators. The first listed person is the volume editor who organized
the volume and invited the others to participate:
1. Marketing Theory and Orientations (Ravi Achrol, John Narver, Torger
Reve, Bob Spekman)
2. Improving the Role and Practice of Marketing (Tim Ambler, Patrick
Barwise, Hugh Davidson, Winston Fletcher)
3. Analytical Marketing (Robert Blattberg, Anne Coughlan, Lakshman
Kristhnamurthi, Andy Zoltners)
4. The Social and Ethical Side of Marketing (Paul Bloom, Sonya Grier, Pat
Murphy, Kash Rangan)
5. Globalization and International Marketing Competition (Michael
Czinkota, Coskun Samli, Charles Skoba, Isabelle Szmigin)
6. Marketing in the New Economy (Patrick DuParcq, Ward Hanson,
Ed Malthouse, Das Narayndas)
7. Creating and Managing the Product Mix (Venkatesh Shankar, Barry
Bayus, Satish Jayachandran, Rajan Vardarajan)
8. Strategic Marketing (Glen Urban, John Roberts, Al Silk, Jerry Wind,)
9. Broadening the Concept and Application of Marketing (Bill Wilkie, Alan
Andreasen, Sid Levy, Jerry Zaltman)
In what follows I will describe the key articles in each group and their
intended contribution.
Volume 1: Marketing Theory and Orientations
I have had a long-standing interest in marketing theory and philosophies. I

realized early that marketing means different things to different managers
and different members of the public. In the popular mind, marketing is a
name for the activities of advertising, sales promotion, and sales force. A
1997 Webster dictionary gave the following definition of marketing: ‘‘The
act or practice of advertising and selling a product’’(Random House
Webster’s Dictionary of American English, 1997). Many companies did not
have a marketing department, but they certainly had a sales force and
typically spent some money on ads and promotions.
Even in companies with a marketing department, most of their work
comprised promotional activities and a small part consisted of marketing
90 PHILIP KOTLER
research and data collection. I felt that effective marketing called for much
more than promotion and a few other activities. Marketing should include
decisions on what products and services to offer, how to price them, how to
put them into distribution, and how to promote them.
In 1960, I was selected as one of 50 business school professors to attend a
special one-year Ford Foundation program at Harvard in higher mathe-
matics. The training program aimed to update the mathematical and
research skills of the 50 carefully selected business school professors. This
group included several marketing professors: Jerry McCarthy, Frank Bass,
Ed Pessemier, and Robert Buzzell. Jerry McCarthy at that time was
preparing the first edition of his Principles of Marketing. He organized his
material around what he called the 4Ps: Product, Price, Place, and
Promotion. Jerry had done his Ph.D. work at Northwestern University
with Professor Richard Clewett who organized his course around Product,
Price, Distribution, and Promotion. Jerry replaced ‘‘distribution’’ with
‘‘place.’’ This became the famous 4Ps. I found the 4Ps to be what I was
looking for to get marketing out of being strictly about promotion.
Later, I came to realize that the 4Ps represented the tactical ‘‘tools’’ of
marketing practice. Tactical Marketing needed to be preceded by Strategic
Marketing. One concept that intrigued me was ‘‘market segmentation’’
(Smith, 1956). Another was positioning by Al Ries and Jack Trout (Ries &
Trout, 1982). I had an ‘‘Ah Ha’’ experience when I combined these concepts
with ‘‘targeting’’ into the notion of segmentation, targeting and positioning
(STP), which I then made popular in my Marketing Management textbook.
So I viewed the marketing planning process as consisting of the following
six steps:
Situational analysis - Goal and objectives setting - STP - 4Ps -

Implementation - Control.
But I also realized that this planning process is sterile without a deeper
sense of the customer as a starting point. Too many companies simply made
a product and then tried to sell it to everyone (product orientation), often
putting their emphasis on sales power (selling orientation) or on technical
innovation.
I believed that everything should start with the company choosing what
customers and what customer need(s) the company is trying to satisfy (e.g.,
for Mercedes, the customer is affluent and wants a luxury car experience
that impresses the buyer and others). When a company starts with customer
thinking, I called it a customer orientation.
Later on, I recognized that not all customer needs should be catered to.
Satisfying some needs would harm customers in the long run (e.g., cigarette
smoking), and some will harm others as well (e.g., drug addiction). Marketing
needed to pay more attention to the social, health, and environmental effects
of consumption. I formulated the idea of the Societal Marketing Concept,
namely that the company should produce a product that satisfies a need while
not harming the consumer, those around the consumer, or the society as a
whole.
When developing and contrasting these varying philosophies for guiding
the company’s marketing, I started to dig more deeply into theory. What
was the essential anchoring concept in marketing? As an economist, I knew
that the core concept in economics is ‘‘scarcity’’ and how to efficiently
allocate scarce resources among its many claimants. What about marketing?
It seemed to me that ‘‘exchange’’ is the core concept. Marketing is not
about making things or using things but exchanging things. In my article
‘‘A generic concept of marketing’’ (Kotler, 1972), I listed the following five
conditions for exchange:
1. There are at least two parties.
2. Each party has something that might be of value to the other party.
3. Each party is capable of communication and delivery.
4. Each party is free to accept or reject the exchange offer.
5. Each party believes it is appropriate or desirable to deal with the other
party.
Then I began to realize that marketing’s main purpose was to influence
demand. Economists have always talked about demand and supply, and my
thought was that demand should be the province of the marketers.
Economists limited their analysis to how price and economic and seasonal
conditions affect demand. I thought that demand is influenced by many
marketing activities, including advertising, sales force, sales promotion,
giveaways, guaranties, and many other factors. If they did not influence
demand, why would companies spend money on them?
Most companies on most occasions want to increase demand for their
product or service. But I then realized that this is not always the goal. More
specifically, a company could shape three aspects of demand: its level, timing,
and composition. The company might want to raise the level of demand, or in
times of shortages, it might want to lower the level of demand. Or a soft drink
company such as Coca Cola may be happy with its overall annual sales but
would like to influence the timing of demand by attracting more sales in
winter, which were usually slower months. Or a hotel such as the Four Seasons
92 PHILIP KOTLER
might want to alter the composition of demand, namely, who they want as
guests: they would welcome affluent people but would discourage loud and
noisy people. I began to realize that marketing may have many more tasks
than simply expanding demand and I published ‘‘The major tasks of
marketing management’’ (Kotler, 1973b) in the Journal of Marketing and
listed eight tasks given in Table 1.
In my subsequent writings, I touched on all of these demand states. I
particularly wrote extensively on the last two demand states.
Overfull demand describes a situation where the demand is too high and
there is broad consensus that demand should be reduced. During the oil
crisis of 1973, the price of oil shot up and people were exhorted to reduce
their driving. Another example is when California faced a severe water
shortage and urged its citizens to reduce their water usage by showering
quicker and less frequently, watering their lawns less often, and installing
more efficient showerheads and toilets. This led Professor Sidney Levy and
me to publish ‘‘Demarketing, yes, demarketing’’ (Kotler & Levy, 1971) in
the Harvard Business Review, which caught a lot of attention as a systematic
way that regulators could discourage the use of a scarce resource. Today, I
have returned to this theme and I believe that we are moving from an Age of
Marketing to an Age of Demarketing. Our environmental consciousness
and the desire for sustainability is getting us to recognize the worldwide
shortage of water, the poor quality of air caused by the burning of coal, the
shortage of timber resulting from clandestine deforestation, the problem of
overfishing, and the depletion of various minerals.
The last listed demand state, unwholesome demand, prompted my interest
in seeing whether marketing had anything to say about changing the demand
for ‘‘bads’’ as opposed to ‘‘goods.’’ Not all goods and services are good.
Table 1. The Basic Marketing Tasks.

Demand State Marketing Task Formal Name
I Negative demand Disabuse demand Conversional marketing

II No demand Create demand Stimulational marketing
III Latent demand Develop demand Developmental marketing
IV Faltering demand Revitalize demand Remarketing
V Irregular demand Synchronize demand Synchromarketing
VI Full demand Maintain demand Maintenance marketing
VII Overfull demand Reduce demand Demarketing
VIII Unwholesome demand Destroy demand Countermarketing
Before I discuss this, I must mention my interest in ‘‘broadening the

concept of marketing.’’ I realized that my thinking had been largely focused
on the ‘‘goods and services’’ basket but that other things could be marketed
as well, such as places, persons, ideas, and causes. I remembered a statement
of the novelist Robert Louis Stevenson that ‘‘everyone lives by selling
something.’’ On this insight, Sidney Levy and I wrote ‘‘Broadening the
concept of marketing’’ (Kotler & Levy, 1969). This article fired up a
controversy. Professor David Luck thought that we were leading marketing
down a slippery slope and that the discipline’s boundaries would become
blurred. He also thought that these other behavior systems did not have
‘‘markets’’ and a price system. We decided to test this challenge with a
survey of the profession and found that the overwhelming number of
academic marketers favored the broadened concept of marketing.
My next move was to test whether social causes (one of the new
broadened areas) could be usefully analyzed through the lens of marketing.
Could organizations use marketing to help advance causes such as ‘‘say no
to drugs,’’ ‘‘stop smoking,’’ ‘‘exercise daily,’’ and ‘‘eat healthier foods?’’. I
teamed up with Professor Jerry Zaltman who was on our Northwestern
faculty, and we wrote ‘‘Social marketing: An approach to planned social
change’’ (Kotler & Zaltman, 1971).
Social marketing has remained one of my favorite areas of research. I felt
that information campaigns alone were not sufficient to drive a change in
behavior. I remember the foolishness of the U.S. Surgeon General office
sending to every American’s mail box a several page brochure in small print
warning the reader about the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic. The newsprint
industry made a lot of money, but I doubt if anyone read the brochure or
changed his or her behavior. I subsequently wrote a number of books on
social marketing. Social marketing has now become an established branch
of marketing with a Social Marketing Association with members from
around the world (The Second World Social Marketing Conference took
place in Dublin, April 11–12, 2011).
In the group of articles on Marketing Theory and Orientations, I wrote or
co-wrote a few other articles that contained some new ideas. In ‘‘Buying is
marketing too’’ (Kotler & Levy, 1973), Sidney Levy and I argued that
marketing is not only done by ‘‘sellers’’ but also by ‘‘buyers.’’ Suppose a
buyer wants to rent a certain apartment but the seller is reluctant to rent it to
the buyer. The seller might be biased against the buyer’s race or may want to
reserve the apartment for a friend or want to hold out for more money. The
buyer will have to turn on his charms: he will want to show that he will be a
well-behaved tenant; he may offer to pay a higher rent than normal; he may
94 PHILIP KOTLER
offer other inducements to the seller. In any negotiation, both the buyer and
the seller can be seen as marketing to each other.
I later realized that a demand outcome is also influenced by the
surrounding atmosphere. In ‘‘Atmospherics as a marketing tool’’ (Kotler,
1973b). I comment how the buyer is affected by visual (color, size, shape,
and brightness), auditory (volume, pitch), olfactory (scent and freshness),
tactile (softness, smoothness, and temperature), and other sensory factors in
the immediate environment. Thus, a consumer who is shopping for a bank
may walk into one bank and be turned off by its colors, design, and
furnishings and walk into another bank and find it very pleasant and
welcoming. Every professional (lawyer, physician, and psychiatrist) needs to
be aware of the effect of the office atmosphere on the clients. Lawyers want
their offices to look orderly and professional rather than full of piles of papers
and a general unkempt look causing the prospective client to worry about
whether his case file will be lost or whether the lawyer is too busy to give his
case enough time. Recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the role
played by sensory factors in consumer choice behavior (Lindstrom, 2008).
In ‘‘From market driven to market driving’’ (Kumar, Sheer, & Kotler,
2000), Professors Nirmalya Kumar, Lisa Sheer, and I argue that meeting
existing customer needs is the first step in effective marketing but may not be
sufficient to enhance customers’ lives. Selling a good working telephone to
customers would satisfy their need; creating an iPhone or iPad would
enhance their lives. The fact that customers did not know that an iPhone is
possible should not stop Steve Jobs for making one and promoting it to
customers. Being market-driven is fine, but being market-driving is even
better.
In ‘‘Megamarketing’’ (Kotler, 1986b), I claim that the 4Ps might not
suffice to win a market, especially if the market is blocked by individuals or
organizations from purchasing the product. Suppose the health minister in a
country refuses to let a certain drug be sold in this country that is really
needed by patients. He may disbelieve in the drug’s efficacy or he may want
a bribe. The pharmaceutical firm has two options in its toolkit. The firm can
apply Power by asking the U.S. government to contact the prime minister to
put pressure on his minister of health. Or the pharmaceutical firm may use
public relations to organize the physicians and the public in that country
to pressure the health minister to let the drug in. It is a matter of power
(push) or public relations (pull), two additional ‘‘P’’ tools in the marketer’s
tactical toolkit.
In ‘‘From mass marketing to mass customization’’ (Kotler, 1989), I
celebrate the evolution of marketing from making one standard product to
sell to everyone (Coca Cola) to being able to make a customized product

for each person. I detail examples such as Levi Jeans offering a tailored jean
for each individual, a Japanese bicycle company customizing the bicycle for
individuals, Dell computer customizing the computer, and other examples. I
note how technology has brought down the cost of mass customization and
that in many product categories the customer can get precisely what he or
she wants.
Volume 2: Improving the Role and Practice of Marketing
I have published 18 articles on improving the role and practice of marketing.

I will describe the more important articles.
One of my major interests lies in convincing companies to implement the
marketing concept, to become customer-driven if not customer-driving. In
1965, I published ‘‘Diagnosing the marketing takeover (Kotler, 1965a,
1965b, 1965c, 1965d), where I argued that the marketing concept needs to
play a larger role in the company’s strategic planning. I distinguished three
levels of marketing’s role in a company:
Marketing manages the traditional functions of advertising, sales force,
sales promotion, marketing research, and pricing.
Marketing manages some additional functions such as supply chain
management and credit.
Marketing manages the planning of the company’s business growth.
I point out that at whatever level marketing operates, it will inevitably get
into conflicts with other functions: engineering, purchasing, manufacturing,
inventory management, finance, accounting, and credit. I illustrate how each
conflict arises from the different goals and responsibilities of each function.
My aim is to sensitize marketers to what lies ahead in their attempt to
expand their contribution and influence within the organization.
I elaborated further on consumer orientation in ‘‘From sales obsession to
marketing effectiveness’’ (Kotler, 1977), I contrasted how differently
marketing and sales people think about customers and the marketplace. I
designed an instrument that a company could use to answer whether it
possessed marketing effectiveness. The company had to rate its standing on
five attributes: customer philosophy, integrated marketing organization,
adequate marketing information, operational efficiency, and strategic
orientation. This article was a best seller as many companies wanted to
assess whether they exhibited a strong marketing orientation.
96 PHILIP KOTLER
This article then inspired a follow-on article with coauthors William

Gregory and William Rodgers called ‘‘The marketing audit comes of age’’
(Kotler, Gregory, & Rodgers, 1977). A marketing audit is a much more
thorough examination of a company’s marketing effectiveness than the
Marketing Effectiveness Instrument previously described. We defined a
marketing audit as a ‘‘comprehensive, systematic, independent and periodic
examination of a company or business unit’s marketing environment,
objectives, strategies and activities with a view of determining problem areas
and opportunities and recommend a plan of action to improve the
company’s marketing performance.’’ We described the steps in the whole
process of carrying out a marketing audit. Since then, many consulting firms
have applied the marketing audit instrument to help companies improve
their marketing organization, strategies, and policies.
In 2006, I worked with Neil Rackham and Suj Krishnaswamy to examine
the tensions in the relationship between marketing and sales in ‘‘Ending the
war between marketing and sales’’ (Kotler, Rackham, & Krishnaswamy,
2006). We distinguished between four levels of relationship between
marketing and sales: undefined relationship, defined relationship, aligned
relationship, and integrated relationship. Even when the two functions have
carefully defined their separate goals and responsibilities, they may not act
with a sense of alignment, let alone integration. Marketing thinks that sales
is primarily responsible for executing the marketing plan whether or not
sales had participated in developing the plan. But sales may function poorly
because sales think that marketing set prices too high, developed too bland a
value proposition, or gave them poor leads. We offered several recommen-
dations for improving the joint performance of marketing and sales and the
article achieved a wide distribution.
I wrote a piece with John Westman in 2006 ‘‘What CEOs need to know and
do about marketing’’ (Kotler & Westman, 2006). Many CEOs, especially of
smaller companies and B2B type companies, come from engineering, law,
or accounting and have a limited understanding of the marketing discipline
and its demand-producing power. We presented the most current view about
how CEOs should view marketing, and we included some instruments to help
them rate and improve the marketing management process.
This was followed by an article with Robert Shaw ‘‘Rethinking the
chain: Make marketing leaner, faster and better’’ (Shaw & Kotler, 2009),
where we established where marketing waste occurs, not only in advertising
but also in several other areas. We showed that marketing efficiency
thinking has come a long way from the much-quoted earlier statement
of John Wanamaker, ‘‘Half of my advertising is wasted but I don’t know
which half.’’
Volume 3: Analyzing Marketing
I have had a long-standing interest in applying mathematical analysis to

marketing processes and problems, much stemming from my Harvard
training in the 1960 Ford Foundation program to encourage more
mathematical analysis in business decision making. This volume includes
18 articles. I will just highlight a few of them.
In 1963, I wrote ‘‘The use of mathematical models in marketing’’ (Kotler,
1963) to describe to marketing academics and business managers the
essential mathematical tools they should consider using in analyzing
marketing problems. I reviewed and illustrated matrix algebra, calculus,
probability theory, and simulation and showed how they applied in areas
such as allocation models, competitive strategy models, brand switching
models, waiting line models, and critical path scheduling models. I went on
later to write a whole book, Marketing Decision Making: A Model-Building
Approach (Kotler, 1971a, 1971b, 1971c) to show how we can move toward
optimizing marketing decision making with the use of these tools.
I developed a particular interest in optimizing the selection of advertising
media using the computer. I published two articles on computerized media
selection (Kotler, 1964; Kotler, 1966a, 1966b). Another strong interest of
mine was in using computer simulation for modeling complex competitive
situations. My 1965 article ‘‘The competitive marketing simulator – A new
management tool’’ (Kotler, 1965a, 1965b, 1965c, 1965d) won the McKinsey
Award for the second best article that year in the California Management
Review. I followed it with ‘‘Evaluating competitive marketing strategies
through computer simulation’’ (Kotler, 1966a, 1966b) in 1966 where I
modeled the interaction of two competitors following explicit and separate
decision rules to find how the market share would finally settle between them.
In 1970, I published ‘‘Corporate models: Better marketing plans’’ (Kotler,
1970) in the Harvard Business Review. I chose a company, in this case a candy
producer, and showed how we could model the company’s marketing decisions
in terms of input–output relations and then simulate the company’s alternative
strategies to see which strategy promised the best return. Today, we are finally
seeing specialized firms offering to help companies build models of the sales and
cost functions so that they could identify the optimal marketing mix strategy.
Volume 4: The Social and Ethical Side of Marketing
I have a strong interest in the social and ethical aspects of marketing and I
included 17 of my articles in this volume. I will review a few of them here.
98 PHILIP KOTLER
The early 1970s was a period of great social unrest and social action. As
an economist and a trained social scientist, I became interested in the theory
of social action. In 1971, I published ‘‘Elements of social action’’ (Kotler,
1971a, 1971b, 1971c) in the American Behavioral Scientist. The article
presented a typology of social problems involving five Cs, namely, a cause,
change agency, change targets, channels, and a channel strategy. It
distinguished three types of causes, namely, helping causes, protest causes,
and revolutionary causes and what made them effective. The change agent
could use one of three strategies to produce change, namely, a power
strategy, a persuasive strategy, and a re-educative strategy. Each social
movement had a life cycle moving through a crusading stage, popular
movement stage, managerial stage, and ending up in a bureaucratic stage.
This article was my effort to theorize about how social movements get
started and the factors that affect their success or failure.
One of the social movements that I researched was consumerism. I
published ‘‘What consumerism means to marketers’’ (Kotler, 1971a, 1971b,
1971c) in the Harvard Business Review in 1971. Consumerism is a social
movement seeking to augment the rights of buyers in relation to sellers. It
happens when a growing number of consumers get angry in reaction to
unsafe products, price gouging, poor information, and other abuses in the
marketplace that put them at a disadvantage. I postulated that consumerism
in America grew in five stages as shown in Exhibit 1:
A social movement such as consumerism does not start unless certain
structural conditions exist, such as an advanced economy, education, and
communication. Even then, little happens until widespread discontent
occurs. It helps then if a generalized belief system emerges to justify
legitimate protest. Then it moves further if some triggering events and
personalities appear to support the protest. Much depends on whether the
mass media publicizes these events and some politicians and consumer
interest groups organize for action. And the course of the social movement
then depends on whether business people and legislators resist or support
the protest. This model can explain many social movements.
I also have a deep interest in the ethical questions connected with
marketing decision making. I explored the issues in ‘‘Ethical lapses of
marketers’’ (Kotler, 2006) in 2006. I started the article by pointing out that
while college professors and physicians have a high standing in the public
mind, only 20% of the public give a good rating to marketers, only 6% give
a good rating to salespeople, and only 1.9% give a good rating to
telemarketers. What can we say about marketing’s role in ballyhoo, high-
pressure selling, exaggerating a product’s quality, selling products that are
1. STRUCTURAL CONDUCIVENESS
• Advancing incomes and education
• Advancing complexity of technology and marketing
• Advancing exploitation of the environment
2. STRUCTURAL STRAINS
• Economic discontent (inflation)
• Social discontent (war and race)
• Ecological discontent (pollution)
• Marketing system discontent (shoddy products, gimmickry, dishonesty)
• Political discontent (unresponsive politicians and institutions)
3. GROWTH OF A GENERALIZED BELIEF

• Social critic writings (John Kenneth Galbraith, Vance Packard, Rachel Carson)
• Consumer-oriented legislators (Senator Kefauver, Senator Douglas)
• Presidential messages
• Consumer organizations
4. PRECIPITATING FACTORS
• Professional agitation (Ralph Nader)
• Spontaneous agitation (housewife picketing)
5. MOBILIZATION FOR ACTION

• Mass media coverage
• Vote-seeking politicians
• New consumer interest groups and organization
6. SOCIAL CONTROL
• Business resistance or indifference
• Legislative resistance or indifference
Exhibit 1. Factors Contributing to the Rise of Consumerism in the 1960s.

100 PHILIP KOTLER
bad for our health or safety, product obsolescence, and selling us on

materialistic values. My article commented on the following four questions:
Why do companies make questionable products?
What can these companies do to make these products safer?
What can be done to discourage consumption of questionable products?
Do socially responsible companies achieve higher long-run profit as a
result of their caring?
Without answering the questions here, the article did explore the
implications of different ethical systems when applied to marketing decision
making.
Volume 5: Globalization and International Marketing Competition
To understand marketing, one should not confine their attention to the U.S.
scene. Competition is now global and we can learn from much other
countries. I published 15 articles on global matters.
Four of the articles dealt with the Japanese and their economic and
marketing prowess during the 1960 to 1990(Jatusripitak, Fahey, & Kotler,
1985; Kotler & Fahey, 1985; Kotler 1985–1986; Kotler & Fahey, 1982). One
of them, ‘‘The world’s champion marketers: The Japanese,’’ suggests how
impressed I and others were with Japan’s performance. We saw Japanese
companies taking over industries such as automobiles, motorcycles, radio
and TV, and other electronics. The Japanese were beginning to buy
American companies and seemed unbeatable. They were not creating new
things as much as improving on everything that we made and bringing
down the costs. In these articles, I probed into their special gifts, including
lean production, just in time production, total quality management,
continuous product improvement, and other practices, and I argued that
our automobile and other industries must take note and adopt these best
practices.
On a different question, I took strong exception to Professor Ted Levitt’s
thesis in his Harvard Business Review article ‘‘Globalization of marketing’’
(Levitt, 1983) that global standardization is the thing to pursue. I was
surprised that Ted would favor standardization when he was an early
proponent of recognizing different needs requiring different solutions. My
article ‘‘Global standardization – Courting danger’’ (Kotler, 1986b)
distinguished those cases where global standardization made sense (e.g., in
electronic products and cameras) and where localization made more sense
(e.g., food products and clothing). I pointed out that even though McDonald’s
plans globally, it markets locally. In those few countries where it sold the strict
American version of its hamburger, it lost market share to competitors who
localized more.
I devoted two articles to the question of economic development and the
problem of global stagnation. In ‘‘The potential contributions of marketing
thinking to economic development’’ (Kotler, 1988), I argued that econo-
mists who specialize in economic growth theory unfortunately neglect
recognizing the critical role that marketing can play in helping developing
economies advance. I described the following five areas of contribution:
Improving agricultural and rural development
Helping local manufacturers move into exporting
Improving domestic marketing channels to secure scale economies
Attracting foreign investment
Applying social marketing to encourage family planning and reduce
smoking and alcoholism
The article also diagrams the inter-causal connections of many variables
that affect the rate of economic development.
The other article, ‘‘Ending global stagnation: Linking the fortunes of the
industrial and developing countries’’ (Kotler & Dholakia, 1989) made the
argument that the developed nations would gain to the extent that they
helped the poorer nations to develop faster. As more poor were brought into
the working and middle class with comparable increases in their incomes,
this would provide larger markets for the products of the developed
countries.
A few other articles dealt with the rise of the Asian ‘‘tiger’’ nations and
the growing interest in the marketing of places.
Volume 6: Marketing in the New Economy
The rapid advances in technology leading to the computer; Internet; cell

phone; social media such as Facebook, My Space, Twitter, and Linkedin;
video viewing such as YouTube; and new devices such as compact cameras,
electronic book readers, iPads, and others are bound to change the marketing
world as we know it. These developments have introduced a whole online
world where we get abundant information about any competing products and
can order many of them online, thereby reducing the role of sales people and
certain retailers (music stores and book stores) while expanding the ability
102 PHILIP KOTLER
of consumers to talk with each other and influence each other on brand
choice. I wrote seven articles to envision the implications of the new economy
for marketing theory and practice.
Professor Ravi Achrol and I wrote ‘‘Marketing in the network economy’’
(Achrol & Kotler, 1999) to show the increasing role played by networks in
shaping domestic and global activity. Drucker saw the future economy as a
networked economy with knowledge workers at the helm. He saw the old
hierarchical structures of companies giving way to disaggregated networks.
In our article, we observe that companies do not compete; their strategic
networks compete. We distinguished four types of networks: internal,
vertical, intermarket, and opportunity networks. We described how
networks have put power into the hands of consumers to become producers
and sellers as well.
In ‘‘Marketing in the age of information democracy’’ (Sawhney &
Kotler, 2000), Professor Mohan Sawhney and I describe how the digital
world has reduced the information asymmetry between producers
and consumers. We say ‘‘(buyers) do not need to overpay out of price
ignorance. They do not need to exert physical effort to consummate a
purchase y the information-rich regime empowers customers with a new
set of capabilities.’’ We call upon marketers to move from controlling
exchanges to facilitating exchanges. Marketers must move from opaque-
ness to transparency. We argue for a change in the view of marketers from
operating as hunters to being seen as gardeners. We describe the new roles
of consumers in initiating reverse promotion, reverse advertising, reverse
pricing, reverse product design, and reverse distribution. Finally, we
show the rise of new ‘‘metamediaries’’ who help specific need groups to
obtain all the inputs they need in one-stop shopping. Consumers will
improve their shopping efficiency through patronizing these rising Internet
metamediaries.
Volume 7: Creating and Managing the Product Mix
Companies face a number of decisions in developing a viable product mix.

I will describe a few of the 10 articles in this volume.
Many companies carry some low-selling products too long through
inertia or through not wanting to disappoint a few customers. My
observation is that most companies have not installed a system for
identifying their weak or weakening products and items nor taken steps to
correct or eliminate them. I deal with this issue in ‘‘Phasing out weak
products’’ (Kotler, 1965a, 1965b, 1965c, 1965d). The system consists of

periodically reviewing the sales of every product item and judging whether it
is satisfactory or requiring correction or elimination. This article received a
lot of attention from companies that realized that they needed some system
to identify weaker products.
Getting rid of a weak product is not an easy task because of vested
interests. In ‘‘Harvesting strategies for weak products’’ (Kotler, 1978), I
show how to handle a weak business unit or product that is destined for
downsizing or elimination. I describe the processes of preparing, imple-
menting, and monitoring the decision to apply a harvesting strategy.
I was interested in testing and evaluating different strategies for launching
a new product in my 1965 Management Science article ‘‘Competitive
strategies for new product marketing over the life cycle’’ (Kotler, 1965a,
1965b, 1965c, 1965d). It was one of my more mathematically intense articles.
The first part describes the market model as well as the accounting model
used by a hypothetical firm to compute its profits. The second part discusses
nine conceptually different classes of marketing strategies (nonadaptive
strategy, time-dependent strategy, competitive adaptive strategy, sales
responsive strategy, profit-responsive strategy, completely adaptive strategy,
diagnostic strategy, adaptive profit-maximizing strategy, and joint profit
maximizing strategy). The third part reports the results of a duopoly
confrontation involving various pairs of competitive strategies. The last part
suggests additional variations in the market model and in the strategies that
would increase the significance of the findings.
In ‘‘Targeting prospects for a new product’’ (Kotler & Zaltman, 1976),
Professor Gerry Zaltman and I explored new ways to define the best
prospects for a new product. In ‘‘Flawed products: Consumer responses and
marketing strategies’’ (Kotler & Mantrala, 1985), Professor Murali
Mantrala and I distinguished several ways to market a flawed product,
including lowering the price, praising the flaw, and other possibilities. In
‘‘Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool’’ (Kotler & Rath, 1984),
Alex Rath and I showed how creative design concepts can lead to a much
more successful product than when standard design is applied.
Volume 8: Strategic Marketing
I have always urged marketers to put more time into strategic thinking
before developing their tactical plans. I have also emphasized that strategies
104 PHILIP KOTLER
must adjust to the particular economic environment at the time, whether it is

recession, inflation, stagflation, or shortages. I will describe a few of the
seven articles in this volume.
In 1973, the U.S. economy moved from a period of abundant goods to a
period of severe shortages in oil, chemicals, electricity, natural gas, cement,
aluminum, copper, textiles, paper, and glass. I published ‘‘Marketing during
periods of shortage’’ (Kotler, 1974) to provide a perspective on this new
economic environment. The Age of Abundance was now moving into the
Age of Shortages. Companies had to turn to demarketing because there was
no need to build demand further. Some persons thought that marketing
personnel and departments would be made redundant. Companies had to
make hard decisions about which customers deserve to have their orders
filled, how much higher the company should set its prices, and other issues.
Much depended on the company’s view of the expected durability and depth
of the scarcity situation. Three schools emerged: the gloom and doom
school, the return to normal school, and the new lifestyles school and each
favored a different response. Companies recognized that they had to revise
their product mix, customer mix, and marketing mix. The article presented
guideliness on the best adjustments to make. I added additional ideas about
responding to shortages and inflation in my article, ‘‘Strategic remarketing:
The preferred response to shortages and inflation’’ (Kotler & Balachandran,
1975).
In discussions with executives, they always stressed the importance of
increasing market share as if their goal was to reach a 100% monopoly
position. Professor Paul Bloom and I critiqued this thinking in ‘‘Strategies
for high market-share companies’’ (Bloom & Kotler, 1975). In reaching for
more market share, a high market share company had to realize that the
cost gets steeper as the company advances its market share because buyers
who have not yet joined the bandwagon have good reasons not to join.
The company also has to worry about a too high market share inviting
government charges of unfair competition. Therefore, a company has
to decide whether it is worth X dollars to buy Y more market share; when
the answer is no, they should put X dollars into a different and better
opportunity.
Market share is of particular interest to challenger companies who by
definition are challenging the leader in an effort to gain more share. In
‘‘Market challenger strategies’’ (Kotler, 1980), I discuss three types of
strategy: direct attack, coming in through the backdoor, or a ‘‘guppy’’ strategy
of buying up smaller firms. Then, I discuss nine attack strategies: discounts,
cheaper goods, prestige goods, product proliferation, product innovation,

improved service, distribution innovation, marketing cost reduction, and
intense advertising promotion.
In 1981, Professor Ravi Acrol and I moved to a higher level of thinking
about attack and defense strategies using the framework of military
strategies as developed by thinkers such as Carl von Clausewitz and Liddell
Hart. We started with a quote from Albert Emery: ‘‘Marketing is merely a
civilized form of warfare in which most battles are won with words, ideas, and
disciplined thinking.’’ Our article, ‘‘Marketing warfare in the 1980s’’ (Kotler &
Singh, 1981) described the power and risks of five attack strategies: frontal
attack, flanking attack, encirclement attack, bypass attack, and guerrilla
attack. Then, we reviewed the power and risks of six defense strategies:
position defense, mobile defense, preemptive defense, flank positioning,
counteroffensive strategy, and hedgehog (strategic withdrawal) defense. Our
article received a lot of attention as well as a share of critics concerning the
analogy of marketing to warfare. Not long after, Al Ries and Jack Trout
published a short book called Marketing Warfare (Ries & Trout, 1997), and
Conrad Levinson launched his popular set of books on guerrilla warfare
(Levinson, 1984).
Volume 9: Broadening the Concept and Application of Marketing
Ever since publishing with Sid Levy our article ‘‘Broadening the concept of
marketing, (see Kotler & Levy, 1969), I wrote 26 other articles applying
marketing thinking to areas such as education, health, political campaign-
ing, performing arts, museums, religion, poverty, and the public sector. I
had a two-fold aim. One was to see whether marketing thinking can make a
contribution to each of these sectors. The other was to see whether
marketing theory itself would be enriched by needing to stretch over to these
sectors and remain meaningful. I think that the broadening applications
paid off in both respects. For a summary and assessment, see ‘‘The role
played by the broadening of marketing movement in the history of
marketing thought’’ (Kotler, 2005).
Some of these sectors later led me to write whole books (museums,
performing arts, health care, education, and religion), but I will not
comment on them here (see Kotler & Kotler, 2008; Kotler & Scheff, 1997;
Wrenn, Kotler, & Shawchuck, 2009; Kotler, Shalowitz, & Stevens, 2008;
Kotler & Fox, 1995).
106 PHILIP KOTLER
One strand was on political marketing that I wrote about in ‘‘Business

marketing for political candidates’’ (Kotler & Kotler, 1981) and ‘‘Political
marketing – Generating effective candidates, campaigns, and causes’’
(Kotler & Kotler, 1999) Another strand dealt with religion in articles such
as ‘‘Can (should) religion be marketed’’ (Kotler, Wrenn, Shawchuck, &
Rath, 1994) and ‘‘What does it mean for pastors to adopt market
orientation?’’ (Wrenn, Shawchuck, Kotler, & Rath, 1995).
I enjoyed writing an article with Professor William Mindak on ‘‘Marketing
and public relations: Should they be partners or rivals?’’ (Kotler & Mindak,
1978). I had always felt that PR was treated as a stepchild in marketing
planning and that it deserved more attention. Some of the most successful
communication impacts came from creative PR.
CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH BOOKS WRITTEN
When I want to learn about something in a broader and deeper way, I move
from researching and writing an article to researching and writing a book. If
no book exists that covers my ideas, I would decide to write the book.
I have published over 50 books, 11 of which I wrote by myself and the
others with expert coauthors. Nancy R. Lee and I wrote six books (see
Kotler, Lee, & Roberto, 2002; Kotler & Lee, 2005, 2006; Kotler & Lee,
2008, 2009; Cheng, Kotler, & Lee, 2011). Irving Rein and I wrote six books
(see Kotler, Rein, & Haider, 1993; Kotler, Rein, Haider, & Asplund, 1999,
2001; Kotler, Gertner, Rein, & Haider, 2006; Rein, Kotler, & Shields, 2006;
Rein, Kotler, & Stoller, 2006). Hermawan Kartajaya and I wrote five
books (see Kotler & Kartajaya, 2000; Kotler, Kartajaya, Hua, & Liu, 2003;
Kotler, Kartajaya, & Young, 2004; Kotler, Kartajaya, & Hua, 2007;
Kotler, Kartajaya, & Setiawan, 2010). Waldemar Pfoertsch and I wrote
two books (see Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2006, 2010). Somkid Jatusripitak and I
wrote two books (see Kotler, Fahey, & Jatusripitak, 1985; Kotler,
Jatusripitak, & Maesincee, 1997), and Bruce Wrenn and I wrote two
books (Kotler, Shawchuck, Wrenn, & Rath, 1992; Wrenn et al., 2009). I
have collaborated with three other fine coauthors on textbooks: Professor
Gary Armstrong on Principles of Marketing and Marketing: an Introduc-
tion, Professor Kevin Keller on Marketing Management, and Professor
Alan Andreasen on Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. I also
owe a great deal to several professors abroad who adapted (not translated)
these textbooks to countries in Europe, Asia, and South America. They

include the following:
Walter Georgio Scott Catholic University, Milan, Italy

Swee-Hoon Ang National University of Singapore
Siew-Meng Leong National University of Singapore
Chin Tiong Chan Singapore University of Management
Friehelm W. Bliemel Universitat Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern,
Germany
Stewart Adam Deaken University, Melbourne, Australia
Linden A. Brown University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Abraham Koshy Indian Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad,
India
Mithileshwar Jha Indian Institute of Technology, Bangalore,
India
Peggy Cunningham Queens University, Kingston, Canada
Lu Taihong Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
John A. Saunders Aston Business School, Birmingham, England
Veronica Wong Loughborough University Business School,
Loughborough, UK
Suzan Burton Macquarie University, Australia
The textbooks have educated millions of students in marketing around the

world and countless executives. At the same time, my books strive to keep up
with the changing times and feature the new developments. Marketing
Management will soon be published in the 14th edition; Principles of
Marketing in the 13th edition; Marketing: An Introduction in the 9th edition;
and Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations in the 5th edition.
I hope that my theories on marketing are correct, or otherwise, I would
have miseducated three generations. I have had very few critics although I
always welcome criticism, and I would be the first to revise my theories and
frameworks if a better theory comes along. One of my critics has been
Stephen Brown who wrote The Spectre of Kotlerism: A Literary Apprecia-
tion (Brown, 2002) and who featured me as a hero or anti-hero in his first
novel The Marketing Code (Brown, 2006). And a Russian professor named
Alexander Repiev wrote a critical article ‘‘Kotler and the Kotleroids’’
(Repiev, 2009). I guess I am lucky to escape with only two vocal critics.
I am often asked which are my favorite books. I answer this question like
I answer the question about my children: they are all my favorites.
108 PHILIP KOTLER
I am happy to comment below on some of the books because of their

interesting backgrounds or outcomes.
Marketing Management (Kotler & Keller, 2009)
This book has been adopted around the world in graduate schools of
business. It has been translated or adapted in over two dozen languages.
I published the first edition in 1967. I had examined previous marketing
textbooks and found them to be rich in information but highly descriptive
and prescriptive. They were not very decision-oriented or strategy-oriented.
In writing the first edition of Marketing Management, I chose to base it on
four sources of thought: economic theory, behavioral theory, organization
theory, and mathematical analysis. I was clearly departing from the norm
and I felt that the book had an equal chance of being a big success or a big
failure. Fortunately it was the former. My publisher and I were delighted
with the high level of adoption. I was especially pleased when the Financial
Times cited Marketing Management as one of the 50 most important
business books of all times (Financial Times, December 9, 1996, p. 14).
I decided to prepare a new edition every three years to take account of the
new theories, concepts, tools, practices, and cases. I invited Professor Kevin
Lane Keller of Dartmouth to be my coauthor of the 12th edition forward.
Marketing is so dynamic that it needs a new accounting regularly. It has
been our good fortune to anticipate the changes usually before my
competitors.
Marketing Management became the parent of two other textbooks that I
initially wrote for undergraduate schools and community colleges. Gary
Armstrong joined me later as coauthor, and we recently published the 13th
edition of Principles of Marketing (Kotler, & Armstrong, 2008) and the 10th
edition of Marketing – An Introduction (Kotler & Armstrong, 2009). These
books in turn spawned foreign translations and adaptations and achieved
major positions in the world market.
Marketing Decision Making: A Model Building Approach (Kotler, 1971)
This book was written by the economist in me attempting the impossible,

namely, to guide marketing decision marketing by a system of equations
that would lead to optimization. The book consisted of 700 pages of
mathematical model building. I used the method of successive approxima-
tion in writing the book, in that I introduced one complexity at a time. I
showed how to model different competitive situations, different marketing

tools, multiple products, marketing/production interactions, lagged and
decaying promotional effects, and conditions of risk and uncertainty.
Marketing Decision Making was renamed Marketing Models (Kotler &
Lilien, 1983) when Professor Gary Lilien joined me to update the book. The
book went through three editions and enjoyed the major market share in
the courses teaching quantitative marketing. Subsequently, Gary Lillien
wrote Marketing Engineering: Computer-Assisted Marketing Analysis and
Planning (Lilien & Rangaswamy, 2004), and it is a major contribution to
those who want to model marketing processes.
Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations

(Kotler & Andreasen, 2008)
Most nonprofit organizations – social service organizations, colleges,

museums, nonprofit hospitals, and others – know that their cause is good,
but for a long time, they had an aversion to business-disciplined thinking.
Peter Drucker did more than anyone to persuade churches, orchestras, and
other nonprofit organizations that they were running businesses and would
benefit from business and management thinking. Slowly nonprofit
organizations accepted that they were doing marketing even if they did
not have a marketing department. A museum has to attract visitors, raise
revenue by selling books and other items, and attract donors. In 1975, I
published the first textbook on marketing for nonprofit organizations. I had
enjoyed consulting with YMCA, United Fund, school systems, congrega-
tions, and other organizations on how to market their causes better. I
invited Professor Alan Andreasen to join me as a coauthor in 1986 and
share the work to monitor the whole complex world of nonprofits. We have
published seven editions that we hope will give the marketing skills to those
business students and professionals who choose to work for nonprofit
organizations.
Social Marketing (Kotler & Roberto, 1989)
One of the books that I enjoy writing is Social Marketing whose aim is to
help cause organizations influence positive behavioral change: say no to
smoking and drugs, avoid excess alcoholic consumption or driving when
drunk, exercise more regularly and eat healthier foods. I prepared the first
edition in 1979 with my former student Ned Roberto. We prepared a second
110 PHILIP KOTLER
edition in 2002 adding Nancy Lee as a coauthor. Nancy runs Social

Marketing Services and is a joy to work with. We are preparing the fourth
edition of Social Marketing to bring in some new tools for using social
media more effectively and bringing in more measures to assess how well
any social marketing program or campaign is working.
Up and Out of Poverty(Kotler & Lee, 2009)
The aim of marketing is to raise the standard of living and the quality of
life, but we are saddened by the problem of poverty and the 4 billion out of
6.7 billion people on the earth who go hungry or who live without
adequate clothing, housing, education, or health. Nancy Lee and I studied
poverty and wondered if social marketing concepts and tools could help lift
people out of penurious living conditions. We examined the main forces
that keep people poor – problems such as lacking bednets to protect their
children against mosquitoes and malaria, drinking contaminated water
causing diarrhea and death, and lacking birth control means to keep from
having more children than they could support. We described how social
marketing compared to more common approaches such as exhortations,
food relief programs, land redistribution. We believe that those working
with poor people would find creative ways to apply STP and the four
Ps of product, price, place, and promotion to alleviate the problems of the
poor.
Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities,

States, and Nations (Kotler et al., 1993)
I have always been intrigued with geography and the great variations in the
fortunes of people living in different countries regarding resources, income,
education, health, and other measures of social well-being. Newsweek
magazine recently published an article on ‘‘The world’s best countries,’’ and
the top 10 included all of the Scandinavian countries and the bottom 50
included most of the poor African countries (Newsweek, 2010).
What can a place – city, state, nation, or region – do to improve its
conditions? How can it attract more tourists, factories, companies, skilled
residents, and resources? This question led Professors Irving Rein, Donald
Haider, and me to research how places market themselves or could use
marketing to improve a place’s condition and attractiveness. We published
our findings in the book Marketing Places in 1993. The book found use in
many communities and countries to take a systematic look at their place’s
strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities. The original edition was
U.S. oriented, and we proceeded over the years to prepare editions with
new cases for Europe, Asia, and South America (Kotler, Rein, Haider, &
Asplund, 1999; Kotler et al., 2001, 2006).
Standing Room Only, Museum Strategy and Marketing,

and the Elusive Fan
I have a strong interest in cultural activities and institutions such as

museums, performing arts organizations, and sports organizations. The
results were three different books addressing classic and popular culture.
Joanne (Scheff) Bernstein was a student of mine who had a great
knowledge of performing arts organizations. We decided to research the
problems of performing arts organizations, and we published our findings in
Standing Room Only: Strategies for Marketing the Performing Arts in 1997
(Kotler & Scheff, 1997) We cited theories and many cases showing how
theaters, ballet companies, and orchestras could attract larger audiences,
well-trained performers, and generous donors to support the cause of
culture.
My brother Neil Kotler worked at the Smithsonian Institution and was
very knowledgeable about the world of museums. We decided to combine
our talents to analyze how museums could work better if museums
analyzed visitor development, revenue development, and donor develop-
ment through marketing eyes. We published Museum Strategy and
Marketing: Designing Missions, Building Audiences, Generating Revenue
and Resources in 1998 and updated our findings in a second edition in 2008
(Kotler & Kotler, 2008).
Irving Rein, Ben Shields, and I recognized the huge popular role played
by sports around the world. People have their favorite teams and athletes
and devote hours and days of attention to their heros. But of all the teams
and athletes that play, only a few can be winners. How do all the losing
teams and athletes hold on to their fans? Their fans are their customers and
should not be taken for granted. We wrote the book The Elusive Fan:
Reinventing Sports in a Crowded Marketplace to show how teams and
athletes should lay plans to build an active and loyal fan base whether they
win or lose (Rein et al., 2006).
112 PHILIP KOTLER
Marketing for the Public Sector
As government gets larger and we become more dependent on government

agencies and laws and rules, it is important that the government works as an
efficient service organization, and government employees see themselves as
‘‘public servants.’’ Yet, all of us experience long lines and slow response
from many government agencies: standing lines in the license bureau
or unemployment agency, a long waiting time for a new passport. Nancy
Lee and I chose to research the marketing efficiency and effectiveness of
government agencies, and we published our findings in Marketing in the
Public Sector: A Roadmap for Improved Performance (Kotler & Lee, 2006)
hoping that it would improve government operations and the quality of the
experience that citizens take away.
Corporate Social Responsibility
Traditional companies exist to make money for their owners and feel that if
they succeed at this, they have done their job. But business activities and
decisions have great impacts on the surrounding society. Some companies –
such as cigarette companies, alcoholic companies, fast-food companies – can
make products that can potentially harm buyers. Producing products can
deplete resources, create CO2 emissions, pollute water, and devastate forests.
Fortunately, most companies today are more conscious that they create
‘‘social costs’’ that they have not been covering in their prices. They recognize
the need and obligation to reduce or prevent damage to the environment and
planet. How should these companies show social responsibility? How much
money and resources should they spend to help improve the quality of life?
How do they choose what causes to support? How do they know how much
good their philanthropy is doing for the cause recipients and for themselves?
Nancy Lee and I interviewed over 40 companies to ask these questions. We
published our findings in Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most
Good for Your Company and Your Cause in 2005 (Kotler & Lee, 2005). We were
happy to report on the wonderful contributions of many of these companies to
help improve the quality of life for many individuals.
Lateral Marketing
If marketing is to be effective, it depends on marketers who have a right

brain as well as a left brain. Marketing calls for creativity not only in
developing communications but also in developing brand new products that

enrich our lives. It is fairly easy for Kellogg’s to make a tasty new cereal or
Campbell’s to make a tasty new soup. But we welcome new products and
services that come from thinking ‘‘out of the box’’ such as an iPad, Twitter,
home health care, and other breakthrough offerings. Professor Fernando
Trias de Bes and I worked on this problem of achieving breakthrough ideas.
We saw the issue as one of spending too much time thinking vertically (e.g.,
thinking about another box of cereal) and not enough time thinking
horizontally (doing something else with cereal instead of putting it in a box,
such as a cereal-based health bar). We described the new method in Lateral
Marketing: A New Approach to Finding Product, Market, and Marketing
Mix Ideas published in 2003 (Kotler & Trias de Bes, 2003)
Chaotics
How should an economy respond to a great financial crisis, a move from

stability to chaos marked by an increase in turbulence? What can a company
do to reduce the number of surprises and shocks in an ever more
interconnected and volatile global world? John Caslione and I considered
this problem and published Chaotics: The Business of Managing and
Marketing in The Age of Turbulence (Kotler & Caslione, 2009). Companies
need to do a better job of managing an early warning system so that they are
less surprised and more aware of what is happening around the world that
could injure their position. Companies also need to imagine what might
happen through the practice of periodic scenario planning exercises where
they can imagine the worst and best things that might happen and how they
would respond. The process of engaging in scenario planning exercises
stretches managers’ thinking and alertness in a world of rapidly changing
threats and opportunities.
Marketing 3.0
How should companies operate to earn a profit in a slow growth economy

while meeting sustainability and corporate social responsibility? We
believe that companies have no choice but to operate as good citizens as
they pursue their profit-making opportunities. Their success depends on
earning the continued trust and preference of their consumers. Smart
companies will increasingly strive to give their consumers more for less and
114 PHILIP KOTLER
to connect to their mind, heart, and human spirit. Word will travel fast as to
who are the good guys and the bad guys in any industry. The growing talk
on the social media will help the good guys become better and the bad guys
to go under. Hermawan Kartajaya, Iwan Setiawan, and I wrote our views in
Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit (Kotler
et al., 2010).
CONTRIBUTIONS BY MY STUDENTS
Having taught for over 45 years, I worked with many students in the MBA
and Ph.D. programs at Kellogg. (We do not have an undergraduate business
program at Kellogg). The students are highly selected for entrance into
Kellogg, and I profited from teaching and being taught by fine minds. I
remember a statement made by Donald Cook that most of the students
enrolled in his classes were students, some were colleagues, and some were
his teachers. I felt the same way.
Many of my MBA students moved on to top companies and several
became CEOs. Several of my Ph.D. students went on to make major
contributions to the discipline of marketing. Among them are Ravi Achrol,
Reinhard Angelmar, Gary Armstrong, Richard Bagozzi, Paul Bloom, Harry
Davis, Nik Dholaki, Ruby Dholaki, Luis V. Dominguez, Bernard Dubois,
Dennis Gensch, Kent Grayson, Sonya Grier, Chris Janiszewski, George
John, Jean Noel Kapferer, Kam-Hon Lee, Nirmalya Kumar, Suvit
Maesincee, Ajay Manrai, Murily Mantrala, Lynn Phillips, Christian Pinson,
Arvind Ragaswamy, Torger Reve, Deborah Roedder-John, Lisa Scheer,
Charles Schewe, Randy Schultz, Avraham Shama, Venkatesh Shankar,
Robert Spekman, Ronald Turner, Alice Tybout, Glen Urban, and Richard
Yalch. I learned a great deal from each of them.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXECUTIVES
I have enjoyed wonderful relations with executives both in my consulting

practice and in my seminars.
My consulting assignments included companies such as Abbott, Apple,
Arthur Andersen, American Hospital Supply, AT&T, Bank of America,
Brunswick, Ciba-Geigy, DuPont, Fireman’s Fund, GE, Hart Schaffner,
Walter Heller, Honeywell, E.F. Hutton, Hyundai, IBM, Illy Café, Kia,
Kimberly Clark, KLM, LG, Masonite, Merck, Motorola, Playboy, SAS
Airlines, Samsung, S.C. Johnson, and Sears. I met executives at these

companies and enjoyed working with them to help solve their problems.
At Sears, their vice president of Marketing and Strategy kept a new
edition of Marketing Management in his desk, and whenever a staffer did
not know something, he would pull out my book from his drawer and tell
him or her to read the right section and return the book the next day.
I believe that I had a positive influence at IBM when CEO John Akers
invited me to evaluate the marketing plans of different units and to develop
a plan for IBM to become more customer driven in all of its departments.
In addition to consulting, I have given numerous seminars and trainings
around the world over a 40-year period. My early work was in bringing modern
marketing thinking into Western Europe starting with the United Kingdom,
France, Germany, and Italy, and then moving up to Sweden, Norway,
Denmark, and Finland. Later, I was invited to teach in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, and Mexico as marketing became a buzz word in these countries. Still
later, Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries wanted to catch
up, particularly Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. Turkey and Egypt
then grew interested. Then the interest exploded in Southeast Asia with the
‘‘Tiger’’ nations of Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Following
them, China and India wanted to learn everything they could about marketing.
The latest part of the world showing a rising interest in marketing is the Middle
East with Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Today, I
have particularly close relations with marketers in Sweden, Poland, Ukraine,
Italy, Turkey, India, China, and Indonesia. In the last case, Indonesia recently
issued a postage stamp in my honor.
Leaving my intellectual journey aside, I want to end this article by saying
that I am blessed with a wonderful wife Nancy and three children and nine
grandchildren. I travel around the world, speaking and learning new things,
and meeting new and interesting people. Work has never seemed like work
because of all the interesting conundrums and challenges associated
with leading a scholarly life. Peter Drucker remaing my hero, for whom
retirement was never of interest or an option.
REFERENCES
Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing,
63(4), 146–163(Special Issue).
Bloom, P. N., & Kotler, P. (1975). Strategies for high market-share companies. Harvard
Business Review, 53(6), 63–72.
116 PHILIP KOTLER
Brown, S. (2002). The spectre of kotlerism: A literary appreciation. European Management

Journal, 20(2), 129–146.
Brown, S. (2006). The marketing code. London: Cyan.
Cheng, H., Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (Eds). (2011). Social marketing for public health: Global
trends and success stories. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishing.
Financial Times, December 9, 1996, p. 14.
Jatusripitak, S., Fahey, L., & Kotler, P. (1985). Strategic global marketing: Lessons from the
Japanese. Columbia Journal of World Business, 20(1), 47–53.
Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (2008). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions, building
audiences, generating revenue and resources. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Kotler, P. (1963). The use of mathematical models in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 27(3),
31–41.
Kotler, P. (1964). Toward an explicit model for media selection. Journal of Advertising
Research, 4(1), 34–41 (Winner of the 1964 MacLaren Advertising Research Award and
the 1964 Media/Scope Merit Award).
Kotler, P. (1965a). The competitive marketing simulator – A new management tool. California
Management Review, 7(3), 49–60 (Winner of the McKinsey Award for the second best
article for the year 1964–65 and winner of the 1964 Merit Award of the Chicago Chapter
of the American Marketing Association.).
Kotler, P. (1965b). Competitive strategies for new product marketing over the life cycle.
Management Science, 12(4), 104–119.
Kotler, P. (1965c). Diagnosing the marketing takeover. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 70–72.
Kotler, P. (1965d). Phasing out weak products. Harvard Business Review, 43(2), 107–118.
Kotler, P. (1966a). Evaluating competitive marketing strategies through computer simulation.
In: P. D. Bennett (Ed.), Marketing and economic growth (pp. 338–352). Chicago:
Kotler, P. (1966b). Computerized media selection: Some notes on the state of the art. In: C. H.
Sandage (Special ed.) Occasional Papers in Advertising (Applications of the Sciences in
Marketing Management), 1(1), pp. 45–52. Babson Park, MA: American Academy of
Advertising, the Babson Institute (Winner of a Silver Award in the 1965 Thompson
Media Research Award Program).
Kotler, P. (1970). Corporate models: Better marketing plans. Harvard Business Review, 48(4),
135–149.
Kotler, P. (1971a). The elements of social action. American Behavioral Scientist, 14(5), 691–717.
Kotler, P. (1971b). What consumerism means to marketers. Harvard Business Review, 50(3),
48–57.
Kotler, P. (1971c). Marketing decision making: A model-building approach. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, Winston, Inc.
Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46–54 (Winner
of the 1972 Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation Award for the best article in the Journal of
Marketing.).
Kotler, P. (1973a). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48–64.
Kotler, P. (1973b). The major tasks of marketing management. Journal of Marketing, 37(4),
42–49.
Kotler, P. (1974). Marketing during periods of shortage. Journal of Marketing, 38(3), 20–29.
Kotler, P. (1977). From sales obsession to marketing effectiveness. Harvard Business Review,
55(6), 67–75.
Kotler, P. (1978). Harvesting strategies for weak products. Business Horizons, 21(4), 15–22.
Kotler, P. (1980). Market challenger strategies. In: T. S. Dudick & R. V. Gorski (Eds),
Handbook of business planning and budgeting for executives with profit responsibility
(pp. 66–70). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kotler, P. (1985–1986). Meeting the new competition from Japan and the far East. Journal of
Global Marketing.
Kotler, P. (1986a). Global standardization – Courting danger. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
3(2), 13–15.
Kotler, P. (1986b). Megamarketing. Harvard Business Review, 64(2), 117–124.
Kotler, P. (1988). The potential contributions of marketing thinking to economic development.
In: E. Kumcu & A. F. Firat (Eds), Marketing and development: Toward broader
dimensions (Research in Marketing, Supplement 4) (pp. 1–10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Inc.
Kotler, P. (1989). From mass marketing to mass customization. Planning Review, 17(5),
10–1347.
Kotler, P. (2005). The role played by the broadening of marketing movement in the history of
marketing thought. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 24(1), 114–116.
Kotler, P. (2006). Ethical lapses of marketers. In: J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia (Eds), Does
marketing need reform (pp. 153–157). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kotler, P., & Andreasen, A. (2008). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2008). Principles of marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2009). Marketing – An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Balachandran, V. (1975). Strategic remarketing: The preferred response to
shortages and inflation. Sloan Management Review, 17(1), 1–17.
Kotler, P., & Caslione, J. A. (2009). Chaotics: The business of managing and marketing in the age
of turbulence. New York: AMACOM.
Kotler, P., & Dholakia, N. (1989). Ending global stagnation: Linking the fortunes of
the industrial and developing countries. Business in the Contemporary World,
86–97.
Kotler, P., & Fahey, L. (1982). The world’s champion marketers: The Japanese. Journal of
Business Strategy, 3(1), 3–13.
Kotler, P., & Fahey, L. (1985). Japanese strategic marketing: An overview. In: H. Thomas &
D. Gardner (Eds), Strategic marketing and management (pp. 441–451). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kotler, P., Fahey, L., & Jatusripitak, S. (1985). The new competition: What theory Z didn’t tell
you about – marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F. A. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., Gertner, D., Rein, I., & Haider, D. (2006). Marketing places, Latin America. Makton &
Paidos Rein.
Kotler, P., Gregory, W., & Rodgers, W. (1977). The marketing audit comes of age. Sloan
Management Review, 18(2), 25–43.
Kotler, P., Jatusripitak, S., & Maesincee, S. (1997). The marketing of nations: A strategic
approach to building national wealth. New York: The Free Press.
118 PHILIP KOTLER
Kotler, P., & Kartajaya, H. (2000). Repositioning Asia: From bubble to sustainable economy.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Hua, H. D. (2007). Think ASEAN: Rethinking marketing toward
ASEAN community 2015. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., Hua, H. D., & Liu, S. (2003). Rethinking marketing: Sustainable
marketing enterprise in Asia. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From products to customers to
the human spirit. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Young, S. D. (2004). Attracting investors: A marketing approach to
finding funds for your business. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2009). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, and control.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Kevin Lane Keller joined as co-author in 2006.)
Kotler, P., & Kotler, N. (1981). Business marketing for political candidates. Campaigns and
Elections, 5, 24–33.
Kotler, P., & Kotler, N. (1999). Political marketing – Generating effective candidates,
campaigns, and causes. In: B. Neuman (Ed.), Handbook of political marketing (pp. 3–18).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kotler, P., Lee, N., & Roberto, E. (2002). Social marketing: Improving the quality of life. New
York: The Free Press.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your
company and your cause. New York: Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2006). Marketing in the public sector: A roadmap for improved
performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2008). Social marketing: Influence behaviors for good. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. R. (2009). Up and out of poverty: The social marketing solution.
Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing.
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing,
33(1), 10–15(Winner of the 1969 Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation Award for the best paper
in the Journal of Marketing.).
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1971). Demarketing, yes, demarketing. Harvard Business Review,
49(6), 74–80.
Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1973). Buying is marketing too! Journal of Marketing, 37(1), 54–59.
Kotler, P., & Lilien, G. (1983). Marketing models (It was revised in 1992 and published by
Prentice-Hall with the addition of K. Sridhar Moorthy as third author.). New York:
Harper & Row.
Kotler, P., & Mantrala, M. K. (1985). Flawed products: Consumer responses and marketer
strategies. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 2(3), 27–36.
Kotler, P., & Mindak, W. (1978). Marketing and public relations: Should they be partners or
rivals? Journal of Marketing, 42(4), 13–20.
Kotler, P., & Pfoertsch, W. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin: Springer.
Kotler, P., & Pfoertsch, W. (2010). Ingredient branding: Making the invisible visible. Berlin:
Springer.
Kotler, P., Rackham, N., & Krishnaswamy, S. (2006). Ending the war between sales and
marketing. Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8), 68–78.
Kotler, P., & Rath, G. A. (1984). Design: A powerful but neglected strategic tool. Journal of
Business Strategy, 5(2), 16–21.
Kotler, P., Rein, I., & Haider, D. (1993). Marketing places: Attracting investment, industry, and
tourism to cities, states, and nations. New York: The Free Press.
Kotler, P., Rein, I., Haider, D., & Asplund, C. (1999). Marketing places Europe. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Financial Times.
Kotler, P., Rein, I., Haider, D., & Apslund, C. (2001). Marketing Asian places: Attracting
investment, industry, and tourism to cities, states, and nations. New York: Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Roberto, E. (1989). Social marketing: Strategies for changing public behavior. New
York: The Free Press.
Kotler, P., & Scheff, J. (1997). Standing room only: Strategies for marketing the performing arts.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Kotler, P., Shalowitz, J., & Stevens, R. (2008). Strategic marketing for health care organization:
Building a customer driven health care system. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Kotler, P., Shawchuck, N., Wrenn, B., & Rath, G. (1992). Marketing for congregations:
Choosing to serve people more effectively. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Kotler, P., & Singh, R. (1981). Marketing warfare in the 1980s. Journal of Business Strategy,
1(3), 30–41.
Kotler, P., & Trias de Bes, F. (2003). Lateral marketing: A new approach to finding product,
market, and marketing mix ideas. New York: Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Westman, J. C. (2006). What CEOs need to know and do about marketing. Leader
to Leader Journal, 42, 20–28.
Kotler, P., Wrenn, B., Shawchuck, N., & Rath, G. (1994). Can (should) religion be marketed?
Quarterly Review, 117–134.
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to planned social change.
Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3–12 (Winner of the 1971 Alpha Kappa Psi Foundation
Award for the best 1971 article in the Journal of Marketing.).
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1976). Targeting prospects for a new product. Journal of Advertising
Research, 16(1), 7–20.
Kumar, N., Sheer, L., & Kotler, P. (2000). From market driven to market driving. European
Management Journal, 18(2), 129–142.
Levinson, J. C. (1984). Guerilla marketing. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Levitt, T. (1983). Globalization of marketing. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92–102.
Lilien, G., & Rangaswamy, A. (2004). Marketing engineering: Computer-assisted marketing
analysis and planning. Bloomington, IN: Trafford Publishing.
Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology. New York: Doubleday.
Newsweek. (2010). The world’s best countries. Newsweek, August 15. Available at http://
www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/the-world-s-best-countries.html
Random House Webster’s Dictionary of American English. (1997). New York, NY: Random
House, p. 457.
Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Shields, B. (2006). The elusive fan: Reinventing sports in a crowded
marketplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Stoller, M. (2006). High visibility: The making and marketing of
professionals into celebrities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Repiev, A. (2009). Kotler and the Kotleroids. Available at http://www.repiev.ru
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1982). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York: Warner Books.
Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1997). Marketing warfare. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sawhney, M., & Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing in the age of information democracy. In:
D. Iacobucci (Ed.), Kellogg on marketing (pp. 386–408). New York: Wiley.
120 PHILIP KOTLER
Shaw, R., & Kotler, P. (2009). Rethinking the chain: Make marketing leaner, faster and better.
Marketing Management, 18(4), 18–23.
Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing
strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8.
Wrenn, B., Kotler, P., & Shawchuck, N. (2009). Building strong congregations:
Attracting, serving, and developing your membership. Hagerstown, MD: Autumn House
Publishing.
Wrenn, B., Shawchuck, N., Kotler, P., & Rath, G. (1995). What does it mean for pastors
to adopt market orientation? Journal of Ministry Marketing and Management, 1(1),
5–23.
LOOKING THROUGH THE
MARKETING LENS:
MY JOURNEY SO FAR y
V. Kumar
ABSTRACT
Over the past 25 years as a marketing academic, I have been fortunate to

have collaborated with various researchers and firms and have contributed
to the advancement of the marketing field. This is a review article that
tracks my progress through these years that has led me to explore
different areas of marketing, thereby shaping me as a researcher and an
academic. As I see now, all of my research work can be viewed from a
decision-making point of view – decisions that marketers can make either
at the market, brand/firm/store, or the customer level. These decisions
have in turn been transformed into strategies or tactics leading up
to successful implementations and improved bottom-line results. The
development of strategies/tactics and successful implementations can be
seen in nearly 10 areas of research that I have involved myself in. This
article also highlights how my research studies have contributed and
advanced the creation of knowledge in each of these research areas.

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008008
121
122 V. KUMAR
INTRODUCTION
It all got started when I was a child. My parents used to tell me how curious
I was in understanding various things I came across. My curiosity led to
discovery even in childhood. The pursuit of curiosity led me to adopt a cross-
functional/cross-disciplinary approach to learning. Therefore, I followed
the path of studying engineering in my undergraduate, industrial management
in my masters, and marketing and statistics in the doctorate program. Thus,
loaded with perspectives from various fields, I began my academic career.
In my 25-year career as a marketing academic that began in 1985, I was
fortunate to explore many facets of the marketing field. To be honest, it has
been quite an intriguing journey and the future only looks all the more exciting
and brighter.
MY EXPLORATIONS THUS FAR y
My journey began with me exploring my research interests in forecasting

issues in marketing, retailing, and new methods in marketing research in
1985. The motivation for exploring these areas came about due to the
availability of scanner data, the need to reduce decision problems faced by
an oil company – AMOCO – and forecasting error in predicting sales and
market share for durable and nondurable goods. A couple of years later, I
had the opportunity to apply marketing research methods to solve real-
world problems. As I traveled worldwide, my interest in global marketing
increased and I started to develop research ideas dealing with which country
to enter and in what order to enter. Subsequently, the insights that I gained
from spending time with senior business executives led me to generate
strategic frameworks in marketing and in specialized areas such as retailing.
With the advent of database marketing, my interest in understanding
customer purchase behavior as a result of direct marketing efforts developed. I
was fortunate to get access to marketing and customer databases from various
firms and worked on generating solutions that lead me and my coauthors
develop the Wheel of Fortune strategies. In summary, the last 25 years gave me
the opportunity to explore 10 different areas in marketing as shown in Fig. 1.
The timeline chart in Fig. 1 tells the areas I focused on. However, the
common thread in my research can be categorized as focusing on decisions
made about markets/countries, brand/firm/store, and customer. Within each
of these decision domains, I was able to dive deep with respect to subareas
in marketing. For example, within the domain markets/countries, the issues
I studied focused on forecasting, retailing, and international marketing.
Looking Through the Marketing Lens 123
Timeline
Fig. 1. My Explorations Thus Far y .
Similarly, I had the fortune of working in six different areas including

customer relationship marketing, business-to-business, and marketing
strategy in the decisions domain of brand/firm/store. With respect to the
customer decisions domain, I was able to categorize my contributions into six
areas in marketing including customer relationship management (CRM),
marketing strategy, and applications in marketing research. Fig. 2 provides a
categorization of my contributions to marketing over the past 25 years of my
academic career.
The rest of this article focuses on elaborating the key contributions in
each of the three decision domains and each of the subareas in marketing
within each domain.
MARKET-LEVEL RESEARCH
Forecasting in Marketing
My research, which aids decision-making based on forecasting at the market

level, consists of the application, evaluation, and extension of the traditional
market share forecasting models. Kumar and Heath (1990) extended past
124 V. KUMAR
Fig. 2. My Research Portfolio.
research by using disaggregate data to access the predictive accuracy from

full, reduced, and naı̈ve models. This study compared the performance of
various predictive models for market share. The study assessed the full,
reduced, and naı̈ve forms of linear, multiplicative, and attraction specifica-
tions across different levels of parameterizations.
This research advanced the knowledge from previous research in numerous
ways. First, it used disaggregate data at weekly level instead of aggregate
data. Second, it identified the direction of future research on assessing the
effects of various promotional variables on market share, which allowed
marketers to find out the true drivers of market share. It also examined
different levels of parameterization to see how the levels combined with the
different estimation methods (generalized least square (GLS) vs. ordinary
least square (OLS)) would impact the predictive accuracy for the naı̈ve model
as well as the econometrical model in each of the three functional forms.
Furthermore, this research determined that GLS estimates of attraction
models generally performed best when models were fully specified, whereas
OLS estimates of linear models performed best when variables were omitted.
This stream of research was further extended by Kumar (1994), which
also considered the uncertainty in competitors’ actions. In addition, this
research evaluated the model performance at the brand level as opposed to
the category level. The study also evaluated the model performance by
estimation method (GLS vs. OLS). This study found that the attraction
models estimated by GLS procedure produce the best forecasts, but the
superiority of the attraction models is diminished when systematic errors are

introduced to the values of the competitors’ predictor variables in the
holdout sample. In addition to these advances, this study also provided 11
guidelines for managers and practitioners regarding the forecasting
performance of market share models.
To explore the use of attitudinal measures in forecasting, Kumar, Leone,
and Gaskins (1995) conducted a study to examine the usefulness of the
combination of Katona’s (1951, 1960, 1968) ‘‘ability and willingness to buy’’
framework and Bayesian vector autoregression for business forecasting. The
model with and without consumer confidence was compared along with the
Vector Autoregression (VAR) model and Bayesian Vector Autoregression
(BVAR) model. The contribution of this study is that it supported Katona’s
framework as a theoretical view of consumer behavior and found that the
measure of consumer confidence can improve the accuracy of forecasting.
The study found that the BVAR’s efficiency in the use of the data, the relative
simplicity and effectiveness of its method of specifying lag structure, and its
ability to explicitly incorporate information from historical sources and
managerial judgment make BVAR with Survey Research Center Index (SRC)
an attractive business forecasting technique. Following the usefulness of
customer attitudinal information for forecasting, information on purchase
intention was used to forecast sales in Armstrong, Morwitz, and Kumar
(2000).1 This study evaluated the relative accuracy of purchase intention-
based forecasting models to the regular past sales trend forecast model.
Brodie, Danaher, Kumar, and Leeflang (2001) developed a guideline
for market share forecasting for different market conditions based on a
competitive marketing system. This research reviewed the theoretical and
empirical evidence to develop principles to guide market analysts about when
to use causal econometric models for forecasting market share. As a result, the
article developed seven principles of market share forecasting. The article also
reviewed the literature and provided a guide for practitioners on when to
choose an econometric model over a naı̈ve extrapolation model and some
guidance to researchers on future directions. Overall, this paper provided a
summary and a comparison of the existing approaches and the conditions
under which the approaches discussed here could be applied.
Retailing
In exploring the various facets of retailing, Balasubramanian and Kumar

(1990) represented the seminal entrant into a vein of marketing, which
126 V. KUMAR
would receive significant attention during the next decade. The importance
of this subject is evident when one considers that marketing communication
expenditures have more than quadrupled between 1975 and 1988 (although
some of this growth is attributable to inflation). Within this research, I
extend previous research and explain variations in marketing communica-
tions with a simple model based on cross-section time-series data. Model
validation analyses showed an impressive similarity of model parameters
and goodness of fit across split-half data samples for each industry analyzed.
Furthermore, for all industries belonging to a given market, the results
indicated remarkable consistency in the signs of the associations between
marketing communication intensity (MCI) and (1) market share, (2) market
growth, and (3) their interaction. In continuation with this research,
Balasubramanian and Kumar (1997a) and Balasubramanian and Kumar
(1997b) contributed to the subsequent development by proposing research
criteria and guidelines that highlighted key issues on variable definitions and
data limitations.
A different approach taken by some retailing companies to increase their
profitability and growth was by implementing corporate strategies through
Merger & Acquisition (M&A). Kumar, Kerin, and Pereira (1991) investigated
about M&A from the perspective of antecedent conditions present in retail
M&A activity. The paper examined a variety of finance, marketing, and
corporate-related variables that have been proposed as likely antecedent
conditions for M&A activity. Additionally, the inclusion of marketing-
related variables in the study of M&A activity in retailing offered new insights
into a previously underdeveloped area of enquiry. The article highlighted the
importance of the role of sales growth in absolute terms and relative to
sustainable growth as an antecedent variable in M&A activity.
The study examined three categories of retailers: bidder retailers, target
retailers, non-bidder/target retailers. The results obtained from this study
indicated that preconditions for M&A activity can be identified and the
probability of becoming a bidder and target retailer can be determined on
the basis of the finance, marketing, and corporate-related variables. This
study, which considered ex ante variables in M&A activity, complements the
literature on ex post evaluations of such behavior.
International Marketing
In the early 1990s, I had the opportunity to travel around the world for
research presentations, executive teaching programs, and invited lectures.
During these trips, I began observing the market phenomena of the local
regions and how unique they were to that particular setting. I wanted to get
deeper into the causes and consequences of such occurrences. Furthermore,
with the research insights, I gleaned from the areas of forecasting, retailing,
and marketing research that I was involved up until then; I was intrigued as
to how these insights would pan out in the international context. This
curiosity led me to the area of international marketing research.
In an effort to increase sales, companies have long since employed direct
marketing efforts. What is the impact of direct marketing efforts for small
businesses? Albers and Kumar (1991) explored whether small businesses,
which are actively seeking to maintain or establish a foreign customer base,
have a differential or a competitive advantage by utilizing direct marketing
effort compared to other marketing programs. Using predictor variables of
small businesses such as direct marketing effort, international advertising,
foreign representation, prior experience in dealing with foreign markets, and
prior preparation for exporting, the study found that, at least for the small
businesses, both the letter and the salesman campaigns were positively
associated with consistency in exporting. Although the phone campaign was
negatively related to the consistency in exporting, it was not significant. These
findings clearly indicated that even small businesses with limited marketing
budgets can establish consistent patterns of successful exports. Although the
study did find out that small businesses did not or could not make use of the
more expensive marketing methods as frequently as they could of direct
marketing, it was found that the utilization of direct marketing can signifi-
cantly lead to consistency in exporting.
The identification of attractive foreign markets is a highly involved
process. In this regard, an approach to help managers identify the right
potential foreign markets is helpful in making market entry and marketing
research decisions. Kumar, Stam, and Joachimsthaler (1994) offered such a
solution to managers by proposing a new methodology for market entry
that takes into consideration not only the stage of a company’s inter-
nationalization but also the role of entry decision in the firm’s future global
strategies. Using the Augmented Weighted Tchebycheff Procedure (AWTP),
this methodology directly addressed the problem of market identification
and has an indirect impact on the selection stage of the market evaluation
process.
The late 1980s and the early 1990s produced a plethora of studies related
to cross-national diffusion. These studies and their subsequent findings
advanced the theory that when a new product innovation is introduced early
in one country (the lead country) and with a time lag in subsequent countries
128 V. KUMAR
(the lag countries), the consumers in the lag countries learn about the product
from the lead country adopters, resulting in a faster diffusion rate in the lag
countries. Significant among these studies were Gatignon, Eliashberg, and
Robertson (1989), Takada and Jain (1991), and Helsen, Jedidi, and DeSarbo
(1993) that attempted to explain the differences in diffusion patterns across
countries by focusing on consumer durable goods. I was fascinated by these
studies and wanted to systematically capture and empirically verify the
influence of the lead country adopters on the potential adopters in the lag
markets for industrial technology products.
In this regard, Ganesh and Kumar (1996) examined the diffusion of retail
point-of-scale scanners in the United States, Japan, and countries belonging
to the European Union to systematically capture the influence of the
learning effect. The study provided four important findings: (1) there exists a
learning process across nation borders; (2) the lag time between introduc-
tions influences the extent of learning that takes place between a pair of
lead and lag countries; (3) the choice of the entry strategy should depend
on whether there is a learning effect; (4) insights into the future performance
of their products/technologies in new foreign markets, even in places
where the technology is not yet introduced or where sales data are not
available.
Following the learning effect study on industrial technology products, I
wanted to investigate the existence of learning effect between a pair of lead
and lag countries relating to consumer durables. Ganesh, Kumar, and
Subramanian (1997) found, for the first time, that a learning effect exists
systematically across consumer durable goods – a profound finding, which
has led to the development of more focused and valuable marketing plans in
international settings. Subsequently, Kumar, Ganesh, and Echambadi
(1998) expanded on this stream of research that set out to empirically
verify (a) the role of country-specific effect in explaining differences in
diffusion parameters, (b) the presence of lead–lag effect, (c) the use of
cultural variables to explain diffusion patterns across nations, and (d) the
merits of segmentation schemes based on diffusion parameters. This study
also set out to replicate three published empirical studies, namely, Gatignon
et al. (1989), Takada and Jain (1991), and Helsen et al. (1993) (referred to as
GER, TJ, and HJD, respectively), with a common set of product categories
and countries in an effort to report some generalizable results as the basis
for future research. A significant finding from this study was that the
diffusion parameters across countries were influenced by certain country-
specific characters and lead–lag effects. Furthermore, this study identified
some factors that may influence the clustering of countries, such as timing of
entry, geographical proximity, and cultural or economic similarity.
As businesses are reaching deeper into foreign markets to attract new
customers, the implications of mode of entry decisions become even more
pertinent to today’s managers as evidenced by Kumar and Subramanian
(1997). At its core, this article devises a reliable contingency framework for
managers to use when making a mode-of-entry decision with respect to
international expansion into a new market. The mode-of-entry decision is
tremendous in its scope of importance as all future international marketing
decisions are a result of this initial choice.
International marketing is fraught with challenges, but, when implemen-
ted in the right manner, can lead to an extraordinary payoff to the
implementing firm’s bottom line. The challenges associated with marketing
in an international context can result from differences in culture, language,
logistics, or any number of other concerns. In this context, an awareness of
Global Market Segmentation (GMS) is critical. GMS is defined as the
process of identifying specific segments (country groups or individual
consumer groups across countries) of potential customers with homo-
geneous attributes who are likely to exhibit similar buying behavior. With
the blurring of international borders for commercial trade, GMS has
emerged as an important issue in developing, positioning, and selling
products across national boundaries. Kumar and Nagpal (2001) discuss
some of the well-known issues in global market segmentations and discuss
the properties of global target markets. The article identifies a six-step
process that companies adopt to implement GMS. Through this process, the
study highlights the fact that segmentation allows global marketers to take
advantage of the benefits of standardization while addressing the needs of
specific target groups across political boundaries.
Given the changing geo-political scene, the economic emergence of certain
markets (such as the BRIC [Brazil, Russia, India, & China] nations), and the
exponential growth of information technology, international marketing
research has become more important and increasingly challenging for
managers. Kumar (2006c) highlighted some of these differences between
international and domestic marketing issues and offered the reader con-
ceptual findings and basic suggestions to successfully navigate this tricky
environment. Kumar (2009b) delved deeper and categorized all the issues
in international marketing research into: (a) philosophical issues and
(b) methodological issues. Philosophical issues are those that set the tone of
the proposed research and assist in the development of research tools. The
130 V. KUMAR
methodological issues pertain to data evaluation and analysis; how the

research is conducted and the results are interpreted. In essence, philosophical
issues deal with the initial hurdles at the start of a research project whereas
methodological issues deal with the actual research.
On the basis of this extant literature, it is clear that every company’s
gaining knowledge and entry into a new market is unique. Therefore,
managers need to determine the right set of marketing efforts that will work
best for their expansion in the foreign lands based on their marketing
research. This assessment includes the cross-national diffusion of innova-
tion, the choice, and timing of entry into new markets and the direct
marketing efforts. Furthermore, the research about international markets
has to be done wisely by thoroughly exploring and understanding the
history, language, consumers, and competitors in the new markets.
These studies, and more importantly the findings, have significantly
contributed to the literature in the respective streams of research and have
facilitated decision-making at the market level.
BRAND/FIRM/STORE-LEVEL RESEARCH
Forecasting in Marketing
My research, which aids decision-making based on forecasting at the firm

level, consists of sales forecasting models. With the emerging high-technology
markets, forecasting becomes even more difficult due to the extremely
dynamic and complex characteristics of these markets. These studies provide
approaches to improve the predictive accuracy of market forecast using
various sophisticated models.
Although the researchers have been striving for improving the predictive
accuracy of business forecasts, the emerging market makes the question even
more difficult. An example of these emerging markets is the telecommunica-
tions market. The telecommunications market is highly dynamic with
continuous technological and regulatory changes. With increasing competi-
tion from the television and computer markets, the demand in this market is
very complex. In Kumar, Nagpal, and Venkatesan (2002), I developed a
multicomponent model (MSHARE framework) to forecast market share for
this dynamic and complex market. This framework integrated: (a) a
projection method that utilizes macro-level trend information from secondary
data sources to obtain a market category forecast at the national level,
(b) ring down surveys that capture dynamic shifts in consumer choice, and
(c) purchase intention surveys that capture expectations of consumers to

purchase in the future, which are influenced by consumer expectations of
future economic conditions, to predict market share for wireless telephone
subscribers. In addition, an algorithm for combining these forecasts was
developed to apply this framework, and a step-by-step instruction on how to
forecast the number of wireless subscribers was provided.
In Venkatesan and Kumar (2002), I used the genetic algorithm (GA)
approach to forecast wireless subscribers during the growth phase of a new
product life cycle. The study found that the overall growth rate for cellular
phones is reaching maturity and that firms should focus on newer and useful
innovations if they need to sustain their current growth rate and profit
margins. This study was the first to apply GA to a diffusion model to
forecast the sales in the growth phase of a product. This study also provided
ways to use GA to forecast the product growth phase that is characterized
by high growth in sales and market expansion. Additionally, the beneficial
properties of GA provided us with a useful approach to forecast sales in
dynamic and turbulent markets.
Due to the complexity of the telecommunication market and high
demand on how to forecast sales in this market, Fildes and Kumar (2002)
provided a comprehensive overview of research that has been carried
out on three problem areas – established products, new products, and
operations. The paper also highlighted areas where further research is
needed. This article also emphasized on introducing various conceptual
models and quantitative models for established market as well as new
product on the telecommunication market demand. This study first
examined the characteristics of telecommunication market. It highlighted
the obstacles in short-term and long-term forecasting due to these
characteristics. This study reviewed past studies on forecasting telecom-
munications demand in markets that have changed dramatically due to the
demise of the monopolistic national suppliers on one hand and rapid
developments of competitive new technologies on the other. It provided
the factors that influence the predictive accuracy of the sales forecasts for
the firms in this industry and suggested a guideline for forecasting for the
market for new product or services as well as for existing markets. Overall,
this study provided significant contributions – conceptually and metho-
dologically – because it fulfills the needs to have a comprehensive guide for
the demand forecasting of emerging and highly dynamic telecommunica-
tion market.
In summary, this set of articles cover a wide variety of topics that includes
development of forecasting methods, comparison, and empirical validation
132 V. KUMAR
and guidelines on how to apply these methods. All these studies are greatly
helpful for researchers and practitioners to better understand business
forecasting.
Retailing
Retailing is a segment of marketing that is familiar even to a nonacademic.

American society led the way to this trend through its super stores and
department stores, but the trend has percolated throughout the world and is
now common trade method in societies around the world. The use of the
Internet as a retail venue has extended the ubiquity and influence of this
channel in the exchange of consumer goods. Retailing as a research topic has
provided me with a topic that is not only virtually endless in its scope but also
nearly boundless in its significance in terms of managerial decision-making.
I began my firm-level research on retailing by reviewing past studies on
store performance and identifying ways to improve the results. Reinartz and
Kumar (1999) observed that the existing literature only considered two of
the four factors that influenced store performance: store, market, and
consumer characteristics and competition. To prevent this error in research,
the study drew upon a unique cross-sectional sample of grocery stores with a
wide array of store characteristic, store performance, trade area, and
consumer demographic variables. The study’s most significant findings were
threefold: (1) looking at different measures of retail performance was
important; (2) market potential is, by far, the most important determinant
of performance; and (3) including store attractiveness and socioeconomic
status as determinants of performance in the model was essential. These
findings provided valuable guidelines for decision-making on store location
and sales productivity.
Retail promotions enable both the retailer and the manufacturer to meet
objectives when brand substitution occurs within the store and, customers
from other stores switch, or cross-shop, to take advantage of the promotion.
Additionally, it is important for both retailers and manufacturers to
understand the ramifications of their decisions on the competitive perfor-
mance of their national brands. Price discounts, point-of-purchase displays,
and features are all important facets of promotion decisions and are driven by
incentives that manufacturers provide retailers. Retailers have grown to a
position of power, which enables them to be selective in ‘‘passing through’’
these manufacturers’ trade incentives in the form of retail promotions. Kumar
and Leone (1988) investigated the impact of retail store promotion on store
substitution by incorporating empirical results from the brand substitution

analysis into a model of store substitution. The results indicated that the price
promotion, featuring, and display activities selected by a particular store
in the test market city for a specific brand can lead to increased sales for
that brand within the store. These results had important implications on
promotions of certain brands and stores.
Although contemporary research had primarily focused on retail price
promotions to promote the sales of a specific brand, I was more intrigued to
find out the other impacts of retail price promotions for retailers. Karande and
Kumar (1995) explained the variation in promotional price elasticities and
promotional cross-price elasticities across brands and provided managerial
guidelines for retailers. This study used the brand sales equations to estimate
the promotional price elasticities and promotional cross-price elasticities. The
results from estimating the two models provided guidelines to retailers on
planning promotions for (1) liquidating inventory, (2) maximizing product
category sales, and (3) maximizing product category profits.
Regarding retail promotions, I was interested to know their impact on the
competitive performance of a brand across retail chains. Kumar and Pereira
(1997) investigated the idea that retailers have grown to a position of power
in selecting and using manufactures’ trade incentives and thereby impacting
their promotion decisions. The results indicated that, depending on both the
retail chains and the pairs of brands, the competition coefficients vary across
retail chains, across pairs of brands, and differentially. Through this finding,
this study explained the competitive effects of differences in retailer, the
‘‘pass through’’ of trade incentives or trade promotions and its implications
to manufacturers. Additionally, it offered a framework for brand managers
and retail managers to analyze competition patterns between brands of a
product category at the retail store level.
Following my studies on retail promotions, I wanted to probe deeper into
the impact and importance of retail price as a component of retail
promotions. In Kumar and Pereira (1995), I analyzed the frequency of price
promotions and their effect on short-term sales response to promotions.
This study found that the frequency of price promotions and consecutive
scheduling of price promotions affected short-term sales response to price
promotions. This study also showed that a uniform trade promotion policy
for all retailer chains in a given market is not optimal. Rather, manufacturers
should deal with retailers by structuring trade promotion deals based on the
retail chains profitability.
This stream of research led to further studies on coupon promotions.
Coupons account for a significant share of all consumer promotional efforts
134 V. KUMAR
initiated by the manufacturers of consumer goods. The influence of coupons

as a promotional tool is staggering, not merely due to their ubiquity but also
due to their influence. The influence of coupons, the decrease of their influence
over time, and other issues pertaining to the usage of coupons were investi-
gated in Kumar, Madan, and Srinivasan (2004) and Kumar and Swami-
nathan (2005). These studies explored the usage of coupon promotions as
opposed to price discounts and provided important implications for
manufacturers and retailers.
After investigating the effects of pricing, promotion, and buyer behavior
aspects on the retail store, I wanted to observe the impact of the store
environment on the retailer performance. Kumar and Karande (2000)
investigated the internal and external retail environment to study the impact
on sales and the productivity of stores (as measured by sales per square foot).
The study found a positive correlation between the store’s environment and its
sales/sales per square foot. These findings provided managers with useful
insights into the manipulation of their store environment to maximize
revenue. It proved that a singular environmental strategy is not appropriate
across all stores; rather, retailers should rely on the socioeconomic charac-
teristics of the trade area to designate an appropriate strategy.
Although pricing, promotions, and other retail characteristics do help in
increasing and maintaining profitability and thus preserve market share,
another approach is to promote plans that will increase the customer loyalty
for the brand. The concept of customer loyalty has pervaded several
industries in the past decade. Membership to customer loyalty initiatives
provides members with rewards and additional value, making it popular
among consumers. This has led to an increasingly competitive landscape
with different companies within the same retailing industry vying with one
another to woo the same set of customers. Kumar and Shah (2004) draws
upon past research to further explore important findings related to customer
behavior and attitude in the context of customer loyalty. A two-tiered rewards
structure is presented in this study as a means for marketers to operationalize
the framework. The conceptual framework hopes to serve as a platform to
understand the evolving dominant logic of loyalty programs for building and
sustaining loyalty in the twenty-first century as well as induce further research
in that direction.
From the customer loyalty approach arise an ever-present need for
managers to justify marketing expenditures to the firm. This can only be
done when a direct link between marketing metrics and future customer
value and firm performance is established. With the abundance of marketing
metrics to choose from, the challenge marketing managers and retailers now
face is not whether to use marketing metrics, but instead how to determine
which metrics are the most important metrics to utilize for a given firm.
Petersen et al. (2009) reviews the key marketing metrics that exist in the
marketing literature and in marketing practice. It also presents a framework
that will help managers identify key metrics and discusses steps firms can
follow to migrate to these metrics.
Marketing Strategy
Firms are always faced with the task of making marketing decisions with
limited resources. Research on marketing strategy provides firms with tools
to efficiently allocate resources for optimal firm performance and satisfy
customers based on their profit contributions. Firms need to know how
much of their budget they need to dedicate to marketing activities, which
customers they should spend on, what marketing activities to invest in, and
when to invest in those activities. Ultimately, firms aim to create and
implement strategies that focus on differentiating customers to achieve
performance goals such as higher sales, profit, and stock prices.
Over the years, I have contributed to this stream of research pertaining to
marketing strategy research at the firm level. The studies that I have
undertaken can be categorized into (a) general marketing strategies and
perspectives that firms should adopt to achieve their goals and objectives
and (b) actual tactics and detailed practices that can convert general
marketing strategies into increased firm performance.
My work on marketing strategies focuses on what goals firms should try to
achieve and how to achieve them. These articles contribute both to the
practitioner and to the academic community by offering applicable strategies
to firms while adding to the body of marketing strategy knowledge.
Thomas, Reinartz, and Kumar (2004) addressed a problem that many
firms have – acquiring and retaining customers. Firms often fall into the trap
of spending large sums of money trying to acquire and retain customers
without considering their profitability. Often, short-term cost is given
too much importance in relation to long-term gain. Furthermore, many
firms fail to see that maximizing customer acquisition and retention rates
independently does not maximize profits. The idea is that firms should
maximize profit, and the best way to do so is to acquire and retain the most
profitable customers. This article proposed a model (ARPRO) to judiciously
allocate financial resources between acquisition and retention efforts that
would maximize profitability. After implementing the ARPRO model in
136 V. KUMAR
three firms (B2B, pharmaceutical, and catalog retailer), the study demon-
strated the effect of an unbalanced allocation of resources. For example, the
study showed that if the B2B firm reduced its direct marketing costs by
about 68%, its profits would increase by around 41%. Similarly, if the
pharmaceutical company raised its marketing costs by about 31%, its profits
would increase by around 35%. Finally, if the catalog company decreased
spending on direct marketing by about 30%, it would realize an increase of
around 29% in profits. In all, this study demonstrated that a balanced
allocation of resources between acquisition and retention will help the firm
to get the most out of their customers.
The concept of ‘‘interaction orientation’’ (Ramani & Kumar, 2008) delves
into an under-researched area of marketing and proposed an entirely new
concept.2 It suggests that communication will continually gain acceptance as
an important construct in the success of a firm. Typically, these com-
munication efforts include interactions between the firm and the customers,
between customers, and between firms. In effect, the interaction orientation
approach enables firms to view its customers both as a source of business
and as a potential business resource. Such an orientation provides a focus
that can cultivate customer empowerment and harness the power of
customer networks. Specifically, by (a) making decisions on a per customer
point of view, (b) providing rapid responses to customer needs, (c) creating a
rich customer experience, (d) allowing customers to exchange information
and reviews about product and experiences with other customers, and
(e) encouraging customers to connect with the firm and design the nature of
transactions, firms can ensure that the focus is on customers and not on the
products. When firms invest in the adoption and implementation of
interaction orientation, it enables them to attract and retain profitable
customers.
Maximizing profit is the primary goal of most, if not all firms. Therefore,
the path a firm takes to maximize profitability warrants research. Kumar,
Pozza, Petersen, and Shah (2009) explored the conventional route to
achieving high profits and identified a new logic in maximizing profits. The
conventional path to profitability (innovation - acquisition - fulfillment
- loyalty/retention - profitability) was shown to have weak links and a
more appropriate path was developed. This new path was devised by
reversing the logic of the conventional path that provides a counter-intuitive
finding; ‘‘firing’’ customers is sometimes a firm’s most appropriate course of
action. In fact, the discrimination of marketing initiatives based on the
future value of a customer is the most profitable allocation of resources in a
heterogeneous population.
‘‘Can marketing activities drive stock prices?’’ is an all too common

question asked of anyone who has spent significant stints in the corporate
boardroom. To answer this question, Kumar and Shah (2009) presented a
framework that links customer equity (CE) to market capitalization, thus
proving the value of marketing initiatives through quantifiable evidence.3
This study also tested the framework in an empirical field experiment with
two Fortune 1000 firms (one which was B2B and one which was B2C)
operating in different industries. At the end of nine months after the
implementation of the strategies, the percentage increases in stock price for
the B2B firm and the B2C firm were approximately 32.8% and 57.6%,
respectively. This clearly indicated that the customer lifetime value (CLV)-
based strategies were effective in increasing the stock price of the firm. This
study provided the necessary insights to managers that launching CLV-
based marketing initiatives can increase the stock price of the firm. It is now
possible for managers to quantify the impact of the marketing initiatives
that would correspond to the boardroom’s primary agenda of increasing the
market capitalization value of the firm.
Although marketing strategies help marketing managers how to achieve
their goals, marketing tactics are the details and the actual actions that turn
overarching marketing strategies into marketing success. These tactics can
include changes in marketing mix elements and other marketing commu-
nication activities.
Balasubramanian and Kumar (1990) investigated the size and composi-
tion of budgets for marketing expenditures. The authors extended prior
research on explaining variations in the intensity of marketing communica-
tion (i.e., advertising and promotional expenditures/sales) by proposing a
model using cross-sectional time series data. Specifically the study
investigated how key variable affected the marketing communication
intensity (MCI) in specific industries over time. The first step to under-
standing the basis of these variations is to discover how key firm and
industry variables influence MCI. In this regard, the study provided a
framework by analyzing MCI variations within each of several industries.
The implications of the findings in this study contradicted traditional
notions pertaining to market growth and MCI. Traditionally they were
positively associated, but this study found that they were negatively related.
Another traditional belief was that market share and MCI are negatively
associated; however, this study found that they were actually positively
related. In the uncertain world of MCI decision-making, managers can use
the framework presented in this study as it requires only information that is
readily available to managers and firms.
138 V. KUMAR
Cross-selling is an important tactic that would help firms increase sales

growth. When firms cross-sell to existing customers, they believe that they
can utilize their existing customer base instead of focusing only on acquiring
new customers. However, Kumar and Shah (2008) showed that there are
situations in which cross-selling does not yield high profits. This article
provided that, contrary to public notion, it may not be more profitable to
always cross-sell. There has been a trend for firms to move from the ‘‘sell
more customers to a product’’ approach to a ‘‘sell more products to the
customer approach.’’ The idea is to sell more products to a customer a
firm has already acquired. Cross-selling is a good way to get profits from
existing customers without heavy acquisition costs. Firms like amazon.com
‘‘suggest’’ complimentary products to customers who have purchased or are
about to purchase a product. Many firms believe this is an excellent strategy
and always leads to higher profits. In this article, the authors point out that
this is not always the case. In fact they show that in some cases the
customers who firms cross-sell to the most are the least profitable! This
brings up the point that firms really need to use caution before deciding to
use cross-selling as a means to increase sales.
Regarding tactics on marketing mix elements, Kumar, Fan, Gulati, and
Venkat (2009) provided specific marketing mix recommendation to P&G
Asia Pacific that ensured them value and sales growth.4 The specific
questions posed by P&G were (a) Are the P&G brands in the detergent
market inelastic or elastic with respect to price? How has the price elasticity
changed over time? Can P&G increase the price of its brands to gain value
growth? (b) What are the price, distribution, and sizing combinations to
achieve the desired value growth? and (c) How can a higher tier P&G brand
(Ariel) gain share from the lower tier brands without cannibalizing P&G’s
own brand in the lower tier (Tide)? This study provided a framework to help
P&G managers answer the abovementioned questions and to evaluate the
effects of the key marketing mix variables. After implementing the marketing
mix recommendations that were suggested, P&G Asia pacific gained over
USD39 million in value growth over a one-year period. This study helped
marketing managers with a very important problem in marketing and enabled
them to create value growth as opposed to just sales growth.
The abovementioned studies and my other studies such as Arora et al.
(2008), Kumar, Venkatesan, and Reinartz (2008), Kumar and Petersen
(2008), and Kumar and Ganesh (1995) have contributed extensively to the
field of marketing and to marketing strategy, in particular. These studies
have provided mangers with useful tactics and strategies that will produce
tangible results for firms.
Customer Relationship Management
The topic of CRM has evolved as one of the most critical domains of
marketing as it entails using marketing strategies, tactics, and tools to
manage profitable customer relationships. In the recent years, the CLV metric
has emerged as an important metric to measure and manage customers.
Not surprisingly, several companies have embraced the CLV metric and
integrated the concept in business practices pertaining to managing customer
relationships.
To better understand the concept of CLV, Berger et al. (2002) developed a
conceptual framework to help marketing managers effectively manage
customers and illustrate the strategic advantages of the CLV metric. The study
showed that CLV has a number of advantages over other customer-focused
metrics such as customer tenure and share-of-wallet, with CLV being a
forward-looking metric and one that constantly reflects the changing
marketing environment. Even so, CLV can pose difficulties for managers
looking to implement the measure at their firm. A firm must develop a number
of competencies to properly use the CLV metric, including database creation
and maintenance, market segmentation, forecasting customer purchase
behavior, and resource allocation. The study provided various approaches
to help firms develop those competencies and accurately calculate the CLV of
their customers. This line of thought was further elaborated in Kumar (2004)
and Kumar and Rajan (2009a) that explored both the challenges and the
advantages of using CLV to manage customers. These studies also raised an
important issue that, at the most basic level, companies must understand the
relationship between their customer’s profitability and loyalty.
In understanding the CLV metric from the value it brings to a firm and,
specifically, ways to increase a firm’s CLV, Kumar (2006a), Kumar, Lemon,
and Parasuraman (2006), and Kumar (2006d) explored the CLV metric in
depth, focusing on the specific capabilities use of the metric enables. The
studies showed that when firms adopt the CLV metric, they are able to select
the best customers, make loyal customers profitable, optimally allocate
resources, pitch the right product to the right customer at the right time,
link acquisition and retention to profitability, prevent customer attrition,
encourage multichannel shopping behavior, and even maximize brand value.
The studies also discussed the process of measuring a company’s CLV,
highlighting that, for some companies, calculating CLV at an individual level
is impractical. These companies can instead aggregate customers and
calculate the CLV of those groups, a tactic companies can even use to learn
about the value of competitors’ customer base.
140 V. KUMAR
With the increased understanding and accuracy of the CLV measurement

concept, researchers and practitioners have made surprising discoveries that
challenges long-held assumptions about managing customers. With specific
reference to the multichannel and multimedia buying environment that we
live in, Kumar (2010) posited that the CLV-based management approach
should accommodate for this technological and social change. The study
offered that because customers now demand highly customized offerings
from companies and because those customers receive information about
those offerings across a much wider array of communication channels
than ever before, marketers must adapt their strategies to reflect this new
reality and meet customers where they are. Accordingly, firms (both B2B
and B2C) must adopt a customer-centric approach to marketing, segmenting
customers along their value to the firm and marketing to those customers
through the most cost-effective and impactful channels.
Marketing Research (Applications)
Over the years, I have realized that in the scientific study process, the
application of frameworks/methodologies developed and the results it
produces signify the true caliber of the research study. Applications not only
test the accuracy of supposed models and theories but also provide
opportunities for scientists to explore new study questions. In my opinion,
applications are the bridge of pure science and real life. In this regard, the
research methodologies that I have developed have been tested/applied in
various real-life settings with remarkable results.
In an effort to ease decision-making based on conjoint analysis, Kumar and
Gaeth (1991) investigated the attribute importance weights and product
familiarity effects from the conjoint analysis. Specifically, this study addressed
whether the magnitude of the attribute importance weights changes with the
relative position of the attribute in a conjoint decision task. The results of this
study indicated that order effects can lead to differences in the part-worth
utilities and, therefore, in the market share predictions when dealing with
unfamiliar products. The results from this study were helpful to use conjoint
analysis in commercial applications, where the attribute importance weights
derived from the conjoint analysis are used for identifying new product
opportunities, choosing appropriate pricing strategies, identifying market
segments, and selecting optimal advertising strategies.
In explaining shareholder returns, Kumar, Ramaswami, and Srivastava
(2000) developed a multistage model to predict stock movements and
performance. The study accomplished two major tasks. First, it showed that
stock returns are influenced by important economic forces (beyond the
general market factor). Second, it assigned economic meaning to these
forces. The findings of this study had important implications on how
investment companies rated and invested in emerging markets such as Asia
and the Pacific countries.
Over the past decade, many firms have implemented CRM tools that
enable the development of firm–customer relationships. However, highly
publicized failures of CRM implementation have led to skepticism among
managers about its potential to generate firm value. Using a large sample of
U.S. commercial banks, Krasnikov, Jayachandran, and Kumar (2009)
examined the impact of CRM implementation on two metrics of firm
performance – operational (cost) efficiency and the ability of firms to
generate profits (profit efficiency). The study found that CRM implementa-
tion was associated with a decline in cost-efficiency but an increase in profit
efficiency as a firm-level factor and that CRM commitment reduces the
negative effect of CRM implementation on cost-efficiency. From an
implementation standpoint, this study showed that both vendors of CRM
applications and CRM users should be wary of employing CRM merely as a
tool to enhance efficiency. Instead, the vendors should promote CRM as
more of a solution that enhances the effectiveness of a firm’s customer
relationship strategies than as a means to achieve quick cost reduction
through enhanced efficiency.
Business-to-Business
The world of B2B marketing is very peculiar in its own ways. Deciphering
the behavior and idiosyncrasies that customers display has been the focus of
many researchers in the past. Many inroads have been made in this field. I
have had the opportunity to work in this area with some of the studies
making significant contributions to this stream of literature.
In B2B marketing, customer acquisition plays a vital role in the customer
management process. But the question that needs answer is ‘‘Whom to
acquire and how?’’; Venkatesan and Kumar (2004);5 Venkatesan, Kumar,
and Bohling (2007); Kumar, Venkatesan, Bohling, and Beckmann (2008);6
and Kumar, Venkatesan, and Rajan (2009) are groundbreaking papers that
advocate the use of CLV in the B2B setting to enable customer selection and
optimally allocation resources on customers based on the value that they
add to the firm. Through a CLV implementation at IBM, my coauthors and
142 V. KUMAR
I answer three basic questions in these studies: (1) Who are the right
customers and how do you select them? (2) How many times can these
customers be targeted? and (3) How does a firm reallocate its resources to the
most profitable customers? After implementing this CLV-based approach at
IBM, the company witnessed a revenue growth of around $20 million and an
Return on Investment (ROI) of around 160! The studies clearly outline the
advantages of a customer-centric view over a product-centric one and
encourage firms to adopt the former to ensure profits. With the right
marketing knowledge and the availability of customer level data, firms can
grow faster and learn to serve customers better.
The concept of profitable customer management requires that managers
must know the true value of a customer through data collection and analyses.
This understanding is provided in Lilien et al. (2010) that highlighted two
approaches that are innovative methods to collect and analyze customer
data – incentive compatible methods and the role of serial innovators.
Incentive compatible methods are designed to incent respondents to buy what
they say would be their preferred choice. From a data collection viewpoint,
this would provide a more accurate picture of knowing what respondents
plan to do than just asking them. Serial innovators are highly creative
individuals in a firm that seek a deeper understanding of the market place and
its customer needs. They gather information by their creative instincts of
asking the right questions and by continuous interaction with the customers.
Identifying and nurturing serial innovators is a potentially rewarding area of
research. In addition to this, this study identified the importance of
calculating, creating, and claiming value in business markets and highlighted
the need for a different approach from those most widely used in the B2C
scenario. Furthermore, the study also identified a number of new develop-
ments and areas for further research that can answer important problems for
academic researchers and industry members.
These studies, and more importantly the findings, have significantly
contributed to the literature in the respective streams of research and have
facilitated decision-making at the brand/firm/store level.
CUSTOMER-LEVEL RESEARCH
Retailing
In a paper well ahead of its time, Kumar and Rust (1989) discussed a topic
that has made significant leaps through the utilization of technology in data
collection since then. Still, the heart of the article bears relevance even in
today’s environment. The major advantage of the proposed procedure is
that, with the help of graphics, advertising managers can identify the
number of market segments, assess the relative size of the segments, and
pinpoint the location of the segments in the advertising and promotion
space. This study led to extensive research projects; both from myself and
colleagues in the field.
I was always intrigued at what is it that make customers keep coming back
to the retail stores. I explored this repetitive buying dimension of retailing in
Kumar, Ghosh, and Tellis (1992) by analyzing factors that affect repeat
buying behavior at the store level. This study observed substantially different
behavior patterns across the four segments and the two product categories
and found that the measure of loyalty is not contaminated by marketing
activity. The study identified the relationship between two dimensions of
loyalty (preference and inertia). Also, the study demonstrated that extent
repetitive buying reflects real preference across brands from inertia overtime.
Another area of my interest is the pricing function. In Kumar, Karande,
and Reinartz (1998), I studied the impact of the external reference price
discrepancy (ERPD) and the internal reference price discrepancy (IRPD) on
brand choice in two contexts: (a) whether the consumer is facing a stock-out
condition at the time of purchase and (b) whether the consumer is deal-
prone or not. The study found that, in general, the impact of the ERPD on
brand choice is greater than that of the internal price discrepancy. However,
this varies depending on contextual conditions such as stock-outs and deal
propensity. These findings provided important implications for retailers
on promotions (in-store and out-of-store), amount of discount based for
high-priced versus low-priced brands, and pricing for deal-prone and non-
deal-prone markets.
Today, retailers and suppliers in the marketplace face a plethora of
important and significant challenges. Grewal, Levy, and Kumar (2009)
conceptually explored a number of these issues related to customer experience
management. This study posited that the customer experience includes every
point of contact at which the customer interacts with the business, product, or
service. The key to retailing success is to understand one’s customers;
specifically, customers’ experiences in stores and with other channels and the
evolution of the total experience over time. Additionally, consumer goals play
an important role in determining how consumers perceive the retail
environment and various retail marketing mix elements. This study provided
an overview of the various domains of the retail customer experience and
raised important retailing issues that warrant empirical investigation.
144 V. KUMAR
With recent advances in technology and database marketing, and the

interest generated in the concept of CLV, I wanted to measure CLV at the
customer level that can maximize retail profitability. Kumar, Shah, and
Venkatesan (2006) found that the maximum positive impact to CLV occurs
when the customer cross-purchases, shows multichannel shopping behavior,
stays longer with the firm, buys specific product categories, and purchases
more frequently with the firm. However, the CLV follows an inverted U
relationship with an increase in the return of prior purchases. The study also
found a surprisingly low correlation between customer loyalty and future
profitability as well as low correlation between stores’ historic revenues and
future profitability. The study provided some important implications for
customer value management. Implementing the CLV metric enables
retailers to decide on the right promotion message to the right customer
and thereby increase the probability of loyal customers.
Cross-selling provides companies an opportunity to increase the revenue
contribution from their existing customers. Academic research has identified
the importance of cross-selling in different facets of customer relationship
and customer value. Blattberg, Getz, and Thomas (2001) identified the
return on cross-selling (or add-on-selling) as one of the three components of
CE. Reinartz and Kumar (2003) found that customers who buy from multiple-
product categories from a firm tend to have a longer profitable lifetime
duration. Additionally, cross-buying is also an important driver of CLV and
multichannel shopping behavior (Kumar & Venkatesan, 2005), which, in turn,
leads to higher revenues, higher share of wallet, and higher customer value.
However, limited research is available to identify the drivers of cross-buying.
Kumar, George, and Pancras (2008) studied the phenomenon of cross-buying
in retailing with the following objectives: (1) to understand the motivation
of customers to cross-buy, (2) to identify the drivers of cross-buy in
noncontractual settings such as catalog retailing, and (3) to observe whether
cross-buy helps to improve revenue and other customer-based outcome
metrics.7 The findings from this study enabled managers to devise strategies
that can make high-profitable/low-loyal customers remain with the firm for a
greater duration. Furthermore, the impact of product returns on cross-buying
can assist firms in creating a better return policy.
Marketing Strategy (Customer)
With changing tides in the market and the marketing literature, a conceptual
framework outlining firm strategy at the customer level and guidelines for
implementation become critical for firms to link marketing metrics with

financial outcomes. It is highly important to create an interface between the
marketing and financial disciplines by connecting the value of each
customer, determined by evaluating the lifetime value of the customer to
the firm with the performance of the firm.
In pursuit of identifying better ways to manage customers and drive
bottom-line growth, one of my seminal articles gave rise to a whole new
thread of literature on the customer lifetime–profitability relationship and
later on to CLV. Reinartz and Kumar (2000) investigated the noncon-
tractual dynamic of a lifetime–profitability relationship and tested four
different propositions: (1) there exists a strong positive customer lifetime–
profitability relationship, (2) profits increase over time, (3) the costs of
serving long-life customers are less than the cost of short-life customers, and
(4) long-life customers pay higher prices.8 The empirical findings show that a
strong linear positive association between lifetime and profits does not
necessarily exist. Profitability can occur for the firm from long- and short-
life customers. The cost of serving long-life customers is not lower. And
long-life customers do not pay higher prices. This study demonstrated that
managers cannot simply equate a long-life customer with increased lifetime
spending, with decreasing costs of serving, and with lower price sensitivity.
When a firm examines its customer database, it should not be too surprised
to find that there is a significant set of customers who transact with the firm
for a short while, but in that duration contribute handsomely to the firm’s
profits. This study suggested that a firm focused only on rewarding and
retaining customers on the basis of how long they have been with the firm
may miss out on the opportunity to maximize returns from the higher value,
but shorter lifetime customers.
In Reinartz and Kumar (2002), I investigated the issue of managing
loyalty and profitability simultaneously. Before this study was undertaken,
little data was available pertaining to the profitability of loyal customers.
The findings of this study are contrary to the prevailing ideology of the time.
The article proves that loyal customers exploit their perceived value to the
firm by demanding premium services and discounts. These loyal customers
feel entitled to receive lower prices and may not act as champions of the firm
under some circumstances. To help clarify the quandary of the profitable
customer, a four-category matrix was developed with each category utilizing
a unique strategy for contact with its members.
On the basis of the above research studies, I wanted to find what drives
profitable lifetime duration. Reinartz and Kumar (2003)9 and Kumar,
Bohling, and Ladda (2003) investigated this research question and postulated
146 V. KUMAR
that the profitable duration of a customer–firm relationship depends on the

customer–firm exchange characteristics at time t and customer demographics.
The key objectives of these studies were to empirically measure lifetime
duration of noncontractual customer–firm relationships by incorporating
projected profits, determine the factors that affect a customer’s profitable
lifetime duration, and provide a managerial framework for building and
managing profitable relationships. The results showed that demographics are
a significant input to consider when developing long-term objectives such as
lifetime duration. The significance of these studies is not merely in the
concepts, but also in the simple manner in which it has been presented. This
simplistic and logical approach made it easy for managers to understand and
implement CLV almost immediately.
Several research studies, books, and even whole new lines of research have
developed that were largely influenced by the abovementioned three studies.
Some of my other significant studies in this area include Kumar, Ramani,
and Bohling (2004); Kumar and Petersen (2005); Gupta et al. (2006); Kumar
(2006b); Kumar and Luo (2008); and Kumar and Rajan (2009b). These
studies suggested that the CLV paradigm can be used to develop specific
customer-level strategies that will help companies make consistent customer
management decisions over time. These studies also suggested some best
practice applications that firms can adopt to make critical business
decisions.
The true measure of any marketing strategy or initiative is improved
financial results for the firm. In Kumar and George (2007), I compared how
CE is measured and maximized in various instances.10 This study found that
at the customer level, CLV is maximized by implementing strategies such as
optimal resource allocation, purchase sequence analysis, balancing acquisi-
tion, and retention spending, among others. At the firm level, the study
found that improving the drivers of CE maximizes CE. This provided
important implications for managers focusing on improving the overall
value derived from their customers.
A research area that has been gaining traction recently is the topic of
referral behavior. Although companies have been focusing on promoting
word of mouth for a long time, it was not linked to the company’s bottom-
line performance. In Kumar, Petersen, and Leone (2007) and Kumar,
Petersen, and Leone (2010), I developed a customer referral value (CRV)
framework that incorporated the value of customers’ referrals into the
development of CLV. These studies illustrated the importance of measuring
the value of a customer’s own transactions and the value of their impact on
the transactions of other customers and not one or the other in isolation.
Customer Relationship Management
In the recent years, studies on the CLV metric have contributed significantly
to the area of CRM and specifically to measure and manage customers.
Not surprisingly, several companies have embraced the CLV metric and
integrated the concept in business practices pertaining to managing customer
relationships.
Although CLV has become the de facto metric for measuring the value of a
customer base, Kumar et al. (2010) explored the development of an even more
comprehensive metric to incorporate some of the less direct ways customers
contribute value to a firm. The customer engagement value (CEV) not only
incorporates CLV but also measures of other valuable customer behavior to
provide a more complete picture of that customer’s worth. The CEV
measurement reflects not only future purchases by a given customer (CLV)
but also customers’ likelihood of providing referrals (CRV), positively or
negatively influence the purchasing decisions of their networks (customer
influencer value (CIV)), and providing feedback to a company (customer
knowledge value (CKV)). The study showed that by identifying and
segmenting customers along the additional ways they provide value to a
firm, a firm can optimize its marketing resources across all of those segments.
A cause for concern for many companies is the issue of product returns. It
can cause a serious dent in the bottom line of a company and significan-
tly affect business operations. Petersen and Kumar (2009, 2010)11 and
addressed this issue by considering returns from a CLV-based perspective.
Although many companies understandably dread high return rates and even
adopt harsh product return policies that are designed to lower the return
rates as much as possible, these studies posited that companies have an
opportunity to endear themselves to their customers by making the return
experience a positive one. Through empirical studies of various firms and
their product return policies, I found that with an accommodative return
policy, customers feel there is much less risk to purchasing products, know
they can return them, and therefore tend to buy more. Although the optimal
rate is unique to each company, the study proposed a number of tactical
ways of managing product return rates and ensuring customers remain
profitable not only in the short term, but in the future as well. Although the
studies I have conducted with my coauthors produced newer insights, upon
reflecting the past work, I discovered that the set of studies in this domain
fall in to a broader framework, which I term as Wheel of Fortune Strategies.
These strategies have been implemented in various B2B and B2C companies
that have resulted in significant gains in revenues and profits (Fig. 3).
148 V. KUMAR
Fig. 3. Wheel of Fortune Strategies. Source: Adapted from Kumar (2009a).
Marketing Research (New Methodology)
Developing new methodologies to solve marketing problems helps to further

the progress of the marketing discipline. I have had the opportunity,
individually or in collaboration with other scholars, to develop methods that
can aid decision-making on (a) decision processes, (b) product positioning,
and (c) product/service diffusion.
One of the decision-making processes that had fascinated me was deciding
on job alternatives. Anyone graduating from a school would have gone
through the process of having to decide on the job offer to accept. I decided
to explore this decision-making process at the doctoral-student level. In
Kumar (1988), I developed a methodology to construct an individual
decision model for evaluating job selection criteria of graduating doctoral
students so that universities could develop a comprehensive marketing
strategy to attract the highest quality faculty members. Professional
development, compensation, and pedagogical considerations were the three
most important attributes for the majority of students in the survey. This
study provided some important implications for university policy makers.
Another decision-making process I investigated was the one on prioritizing

oil and gas exploration activities. In Dyer, Lund, Larsen, Kumar, and Leone
(1990), I addressed the problem that managers were most interested in – to
develop a consistent ranking system of oil and gas plays that has a simpler
structure to understand and implement, demands less data to locate necessary
parameters, and provides precise guidance on budgeting and manpower
decisions. The implementation of this model provided the first use of a true
decision support system based on a personal computer (which was still a
new technology at that time) for aiding oil exploration decisions in this major
oil company. This model provided managers a rational basis for ranking
oil plays and facilitating allocation of exploration manpower by integrating
the intuitive concepts and reasoning of the exploration personnel. The
flexibility of this new tool of analysis provided a convenient means to analyze
the judgments of the exploration personnel regarding the oil exploration
activities.
To aid product positioning, Kumar and Leone (1991) introduced a new
methodology to solve two major issues in product positioning: (1) is
multidimensional scaling (MDS) capable of preserving structure in a two- or
three-dimensional space when the objects in this multidimensional space are
not in the pattern of a straight line? and (2) as researchers have found
that nonlinear mapping (NLM) technique possessed a particular value in
recovering the data structures, is it possible to apply NLM techniques to a
less well-behaved nonlinear structured marketing data? We concluded that
NLM is superior to MDS in the identification of the true data structure and
product positioning. Specifically, the NLM provides more accurate repre-
sentations than MDS. Furthermore, with cross-disciplinary knowledge and
sharp perceptions, this study successfully applied an advanced algorithm
developed in computer science to marketing research.
On brand-level diffusion, Krishnan, Bass, and Kumar (2000) developed a
model that addressed: (a) How managers can evaluate the brand-level
diffusion, (b) How can the impact of a later entrant on the sales growth of
the category and of the existing brands be analyzed, and (c) How well do the
target brands grow in relation to other brands? This paper filled the gap in
the research literature by modeling brand-level diffusion and provided some
important managerial implications as category-level diffusion. This is the
first paper ever that proposed a close-form expression for brand-level
diffusion model that showed how managers can use this model to compare
their brands’ performance, before and after a new brand entry in the market.
With respect to product-level diffusion, Venkatesan, Krishnan, and
Kumar (2004) extended the existing methodology of macro-level diffusion
150 V. KUMAR
model estimation by introducing a new modeling approach – GA. This

study (1) identified the limitations of existing diffusion models and
(2) explained why GA was better suited for diffusion model estimations
than other models. This study greatly improved the estimation techniques of
macro-level diffusion models by empirically proving the advantages of GA.
Marketing Research (Applications)
In marketing research, applications are closely linked to academic studies.

The aim of most studies is to figure out better solutions for managers. And
the success of applications under the real business environment is a critical
norm to evaluate the value of studies.
In this regard, Kumar and Venkatesan (2005)12 and Venkatesan, Kumar,
and Ravishanker (2007) investigated the practice of multichannel shopping.
These studies addressed how customer characteristics and supplier factors are
associated with multichannel shopping. The studies found that customers
who buy across multiple-product categories initiate more contacts with the
firm, have past experience with the supplier through the online channel, have
longer tenure, purchase more frequently, are larger and are recipients of
multichannel communications, and are more likely to shop in multiple
channels. In Venkatesan et al. (2007), I furthered the research by predicting
duration of the customer channel adoption. The longitudinal analysis in this
article implied that managers have the opportunity to increase profits brought
in by the customers by encouraging them to shop in multiple channels.
Overall, providing a multichannel experience to customers has the potential to
improve two critical aspects of CRM: customer retention and customer
growth. The customer–firm interaction characteristics identified in this study
and the proposed model framework enabled mangers to adopt a forward-
looking allocation of multichannel marketing resources.
Measuring, managing, and maximizing customer profitability does involve
a fair amount of balancing. This involves deciding on the amount of resources
to allocate toward customer acquisition and customer retention. Reinartz,
Thomas, and Kumar (2005) investigated this aspect of customer management
to determine the ‘‘true’’ value of a customer, when to acquire, till when to
retain, and how much to invest in retention through advanced statistical
modeling on real-time data.13 Apart from developing a superior modeling
technique to better understand customer acquisition and retention, this
study enabled managers to decide on the amount to invest in a customer’s
acquisition/retention.
Similar in topic and scope was Kumar, Venkatesan, and Reinartz (2006)
that explained the inherent problems in traditional methods that provide
predictions about customer behavior. They identified two common errors
leading to the poor prediction – (a) probability errors in predicting the
customer buying behavior and (b) sampling error in explaining the behavior
of the total population. The study used advanced statistical methods to
accurately compute purchase and timing probabilities for a customer
population choosing from more than two products that enabled managers
to accurately predict the best product/service to sell, to whom, and when.
Overall, these studies have proposed cutting-edge models/methodologies
and demonstrated the applicability of my research contributions to better
understand the decision made at the customer level.
CONCLUSION
The academic journey I began due to the lifelong pursuit of curiosities has
been quite enriching and rewarding. The sharing of the knowledge that I
gained with fellow academics and business executives has given me the
ultimate fulfillment of happiness. Beginning with my research on forecasting
in 1985 and through my current explorations into CRM, I think that my
work has had utility, not exclusively for managers and researchers, but also
for the end consumer. We are all consumers and depend on product and
service providers to create value in our lives with efficient and pertinent
offerings. By increasing provider’s ability to offer products and services, my
research, on a macro level, has led to the betterment of the end-user’s
experience, yours and mine.
I have spent the past 25 years studying the science of marketing and
improving upon its principals and inner-workings. My research has given
me the opportunity to travel the world and confer with some of the most
brilliant minds in academia. Of course, the endless hours of commitment to
this profession have not come without some angst, but looking back at my
life’s work has given me the chance to ruminate on the significance of this
work with, I must admit, a considerable amount of pride. However, this
pride does not arise through the solidarity of my work, but, rather, from the
culmination of efforts between myself and my immensely talented
coauthors. I would like to thank my mentors, coauthors, past and current
editors of journals, reviewers, and other well wishers for the opportunity to
showcase my work and hope that you, the reader, can gain some insights
from my work. My future exploration is treading into a cross-disciplinary
152 V. KUMAR
world as concepts, theories, and methods in marketing have evolved from

many disciplines, and it appears to be a rewarding path because I can see
more wisdom for me at the end of the tunnel.
NOTES
1. This paper won the ‘‘Outstanding Paper Award’’ for the Best Paper published
in a 2-year period (2000–2001) in the International Journal of Forecasting.
2. This paper was a finalist for the 2008 Harold H. Maynard Award for the Best
Paper published in the Journal of Marketing.
3. This paper won the 2009 MSI/H. Paul Root Award for the Best Paper Published
in the Journal of Marketing. This paper also won the 2010 Robert Buzzell Award for
paper published by the Marketing Science Institute that best contributes to the
practice of marketing.
4. This paper was a finalist of the 2007 MSI Practice Prize Competition.
5. This paper won the 2005 Donald R. Lehmann Award for the Best Paper
published in the Journal of Marketing/Journal of Marketing Research in a 2-year
period (2003–2004).
6. This paper was a finalist of the 2006 MSI Practice Prize Competition.
7. This paper won the 2009 Davidson Award for the Best Paper published in the
Journal of Retailing.
8. This paper won the 2001 Donald R. Lehmann Award for the Best Paper
published in the Journal of Marketing/Journal of Marketing Research in a 2-year
period (1999–2000).
9. This paper won the 2003 MSI/H. Paul Root Award for the Best Paper published
in the Journal of Marketing that best contributes to the practice of marketing.
10. This paper won the 2007 Sheth Foundation Award for the Best Paper published
in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
11. This paper won the 2010 Donald R. Lehmann Award for the Best Dissertation-
based article published in the Journal of Marketing or Journal of Marketing
Research. This paper was also the finalist for the 2009 MSI/ H. Paul Root Award and
the 2009 Harold H. Maynard Award for the Best Paper published in the Journal of
Marketing.
12. This paper was the Runner-Up for the Best Paper published in 2005 in the
Journal of Interactive Marketing.
13. This paper won the 2005 MSI/H. Paul Root Award for the paper published in
the Journal of Marketing that best contributes to the practice of marketing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Bharath Rajan for assistance in the preparation of this
manuscript and Renu for copyediting.
REFERENCES
Albers, N. D., & Kumar, V. (1991). International direct marketing efforts: Are they useful to
small businesses in establishing consistent patterns of exporting? Journal of Direct
Marketing, 5(4), 29–38.
Armstrong, J. S., Morwitz, V. G., & Kumar, V. (2000). Sales forecasts for existing consumer
products and services: Do purchase intentions contribute to accuracy? International
Journal of Forecasting, 16(3), 383–397.
Arora, N., Dreze, X., Ghose, A., Hess, J., Iyengar, R., & Jing, B. (2008). Putting one-to-one
marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice. Marketing Letters,
19(3), 305–321.
Balasubramanian, S. K., & Kumar, V. (1990). Analyzing variations in advertising and
promotional expenditures: Key correlates in consumer, industrial, and service markets.
Balasubramanian, S. K., & Kumar, V. (1997a). Explaining variations in the advertising &
promotional costs/sales ratio: A reanalysis. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 85–92.
Balasubramanian, S. K., & Kumar, V. (1997b). Explaining variations in the advertising &
promotional costs/sales ratio: A response, research criteria, and guidelines. Journal of
Marketing, 61(1), 97–98.
Berger, P. D., Bolton, R. N., Bowman, D., Briggs, E., Kumar, V., & Parasuraman, A. (2002).
Marketing actions and the value of customer assets. Journal of Service Research, 5(1),
39–54.
Blattberg, R. C., Getz, G., & Thomas, J. S. (2001). Customer equity: Building and managing
relationships as valuable assets. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing
Corporation.
Brodie, R., Danaher, P., Kumar, V., & Leeflang, P. (2001). Econometric models for
forecasting market share. In: J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A
handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 597–612). Norwell, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Dyer, J. S., Lund, R. N., Larsen, J. B., Kumar, V., & Leone, R. P. (1990). A decision support
system for prioritizing oil and gas exploration activities. Operations Research, 38(3),
386–396.
Fildes, R., & Kumar, V. (2002). Telecommunications demand forecasting – A review.
International Journal of Forecasting, 18(4), 489–522.
Ganesh, J., & Kumar, V. (1996). Capturing the cross-national learning effect: An analysis of an
industrial technology diffusion. [Article]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
24(4), 328.
Ganesh, J., Kumar, V., & Subramaniam, V. (1997). Learning effect in multinational diffusion of
consumer durables: An exploratory investigation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 25(3), 214–228.
Gatignon, H., Eliashberg, J., & Robertson, T. S. (1989). Modeling multinational diffusion
patterns: An efficient methodology. Marketing Science, 8(3), 231–247.
Grewal, D., Levy, M., & Kumar, V. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: An
organizing framework. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 1–14[doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.jretai.
2009.01.001].
Gupta, S., Hanssens, D., Hardie, B., Kahn, W., Kumar, V., & Lin, N. (2006). Modeling
customer lifetime value. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 139–155.
154 V. KUMAR
Helsen, K., Jedidi, K., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1993). A new approach to country segmentation
utilizing multinational diffusion patterns. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 60–71.
Karande, K. W., & Kumar, V. (1995). The effect of brand characteristics and retailer policies on
response to retail price promotions: Implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 71(3),
249–278.
Katona, G. (1951). Psychological analysis of economic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katona, G. (1960). The powerful consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katona, G. (1968). Consumer behavior: Theory and findings on expectations and aspirations.
American Economic Review, 58(2), 19–30.
Krasnikov, A., Jayachandran, S., & Kumar, V. (2009). The impact of customer relationship
management implementation on cost and profit efficiencies: Evidence from the U.S.
commercial banking industry. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 61–76.
Krishnan, T. V., Bass, F. M., & Kumar, V. (2000). Impact of a late entrant on the diffusion of a
new product/service. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 269–278.
Kumar, V. (1988). A decision model for evaluating job alternatives. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 103–113.
Kumar, V. (1994). Forecasting performance of market share models: An assessment, additional
insights, and guidelines. International Journal of Forecasting, 10(2), 295–312.
Kumar, V. (2004). Leveraging superior marketing tools to maximize profits. Strategic
Marketing, 3(2), 18–23.
Kumar, V. (2006a). CLV – The databased approach. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 5(2),
7–35.
Kumar, V. (2006b). Customer lifetime value. In: R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds), The handbook of
marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances (pp. 602–627). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kumar, V. (2006c). International marketing research. In: R. Grover & M. Vriens (Eds), The
handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kumar, V. (2006d). Profitable relationships. Marketing Research, 18(3), 41–46.
Kumar, V. (2009a). Managing customers for profit. The Wharton School Publishing, February.
Kumar, V. (2009b). Researching international markets: Philosophical and methodological
issues. In: M. Kotabe & K. Helsen (Eds), The Sage handbook of international marketing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kumar, V. (2010). A customer lifetime value-based approach to marketing in the
multichannel, multimedia retailing environment. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
24(2), 71–85.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value.
Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310.
Kumar, V., Bohling, T. R., & Ladda, R. N. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of
relationship intention: Implications for transaction and relationship marketing.
Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 667–676.
Kumar, V., Fan, J., Gulati, R., & Venkat, P. (2009). Marketing-mix recommendations to
manage value growth at P&G Asia-Pacific. Marketing Science, 28(4), 645–655.
Kumar, V., & Gaeth, G. J. (1991). Attribute order and product familiarity effects in decision
tasks using conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(2),
113–124.
Kumar, V., & Ganesh, J. (1995). The state-of-the-art in brand equity research: What is known
and what needs to be known. Australasian Journal of Market Research, 3(1), 3–22.
Kumar, V., Ganesh, J., & Echambadi, R. (1998). Cross-national diffusion research: What do we
know and how certain are we? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(3),
255–268.
Kumar, V., & George, M. (2007). Measuring and maximizing customer equity: A critical
analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 157–171.
Kumar, V., George, M., & Pancras, J. (2008). Cross-buying in retailing: Drivers and
consequences. Journal of Retailing, 84(1), 15–27.
Kumar, V., Ghosh, A., & Tellis, G. J. (1992). A decomposition of repeat buying. Marketing
Letters, 3(4), 407–417.
Kumar, V., & Heath, T. B. (1990). A comparative study of market share models using
disaggregate data. International Journal of Forecasting, 6(2), 163–174.
Kumar, V., & Karande, K. (2000). The effect of retail store environment on retailer
performance. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 167–181.
Kumar, V., Karande, K., & Reinartz, W. J. (1998). The impact of internal and external
reference prices on brand choice: The moderating role of contextual variables. Journal of
Retailing, 74(3), 401–426.
Kumar, V., Kerin, R. A., & Pereira, A. (1991). An empirical assessment of merger and
acquisition activity in retailing. [Article]. Journal of Retailing, 67(3), 321.
Kumar, V., Lemon, K. N., & Parasuraman, A. (2006). Managing customers for value. Journal
of Service Research, 9(2), 87–94.
Kumar, V., & Leone, R. (1991). Nonlinear mapping: An alternative to multidimensional scaling
for product positioning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 165–176.
Kumar, V., & Leone, R. P. (1988). Measuring the effect of retail store promotions on brand and
store substitution. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 178–185.
Kumar, V., Leone, R. P., & Gaskins, J. N. (1995). Aggregate and disaggregate sector
forecasting using consumer confidence measures. International Journal of Forecasting,
11(3), 361–377.
Kumar, V., & Luo, A. M. (2008). Integrating purchase timing, choice, and quantity
decisions models: A review of model specifications, estimations, and applications. In:
N. K. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research (Vol. 4, pp. 63–91). Armonk,
New York: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kumar, V., Madan, V., & Srinivasan, S. S. (2004). Price discounts or coupon promotions: Does
it matter? Journal of Business Research, 57(9), 933–941.
Kumar, V., & Nagpal, A. (2001). Segmenting global markets: Look before you leap. [Article].
Marketing Research,, 13(1), 8–13.
Kumar, V., Nagpal, A., & Venkatesan, R. (2002). Forecasting category sales and market share
for wireless telephone subscribers: A combined approach. International Journal of
Forecasting, 18(4), 583–603.
Kumar, V., & Pereira, A. (1995). Explaining the variation in short-term response to retail price
promotions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(3), 155.
Kumar, V., & Pereira, A. (1997). Assessing the competitive impact of type, timing, frequency,
and magnitude of retail promotions. Journal of Business Research, 40(1), 1–13.
Kumar, V., & Petersen, J. A. (2005). Using a customer-level marketing strategy to enhance firm
performance: A review of theoretical and empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of
156 V. KUMAR
Kumar, V., & Petersen, J. A. (2008). Maximizing ROI or profitability: Is one better than the
other. Marketing Research, 16(3), 28–34.
Kumar, V., Petersen, J. A., & Leone, R. P. (2007). How valuable is word of mouth? Harvard
Business Review, 85(10), 139.
Kumar, V., Petersen, J. A., & Leone, R. P. (2010). Driving profitability by encouraging
customer referrals: Who, when, and how. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 1–17.
Kumar, V., Pozza, I. D., Petersen, J. A., & Shah, D. (2009). Reversing the logic: The path to
profitability through relationship marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2),
147–156.
Kumar, V., & Rajan, B. (2009a). Nurturing the right customers. Strategic Finance, 26–33.
Kumar, V., & Rajan, B. (2009b). Profitable customer management: measuring and maximizing
customer lifetime value. Management Accounting Quarterly, 19(3), 1–18.
Kumar, V., Ramani, G., & Bohling, T. R. (2004). Customer lifetime value approaches and best
practice applications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 60.
Kumar, V., Ramaswami, S. N., & Srivastava, R. K. (2000). A model to explain shareholder
returns: Marketing implications. Journal of Business Research, 50(2), 157–167.
Kumar, V., & Rust, R. T. (1989). Market segmentation by visual inspection. Journal of
Advertising Research, 29(4), 23–29.
Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2004). Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the 21st
century. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 317–329.
Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2008). Research before you leap: Does cross-sell always lead to higher
profits? Marketing Research, 20(3), 26–32.
Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2009). Expanding the role of marketing: From customer equity to
market capitalization. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 119.
Kumar, V., Shah, D., & Venkatesan, R. (2006). Managing retailer profitability – One customer
at a time!. Journal of Retailing, 82(4), 277–294.
Kumar, V., Stam, A., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1994). An interactive multicriteria approach to
identifying potential foreign markets. Journal of International Marketing, 2(1), 29–52.
Kumar, V., & Subramanian, V. (1997). A contingency framework for the mode of entry
decision. Journal of World Business, 32(1), 53–72 [doi: DOI: 10.1016/S1090-
9516(97)90025-0].
Kumar, V., & Swaminathan, S. (2005). The different faces of coupon elasticity. Journal of
Retailing, 81(1), 1–13.
Kumar, V., & Venkatesan, R. (2005). Who are the multichannel shoppers and how do they
perform?: Correlates of multichannel shopping behavior. Journal of Interactive Market-
ing, 19(2), 44–62.
Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., Bohling, T., & Beckmann, D. (2008). The power of CLV:
Managing customer lifetime value at IBM. Marketing Science, 27(4), 585–599.
Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., & Rajan, B. (2009). Implementing profitability through a customer
lifetime value framework. Marketing Intelligence Review, 2(October), 32–43.
Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., & Reinartz, W. (2006). Knowing what to sell, when, and to whom.
Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 131–137150.
Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., & Reinartz, W. (2008). Performance implications of adopting a
customer-focused sales campaign. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 50–68.
Lilien, G., Grewal, R., Bowman, D., Ding, M., Griffin, A., & Kumar, V. (2010). Calculating,
creating, and claiming value in business markets: Status and research agenda. Marketing
Letters, 21(3), 287–299.
Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Are product returns a necessary evil? Antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 35–51.
Petersen, J. A., & Kumar, V. (2010). Can product returns make you money? Sloan Management
Review, 51(3), 85–89.
Petersen, J. A., McAlister, L., Reibstein, D. J., Winer, R. S., Kumar, V., & Atkinson, G. (2009).
Choosing the right metrics to maximize profitability and shareholder value. Journal of
Retailing, 85(1), 95–111.
Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journal of
Marketing, 72(1), 27.
Reinartz, W., & Kumar, V. (2002). The mismanagement of customer loyalty. [Article]. Harvard
Business Review, 80(7), 86–94.
Reinartz, W., Thomas, J. S., & Kumar, V. (2005). Balancing acquisition and retention resources
to maximize customer profitability. Journal of Marketing, 69(January), 63–79.
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (1999). Store-, market-, and consumer-characteristics: The drivers
of store performance. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 5–23 [doi: 10.1023/a:1008011622335].
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2000). On the profitability of long-life customers in a
noncontractual setting: An empirical investigation and implications for marketing. The
Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2003). The impact of customer relationship characteristics on
profitable lifetime duration. The Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 77–99.
Takada, H., & Jain, D. (1991). Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer durable goods
in pacific rim countries. Journal of Marketing, 55(2), 48–54.
Thomas, J., Reinartz, W., & Kumar, V. (2004). Getting the most out of all your customers.
Harvard Business Review, 82(7–8), 116–123188.
Venkatesan, R., Krishnan, T. V., & Kumar, V. (2004). Evolutionary estimation of macro-level
diffusion models using genetic algorithms: An alternative to nonlinear least squares.
Venkatesan, R., & Kumar, V. (2002). A genetic algorithms approach to growth phase
forecasting of wireless subscribers. International Journal of Forecasting, 18(4), 625–646.
Venkatesan, R., & Kumar, V. (2004). A customer lifetime value framework for customer
selection and resource allocation strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 106.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., & Bohling, T. (2007). Optimal customer relationship management
using bayesian decision theory: An application for customer selection. Journal of
Marketing Research, 44(4), 579–594.
Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V., & Ravishanker, N. (2007). Multichannel shopping: Causes and
consequences. Journal of Marketing, 71(2), 114–132.
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON MY
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS TO
MARKETING
Naresh K. Malhotra
ABSTRACT
It is a great honor to be selected as a marketing legend, and 117 of my

refereed journal articles are published in nine volumes by Sage India as
part of the Legend series. In this chapter, I discuss my preparation for an
academic career and the trajectory my research has followed. I reflect on
my research contributions to marketing by selectively summarizing the
key contributions in each of the nine volumes and draw out some lessons
and principles I have learned in the process.
INTRODUCTION
Writing this chapter provided me another opportunity to review my

research; the first occurred when I prepared the materials for the legend
series published by Sage India. My educational background and training
have played a crucial role in my research and academic career and are briefly
described. To give the reader an appreciation of how my research interests
have evolved over the years, I trace the trajectory with a focus on the

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008009
159
160 NARESH K. MALHOTRA
motivations that led me to conduct research in the different areas. This is

followed by a summary of my research contributions as reported in the nine
volumes published by Sage India. I also share 10 key lessons and principles I
have learned while doing research. I conclude with expressions of gratitude
and thanks to the many people who have been instrumental in my success
and to my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.
Preparation for an Academic Career
My preparations for an academic career began early in life due to the

emphasis that my parents put on our education and knowledge develop-
ment. Despite their modest means, my parents gave me, indeed every one of
their four children, the best education that India had to offer. From
kindergarten to high school, I had my entire schooling in private, convent
schools, each being the best in the city where we were living. On graduation
from High School, I pursued a degree in Mechanical Engineering at the
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (now called Mumbai), a world
class institution. This engineering education not only gave me a solid
background in mathematics, science, and engineering but also helped me
develop logical thinking and the discipline to put in long hours of
concentrated study. On completion of my engineering degree, I joined the
Indian Institute of Management, Ahmadabad (IIMA), another world class
institution, to get the equivalent of an MBA degree. The years at IIMA
further developed my abilities to think logically and critically and provided
me with a sound understanding of management principles. It was there that
I developed a liking for marketing. On graduation from IIMA, I joined the
Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, as a management
consultant and worked for them for two years and then left for the United
States to pursue higher education.
I arrived in the United States in Buffalo, NY, to join the doctoral
program in marketing at the State University of New York (SUNY). At
SUNY, I had the privilege of taking courses and doing research with
outstanding professors particularly Arun Jain (my dissertation advisor),
Brian Ratchford, Vijay Mahajan, and Michael Etgar. I did a minor in
statistical science in the department of computer science that I followed with
a Master’s degree in the same field. My other PhD minor was in social
psychology in the department of psychology. These two minor gave me a
strong foundation in both quantitative methods as well as behavioral
science. This background has helped me tremendously in doing research in
Personal Reflections on My Research Contributions to Marketing 161
marketing. Another very significant event in my life took place in Buffalo. I

was exposed to Christianity and converted from Hinduism to Christianity
on March 19, 1978, by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal
Savior and Lord, putting my faith and trust in Him, and committing my life
to Him.
On completion of my doctorate in 1979, I joined the Georgia Institute of
Technology (Georgia Tech) as an assistant professor. At Tech, my research
was off to a flying start and I had published in the major marketing journals
in the first two years and was promoted to associate professor in a record
three years. I was then promoted to Professor and shortly after that
Regents’ Professor (Highest Academic Rank in the University System of
Georgia), a rank that I held for 18 years until retirement from Georgia Tech
in 2009 after 30 years of service. I was at the peak of my career in 2009 and
the reason for retiring from Georgia Tech was to focus on my Christian
ministry in SE Asia. However, I also wanted to continue my academic career
and accepted the position of Nanyang Visiting Professor at the Nanyang
Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore where I
continue to serve as of this writing.
Research Trajectory and Top Rankings
I have had two constant areas of research interests, marketing research and
consumer behavior. Interest in these areas was a natural outgrowth of my
strong background and training in quantitative methods and psychology.
These interests were reflected in my doctoral dissertation on consumer
information seeking and information processing that won the First Prize
from the Academy of Marketing Science in 1980. Research in these areas
has continued to date with my tenth publication in the Journal of Marketing
Research (JMR) appearing in the August 2010 issue. I am ranked number
one based on articles published in the JMR during 1980–1985 (Wheatley &
Wilson, 1987). I have also been ranked the number three researcher based
on weighted publications in JMR from 1977 to 2002 (Ford et al., 2010).
Likewise, the most recent consumer behavior article published in the Legend
volumes was published in 2009. Therefore, it is not surprising that
marketing research and consumer behavior each have two volumes in the
Legend Series. As a marketing professor, I felt that I had to have a research
presence in marketing management and policy. Articles in this area also
span my entire career with the most recent one being published in 2009.
Some of these articles have been published in the Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science (JAMS) along with my publications in marketing

research and consumer behavior. This has resulted in several number one
ranking based on publications in JAMS including those based on the
inception of the journal to 1996 (Malhotra, 1996) and 1977 to 2002 (Ford
et al., 2010). When I joined Georgia Tech in 1979, the College of Industrial
Management (as it was so called), had a stated thrust in Services given that
Atlanta had emerged as a major service center. Furthermore, healthcare was
a major thrust across the Institute. So I shifted some of my interests to
health care marketing and retailing. Shortly after that, the Journal of Health
Care Marketing (JHCM) was taken over by American Marketing
Association (AMA) and this provided a natural outlet for my research.
Later, Georgia Tech abandoned this area and with that my research interest
shifted away from health care marketing but not before I had established an
all-time record as the number one author based on publications in JHCM
(Association for Consumer Research, 1994; Latta, 1994). This record is
slated to stand as the AMA has converted JHCM to a magazine and
changed its name to Marketing Health Services.
In late 1980s, Georgia Tech as an Institute adopted a major thrust in
International education. All units across the campus were encouraged to
move in this direction. In response, I shifted some of my research to
international marketing and cross-cultural research. That time, the Journal
of International Marketing (JIM) was not very receptive to cross-cultural
and international consumer marketing, a situation that has thankfully
changed in recent years with the editorship of David Griffith. However,
International Marketing Review (IMR) welcomed such articles and provided
a good outlet. Interest in this area remains to date and has resulted in several
number one rankings based on publications in IMR including an Editorial by
Schlegelmilch (2003), one based on publications in the IMR since its
inception (1983) to 2003 (Malhotra, Wu, & Whitelock, 2005), and one based
on publications in the IMR from 1996 to 2006 in a study by Xu, Yalcinkaya,
and Seggie (2008) published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Management.
As an educator, I have considered teaching to be very important and
devoted considerable effort to developing pedagogies to enhance student
learning. These pedagogies were not only implemented in the classroom but
also found their way in my textbooks and were published in pedagogical
journals including Journal of Marketing Education and Marketing Education
Review. The same has been true in the area of ethics. I integrated ethics in all
my courses and some of this material was published in the Journal of
Marketing Ethics and also found its way in marketing research textbooks
where ethics has been integrated in a pervasive way at each step of the
marketing research process. Although, my research interests focus on a micro-

level based on the consumer as the unit of analysis, I have also dabbled in
macromarketing, especially in quality of life (QoL) issues and some of this
research has been published in the Journal of Macromarketing. Finally, in 2002
I got involved in the Graphic Visualization and Usability (GVU) survey out of
the College of Computing at Georgia Tech. This was a state-of-the-art survey
measuring Internet usage. I first served on the Faculty Advisory Board and
later became a co-director of the project. This started another stream of
research on the interface of marketing and management information systems
(MIS). Some of this research has been published in Management Science,
Information Systems Research, and Decision Sciences.
In publishing these many articles, my focus was always on the quality of
the research. This emphasis paid off resulting in seven best paper awards for
articles published in journals with additional research awards for articles
published in proceedings and conference presentations.
Legend Volumes, Overview
It is a great honor to be selected as a Marketing Legend. Of the articles I

have published in major refereed journals, 117 of those are published in the
nine legend series volumes by Sage. Each of these nine volumes is edited by
one or two former doctoral students or colleagues. These volumes are
organized as indicated in Table 1.
Volumes in the Legend Series
In the following sections, I summarize my major contributions as documented

in each of the nine volumes published by Sage as part of the legend series. Given
the diversity of my publications, I felt this would be the most appropriate
approach. The reader is referred to the Sage series for more details.1
VOLUME 1, MARKETING RESEARCH, CONJOINT

ANALYSIS, AND MDS
My interest in conjoint analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS)
developed early due to working with Professor Arun K. Jain, who in turn
had worked with the maestro, Paul E. Green. Eight of the ten papers I have
Table 1. Legends in Marketing, Naresh K. Malhotra, Organization

of Volumes.
Volume Volume Name Number of Editor
Number Articles
1 Marketing Research, Conjoint 12 James Agarwal, University of

Analysis and MDS Calgary
2 Marketing Research, Research 16 Lan Wu, California State
Design and Data Analysis University, East Bay
3 Consumer Behavior, Information 13 Ashutosh R. Patil, Boston College
Processing and Decision Making
4 Consumer Behavior, Attitude, 11 Tracey M. King, American
Intention and Choice Behavior University
5 Marketing Management and 12 Can Uslay, Chapman University
Policy
6 International and Cross-Cultural 15 Francis M. Ulgado, Georgia Tech
Marketing
7 Marketing of Services, Retailing 14 Charla Mathwick, Portland State
and Health Care University, and Neale Martin,
Kennesaw State University
8 Ethics, Quality of Life, and 14 Gina L. Miller, Mercer University
Pedagogy
9 Management Information Systems, 10 Sung Kim, University of
Technology, and Marketing Wisconsin, Alka Citrin, Georgia
Tech
published in the JMR are in this area. These publications have resulted in
top rankings based on publications in JMR as documented earlier. One of
my papers published in JMR received the Sigma Xi Best Paper award.
Two broad streams of research underlie my work in both these areas. One
concerns the assessment of reliability, stability, and validity of results
obtained from these procedures. The other stream deals with the
development of procedures for reducing the data collection demands
imposed on the respondents and yet allow the estimation of these models at
the individual level. I will briefly comment on what I perceive as my major
research contributions in each of these areas.
Conjoint Analysis
A stream of research in conjoint analysis focuses on an examination of the

comparative performance, reliability, structural stability, and validity of the
various conjoint procedures. Typifying this research is Malhotra (1982a)

that examined the structural reliability and stability of nonmetric conjoint
analysis by embedding a core set of attributes within a larger set to assess the
stability of the core attributes in terms of part-worths and importance
weights. The examination was conducted under conditions of severe
structural perturbation and substantial variation in the number of stimulus
profiles. To derive the standard deviations of parameter estimates, the
individual-level part worth functions were jackknifed. The parameters,
standard errors, and derived relative importance weights were compared
across the different treatment conditions. The main conclusion was that
conjoint analysis is a fairly robust procedure for assessing an individual’s
preference. It was also shown that the jackknife technique is a fruitful way
of obtaining standard errors of parameters in nonmetric conjoint analysis
and that it is useful to evaluate the cognitive effects associated with
preference formation. These positive findings on the reliability and
structural stability of conjoint analysis contributed to the widespread usage
of this technique.
Malhotra was the first to suggest the use of the Tobit model in conjoint
analysis. Another stream of research in conjoint analysis was motivated by
the need to reduce the data collection demands imposed on the respondents
and yet obtain enough information to estimate the parameters at an
individual level. Theory and behavioral rationale indicated that once the
nonpreferred choice alternatives are identified, consumers typically do not
process them further. Only the preferred alternatives are evaluated in detail
to arrive at a decision. Hence, this approach was incorporated in conjoint
analysis and implemented using the Tobit model (Malhotra, 1986a). The
performance of the proposed approach was compared to metric conjoint
analysis, which is a corresponding approach based on ‘‘full’’ information
based on an empirical investigation and extensive Monte Carlo studies, with
the results favoring the proposed approach. Another factor in favor of my
approach is that the parameters of the preference function provide valuable
additional information on: (1) the probability of being acceptable or
preferred and (2) the intensity of preference conditional upon being
acceptable or preferred. This information results due to the use of the
Tobit formulation and is potentially useful in several managerial situations.
I extended this approach in a subsequent paper (Malhotra, 1987a) that
presented a more general approach to analyze marketing research data with
incomplete information on the dependent variable. In conjoint analysis,
information is always available on the independent variables by virtue of the
design adopted, but information on the dependent variable can be
deliberately kept missing in order to reduce the respondent evaluation task

and the cognitive load imposed. The resulting missing data can be analyzed
by using the EM algorithm. This approach can be implemented via a simple
estimation procedure that I developed. The proposed approach was
investigated empirically as well through Monté Carlo studies with
encouraging results and its many advantages are cited in the paper.
The other articles on this volume have shed light of the comparative
performance of existing conjoint methods, ways to improve the prediction
power, the use of bridging to accommodate a large number of attributes,
and field validation of conjoint analysis.
Multidimensional Scaling
In many ways, the stream of research in MDS paralleled that in conjoint

analysis reflecting the same two dominant themes. I investigated the validity
and structural reliability of MDS solutions by altering the number of
attributes and the number of stimuli (Malhotra, 1987b). The impact on
MDS solutions due to embedding of stimuli in similar stimuli and due to
change in stimulus domain introduced through different kinds of stimuli
was assessed. To make the examination more rigorous, the multitrait–
multimethod matrix approach was used to examine convergent and
discriminant validity. The findings for validity were generally positive and
indicated that MDS solutions are fairly robust to the impact of embedding
but less robust to changes in stimulus domain. Therefore, I recommended
that marketing researchers can continue to confidently use MDS in
situations where the stimulus domain does not change, but they should be
cautious when there is a change in the stimulus domain.
To reduce the respondent evaluation task and yet obtain individual level
solutions, the work with Jain and Pinson further examined the robustness of
MDS configurations with incomplete data. We conducted two empirical
studies in which the amount of incomplete data was varied using both
random and cyclic designs (Malhotra, Jain, & Pinson, 1988). We found that
robustness varied as the amount of incomplete data and configuration
recovery is affected negatively as the amount of missing data increased.
Surprisingly, random methods of data deletion performed just as well as
cyclic designs. Importantly, we also found that individual characteristics of
respondents, namely cognitive integration and imagery, had an impact on
the quality of configurations obtained with incomplete data. Therefore, we
recommended that when accuracy is critical, it might be advisable to collect
complete data. However, if the researcher decides not to collect a certain

portion of the data to reduce the demands imposed on the respondents,
random methods of data deletion could be used as they are simpler than and
perform as well as cyclical designs. A finding contrary to earlier studies
based on Monte Carlo simulations was that the quality of MDS
configuration recovery declines as the number of stimuli increases.
Further along the line of reducing the data collection demands on the
respondents, I examined the detrimental effects of fatigue on interproduct
similarity judgments (Malhotra, 1990). On the basis of the categorization
framework, I showed that the effects of fatigue on the variance of similarity
judgments and the fit of an MDS solution were opposite to the effects reported in
the literature. In particular, my fatigue hypothesis for the effect on the variance of
similarity judgments was opposite to that in the literature and posited that the
variance in similarity judgments should decrease, rather than increase, for brand
level and product category level stimuli as subjects experience fatigue. Moreover,
I was able to explain the results reported in the literature based on learning, rather
than fatigue. The question of when learning takes place and when fatigue occurs
in a similarity judgment task remains unanswered as of this writing. This
question is complicated by individual differences in that different individuals
may learn or experience fatigue at different levels and at different points in the
similarity judgment task. The broader issue of the cognitive processes underlying
formation of consumer perceptions assessed through MDS is need of further
investigation. I also extended my research on MDS to correspondence analysis
based on qualitative data, where interesting issues were examined and a review
article was also published.
VOLUME 2, RESEARCH METHODOLOGY,

RESEARCH DESIGN, AND DATA ANALYSIS
My interest in research methodology extended beyond conjoint analysis and
MDS to several areas pertaining to research design and data analysis,
including measurement and validation, discrete choice models, and
structural equation modeling (SEM) and related techniques.
Measurement and Validation
In terms of measurement and validation in marketing, my research is

typically characterized by Malhotra (1981) that developed a generalized
scale to measure self concepts, person concepts, and product concepts.

(Note that scale development and measurement also appear in Volume 9 in
the section on Marketing and MIS). The theory underlying this scale was
derived from the work of Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum. An innovative
methodology was used to empirically develop and purify the scale and
establish its psychometric properties using MDS and other multivariate
techniques. This scale has been used not only in marketing but also in
various disciplines such as psychology, economics, engineering, and
architecture. In Malhotra (1992), I identified some limitations of the
methodology, measures, and models used to examine nomological validity
in the literature and offered a general methodology for investigating
construct validity using structural equations methodology. This approach
has been widely used in marketing and other areas to establish construct
validity. It should be realized that construct validation is a continuous
process that requires certain amount of aggregation of results over a series
of reliability and validity studies.
Discrete Choice Models
My research on discrete choice models is well summarized by the papers in

the JMR, Journal of Business and Economic Statistic (JBES), and
Marketing Science (MS); all single authored. The JMR paper (Malhotra,
1984a) discussed the theoretical and methodological issues in the use of the
binary logit and the multinomial logit models in marketing research when
these techniques were just appearing in the marketing literature. I felt it
important to bring out their disadvantages and advantages, highlight their
applications, and offer guidelines for their use. This was needed for
academics to have a correct understanding and would contribute to the
popularity of these models. For example, I showed that the linear logit
formulation automatically incorporates interactions among the independent
variables and the underlying structure forces the cross-elasticities to be
equal. Thus the logit formulation is not useful for analysis based on
elasticities and cross-elasticities, and alternative specifications that allow free
variations of elasticities should be considered. It is gratifying to realize that
subsequently logit models have seen widespread use in marketing and
marketing research.
The JBES article (Malhotra, 1983a) offered a comparison of logit, probit,
OLS, and discriminant analysis using theory, empirical and simulated data.
An intriguing finding was that the logit model was superior in estimating
very small probabilities at the tail of the distribution. This finding had a
significant impact on practice, and this procedure has been used extensively
for estimating response probabilities in direct marketing situations where
the response rates are very low, often in low single digit. The MS paper
(Malhotra, 1987c) illustrated the correct use of these models in testing the
homogeneity of segments for estimating disaggregate choice models. The
need for this paper arose when I discovered that the tests employed in
the past literature to estimate the equality of logit coefficients in two segments
were incorrect. To rectify this situation, I proposed a likelihood ratio test
in which nonpoolable populations will not lead to the null distribution of the
test statistic, as they incorrectly may in the tests used previously in the
literature.
Structural Equation Modeling and Related Techniques
While I had been using SEM to examine substantive issues for many years,
only in recent years did I turn my attention to methodological issues
surrounding SEM. Along with Heungsun and Takane, we extended
generalized structured component analysis (GSCA) to developed Multilevel
Generalized Structured Component Analysis (MGSCA). This technique
accounts for the nested structures of both observed and latent variables that
are often hierarchically structured in that their individual-level scores are
grouped within higher-level units. There is interdependence of the scores
within the same group as the observed and latent variable scores nested
within the same higher-level group are likely to be more similar than those in
different groups. It is necessary to take this interdependence into account to
obtained solutions that are unbiased and we developed an alternating least-
squares procedure for parameter estimation.
In another joint effort, we conducted a comparative study on parameter
recovery of three approaches to SEM: covariance structure analysis, partial
least squares, and the relatively unknown GSCA. An extensive simulation
evaluated the relative performance of these three approaches in terms of
parameter recovery under different experimental conditions of sample size,
data distribution, and model specification. We found that GSCA may be a
good alternative to partial least squares for SEM. Furthermore, GSCA is
recommended over covariance structure analysis unless correct model
specification can be ensured, which is seldom possible. This paper is special
as it was my tenth paper to be published in the JMR (Hwang, Malhotra,
Kim, Tomiuk, & Hong, 2010).
Review and Prognosis
My interest in marketing research centered not only on techniques but also on

broader issues of how this field was developing. This motivated me to publish a
few papers offering reviews and prognosis of marketing research. An early
paper on the state-of-the art review of marketing research won the Best Paper
Award from the JAMS (Malhotra, 1988a). I reviewed the articles published in
the JMR to identify important areas of research. In each of the areas, I
summarized recent developments, discussed the state of the art, offered critical
observations, and identified directions for future research. About a decade
later, I updated this review working in conjunction with Peterson and Kleiser.
I felt that the discipline took a too narrow definition of who in the
organization does marketing research and coined the term ‘‘marketing
research myopia’’ to represent this phenomenon. Several predictions were
made, many of which have come true, including the paradigm shift that
more and more marketing researchers would be involved in marketing
decision making and more and more marketing managers would be involved
in marketing research. Malhotra and Peterson (2001) on the emerging issues
and trends was one of the top 50 most downloaded articles from amongst the
50,000 articles on the Emerald Literati Network, from 2001 to 2005. We
combined both the academic and the practitioner perspectives to highlight
several issues and emerging trends that will shape the role of marketing
research in the new millennium.
Given my interests in substantive cross-cultural research featured in
Volume 6, it was natural to focus on the methodological issues in this
domain. Malhotra, Agarwal, and Peterson (1996) emphasized that in cross-
cultural research, the researcher is faced with several complex methodolo-
gical issues in each phase of the marketing research process. Failure to
address these issues can lead to biases, confounding, alternative explana-
tions, and severely limit the usefulness of the marketing research project. We
offered several specific guidelines and procedures for addressing these issues
and enhancing the rigor and usefulness of cross-cultural research.
VOLUME 3, CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, INFORMATION

PROCESSING, AND DECISION MAKING
A related area of enquiry has been consumer cognitive styles, including

extremity of judgment, cognitive differentiation, cognitive integration,
cognitive complexity, and visual versus verbal information processing. This

research has been extended to information search and decision making.
The comprehensive information-processing model of consumer behavior
that Malhotra proposed led to significant empirical work by other scholars
based on this model. I also developed and experimentally tested a
multistage model of information processing behavior that systematically
showed how consumers process information in stages. These papers are
contained in Volume 3 on Consumer Behavior, Information Processing and
Decision Making, one of which was a finalist for the Ferber Best Paper
Award from the Journal of Consumer Research (JCR).
Information Overload
My research on consumer information processing and decision making

began with my doctoral dissertation that won the First Prize in the
Academy of Marketing Science competition, and I have continued
working in this area. I was the first to show that consumers cannot
process more than five alternatives or information on more than 10
attributes simultaneously without suffering the dysfunctional consequences
of information overload (Malhotra, 1982b). This paper was a finalist for
the JCR Ferber Award. This study employed an experimental design in
which the number of attributes and the number of alternatives were each
varied at 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25. The results showed that respondents
experienced information overload when they were provided with 10, 15,
20, or 25 choice alternatives or with information on 15, 20, or 25
attributes. Furthermore, the cognitively complex individuals have a
significantly lower probability of suffering information overload than do
the cognitively simple individuals, under identical conditions of informa-
tion load. I pointed out that the underlying cognitive processes should be
examined and questions such as what type of cognitive mechanisms are
employed to handle overload, how are these different from those
employed in normal information handling, and under what conditions
will these mechanisms break down completely, demand programmatic
research inquiry. Other papers on this topic examined theoretical,
substantive, and methodological issues in information and sensory
overload. This work sparked a considerable stream of research and the
investigation of information overload continues in the United States and
around the world to this day.
Cognitive Styles
I first met Christian Pinson when I was a doctoral student and he was
visiting Buffalo. He, Arun Jain, and I decided to initiate programmatic
research in consumer cognitive styles, and this effort resulted in six
publications, the most recent of which was published in 2010 (Malhotra,
Jain, Patil, Pinson, & Wu, 2010). Our early work sought to clarify the
concept of cognitive complexity and to empirically examine its role in the
formation of multidimensional judgments as captured by MDS. We clarified
the confusion then existing in the literature by defining cognitive complexity
to refer to the structural complexity of an individual’s cognitive system
dealing with the refinement of mental structures and configurations that are
used to organize new-and-existing information. We clarified that cognitive
complexity is not based on the content but rather on the structures that are
used by individuals for organizing the content. Furthermore, we refined
the construct and distinguished between three distinct aspects of
cognitive complexity, differentiation, discrimination, and integration. Our
empirical investigations were based on data from the National Family
Opinion Mail Panel and examined several aspects of cognitive complexity.
We found that consumers varying in cognitive differentiation and tolerance
of ambiguity exhibit marked differences in their life styles, and cognitive
styles, in general, influence the way consumers search for and process
market information.
More recently, Malhotra et al. (2010) show, using data from several
independent studies, that the dimensionality of MDS solutions is positively
related to the individual’s ability to discriminate within dimensions but
negatively related to individual differences in the level of cognitive
differentiation and integrative complexity of individuals. The broad issue
of the psychological foundations of the dimensions of MDS solutions
requires further research, and I hope that our work will inspire more
research in this area.
Information Search, Processing, and Decision Making
Information search, processing, and decision making has been another area
that has caught my fascination. In reviewing the literature I identified
several contradictions and controversies and I dedicated effort to resolving
some of them. For example, some studies had found a positive relationship
between information search and familiarity, some had found no
relationship, and some had reported a negative relationship. I resolved these

contradictions by positing that the relationship between information search
and familiarity was inverted U-shaped. Those with low familiarity lacked
the expertise to search for information, while those with high familiarity
lacked the motivation to do so. Thus, information search was low for both
these groups. However, those with moderate familiarity had sufficient
expertise and motivation to search for information and thereby searched for
more information than the other two groups. I was able to reinterpret and
explain the past studies in light of this new paradigm that I had proposed. In
reanalyzing the past studies, I found that those reporting a positive
relationship had examined the low to moderate familiarity range, those with
no significant relationship had examined only the moderate familiarity
range, and those with negative relationship has examined a moderate to high
familiarity range. All these three types of findings were consistent with the
inverted U-shaped proposition. This paper was published in the JCR
(Malhotra, 1983b).
In terms of information processing, I provided theoretical arguments and
empirical evidence that consumers engage in multi-stage information
processing behavior, including some experimental research. As hypothe-
sized, multi-stage information processing increased with an increase in the
number of alternatives. Respondents effectively employed multi-stage
strategies to reduce the cognitive strain involved in processing a large
number of alternatives. Along with doctoral student McCort, we extended
and integrated the information search and information processing streams
of research to propose a comprehensive information processing model of
consumer behavior. We provided extensive theoretical arguments and
developed several propositions, many of which were later investigated by
other researchers, who provided empirical support for them.
VOLUME 4, CONSUMER BEHAVIOR, ATTITUDE,

INTENTION, AND CHOICE BEHAVIOR
An important part of my research in the broad area of consumer behavior

focuses on attitude formation, affective experiences, product and service
quality evaluations, and consumer choice and is contained in this volume.
This volume is organized into three sections. The first section contains five
papers, including the award-winning lead article ‘‘A Cross-Cultural
Comparison of Behavioral Intention Models, Theoretical Consideration
and an Empirical Investigation,’’ that focus on the affective and

attitudinal determinants of consumer intention formation. The second
section consists of three articles that broadly focus on customer loyalty to
products, brands, and services. Two of the articles in this section apply
the concepts of customer loyalty to a services context by examining the
loyalty of bank patrons. The third section of the volume contains three
articles that examine various cognitive processes as important to consumer
behavior, including category-based and cue-based evaluation formation
processes.
Attitude, Affect, and Intention
My research in the area of attitude, intention, and choice involves both

theoretical and empirical analyses and often combines the two in the same
article. My theoretical bent is reflected in the overview article on attitude
and affect (Malhotra, 2005). In the article, I attempted to clear the muddy
waters surrounding a number of issues. I clarified the effect of personal and
contextual factors on attitudes by proposing that these factors can increase
or decrease the accessibility of different beliefs. I explained ambivalence by
arguing that it reflects the co-existence of positive and negative dispositions
toward an attitude object and can result from a conflict between cognition
and affect or from conflicting beliefs (cognitions) that are held simulta-
neously. However, the exact nature of attitudinal ambivalence in not fully
understood and more research is needed.
I also attempted to shed light on the controversy surrounding the systems
underlying affect. Some researchers believe that the module in the affect
system that influences attitudes and behaviors derives input from two
different evaluative channels, one in which negative information is derived
and the other in which positive information is derived. In sharp contrast,
other researchers believe that positive and negative are bipolars on the same
dimension and embrace the centrality of people’s net positive and negative
feelings. In an effort to resolve this controversy, I proposed that affect is not
invariably organized in a bipolar or a bivariate structure. Rather, the
structure of an affective response is a function of the mode of evaluative
activation elicited by the object. Many issues remain to be resolved. For
example, what is more predictive of consumer intent – thoughts or feelings?
Several researchers subscribe to the tripartite of cognitive, affective, and
conative attitudes but are not clear whether cognitive attitude dominates
and whether it mediates the relationship between affect and intent.
Research that integrated theoretical and empirical work in the area of

attitude, affect, and intention has involved a number of former doctoral
students. Mark Peterson and I presented a conceptual framework and
empirical study of measures of affective responses to ads. We developed a
new set of multi-item scales called Ad Promises and established its
convergent, discriminant, and construct validity. On the basis of an
appraisal theory of emotions, Ad Promises incorporates multiple purchase
motivations and offers increased power to gauge the intended effectiveness
of commercials.
Malhotra and McCort (2001) proposed a theoretical framework for the
cross-cultural validation of behavioral intention models and also conducted
an empirical investigation across two cultures, Chinese and American. We
found that the behavioral intention framework is applicable across cultures
(i.e., is etic), yet must be operationalized with the distinctive thought
processes of each culture in mind (i.e., in an emic way). Thus, we
contributed to the resolution of the etic versus emic debate regarding the
measurement of latent constructs included in Western models that had been
raging in the cross-cultural literature. The conceptualization of affective
experiences was also extended to the cross-cultural context in the work with
Tracey King while she was still a doctoral student in the program. I should
also mention the unification of the two streams of research on attitude and
affect in ‘‘An Integrated Model of Attitude and Affect, Theoretical
Foundation and an Empirical Investigation,’’ with James Agarwal. We
incorporated the interaction effect between attitude and affect in our
proposed integrated model and empirically tested and compared it with
competing models using regression analysis, logit, and structural equations
modeling in a choice context. We found that the interaction component of
the model was significant in the prediction of product choice.
Choice Behavior
In addition to the research in product choice reported in earlier volumes on

marketing research (Volumes 1 and 2) and information processing and
decision making in consumer behavior (Volume 3), research on consumer
choice that focuses on the examination of factors underlying consumer
preference and loyalty regarding products, brands, and services is also
reported in Volume 4.
In ‘‘Self Concept and Product Choice, An Integrated Perspective,’’ I
presented an integration that employed a multidimensional view of self-concept
and integrated self-concepts and product concepts with product attributes

and personality variables. This study was based on a reliable and valid scale
for measuring self concepts and product concepts and examined the
paradigm in an information processing framework by utilizing descriptions
of choice alternatives where the same stimulus set was presented to all the
respondents. I applied the LOGIT approach to self-concept and product
choice. Not surprisingly, this investigation yielded more favorable results
compared to previous studies (Malhotra, 1988b).
Two papers examined customer loyalty in the banking industry, each
collecting an independent data set from a different part of the world. The
more recent work, Ndubisi, Malhotra, and Wah (2009) examined the role of
relationship marketing dimensions in fostering satisfaction and loyalty with
some interesting results.
Cognitive Processes
My focus has been on cognitive processes that are important in determining

consumer evaluations, preferences, memory, and learning. Early in doctoral
student days, I had the opportunity to work with Professor Etgar to
integrate the literature on subjective aspects of pricing and develop a model
of price dependency. Conjoint analysis was used to assess consumers’
perceived utilities and relate them to price perceptions. We found that
reliance on price for product/brand quality perceptions varied across
subgroups, the extent of cue utilization depended on an individual’s
perception of the product quality concept, and price was used primarily to
assist in predicting the economic performance of a product/brand.
As an educator, I have carried a constant burden and desire to facilitate
and enhance student learning. This led me to integrate the literature
in cognitive psychology on mnemonic devices and develop a framework
for explaining how mnemonic devices such as first letter acronyms
work and why they are effective as learning aids with college students
(Malhotra, 1991). I later applied this framework to mnemonically code my
graduate and undergraduate marketing research books and the acronyms
summarizing the key concepts are given toward the end of each chapter.
These books have been translated into several languages, and have several
English language editions and are global leaders, thereby having an impact
on a large number of students.
Finally, Gina Miller (another formal doctoral student) and I developed a
comprehensive, theoretically sound categorization-based model of the
product perception and evaluation formation process. We found that the set
prediction abilities of the category-based asymmetrical MDS and piecemeal
processing conjoint, hybrid conjoint, and self-explicated utility models were
very encouraging. We identified several areas for future research.
VOLUME 5, MARKETING MANAGEMENT

AND POLICY
As a marketing professor I felt that I had to earn my stripes by also doing at

least some research in the broad area of marketing. This volume contains
my contributions in the areas of marketing management, marketing policy,
business-to-business marketing, and the marketing discipline as a whole.
Marketing Management
My research under the broad rubric of marketing management is varied

covering diverse areas such as new product growth modeling, analytical
market segmentation, sales forecasting and decision support systems
(DSSs), relationship marketing, complaint behavior, and customer defec-
tion. Given the space constraints, my comment will be selective.
In the midst of the energy shortage of the early 1980s, utility companies
were trying hard to meet demand and the Federal Government then was
pushing hard for energy saving audits and actually subsidizing homeowners
for the cost of the audit. This motivated me to undertake research to identify
segments that would be inclined toward saving energy by means such as
having an energy audit performed and implementing the resulting
recommendation (Malhotra, 1984b). I developed an innovative methodol-
ogy based on the conjoint analysis approach to segment the market and
identify the most amenable segments. On the basis of the findings, I made
several practical recommendations including pricing, timing, and nature of
the energy audit, and itemization and presentation of the audit findings that
were implemented by several utilities boosting the number of audits
performed and resulting in measureable energy savings.
Malhotra and Agarwal (2002) reviewed the literature on relationship
marketing, providing a useful taxonomy of relationship marketing frame-
works. We proposed a broad framework that uses the stakeholder approach
and re-examined the strategic role of the traditional marketing mix
strategies (namely, product, price, place, and promotion) in the new
relationship paradigm. Importantly, we derived 50 extensive propositions

that proved to be a fertile area for subsequent research investigations.
Malhotra, Ndubisi, and Agarwal (2008) examined the relationship
between public complaint (i.e., complaining to the organization) and
private complaint (complaining to family members and friends and not to
the organization) on customer defection in the Malaysian context,
investigating the moderating effect of ethnicity, income and switching cost
in this relationship. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analysis
showed that both public and private complaints were significantly
associated with defection, but private complaint had a stronger impact.
Additionally, income has a significant moderating effect in the relationship
between private complaint and defection and low-income earners were more
likely to defect without complaining than high income earners. As an
important managerial implication, organizations should encourage custo-
mers to complain directly to them, to get a chance to correct service
shortfalls and to improve service quality.
Marketing Policy
While many of the papers that appear in other volumes have policy
implications, the papers in this volume adopt a dominant policy perspective
to examine excessive buying and predatory pricing. Malhotra, Wu, and
Allvine (2006) argue that marketing has encouraged or led to excessive
buying in some situations, resulting in serious consequences for the
individual consumer and for the society in America. We pointed out that
excessive buying may not be sustainable and a sharp downturn in the
economy could have serious economic consequences. Families taking on
excessive consumer debt can not only experience economic difficulty, but
also negative emotions such as shame, guilt and anxiety. Marketing needs to
address the problem of excessive buying before it implodes and damages the
image and standing of marketing discipline. Unfortunately, our warning
was on target and the real estate crash and the global recession of 2007–2008
lent evidence to our main thesis.
One paper on predatory pricing examined the Supreme Court’s elements
for proving allegations of such conduct in the marketplace. Reviewing the
related research in economics, marketing, and other disciplines, we offered
several insights into understanding and applying these elements to the
airline industry. Furthermore, we conducted empirical research to examine
patterns of market power on the part of major airlines in selected hub
airports and investigated the pricing response by major airlines to the entry
of discount airlines. A simultaneous equation modeling approach was used.
Findings from these analyses yield insights into understanding aggressive
and predatory pricing in the airline industry for managers and policy
makers.
The second paper argued that marketing insights, data collection and
analysis methods can uniquely aid decision-making in the courts and lead
the way for a contemporary antitrust approach. We broke down the courts’
current decision-making paradigm into four steps: Is the defendant business
sacrificing current profits for future gains? Is recoupment probable? What is
the effect on the relevant competitors? Will there be injury to business buyer
and consumer welfare ultimately? We substantiated each step with the
enhanced perspectives and insights from marketing to synthesize theory and
practice.
Business-to-Business Marketing
While majority of my research is focused on consumer marketing, I wanted

to dispel the notion that business-to-business (B2B) marketing is not
important. Given the space constraints, I discuss only two papers that were
published recently.
In our commentary (Malhotra, Uslay, & Ndubisi, 2008), we applaud the
business-to-business (B2B) marketing research progress that has been made
but argue that inquiry through the expanded roles of buyers–sellers will
enable favorable innovation outcomes depending on the interaction(s) and
metrics emphasized. We developed several propositions that underline this
paradigm. Within the emerging paradigm, the outcomes of the B2B
marketing process as measured by perceived quality, customer/brand
loyalty, and improved cash flows as well as traditional metrics such as
sales, market share, price points, customer satisfaction, and number of
patents can be greatly enhanced. These could be achieved by emphasizing
and encouraging the interactions among different selling agents and buyers
in B2B markets. We recommended ROMI metrics such as return on trade
advertising, share-of-wallet, customer lifetime value, and percentage of
revenue from new offerings for evaluating the efficacy of our approach.
Malhotra and Uslay (2009) discuss the relative presence of B2B research
in the marketing literature, emphasizing the demand perspective that has
been sorely lacking in the literature as the literature has largely adopted a
supply side perspective. We contend that B2B research is under-represented
in marketing literature and business school curricula and is even lower than
previously suggested by empirical research. We provide a starting point for a
demand-oriented inquiry that will enable us to bridge the gaps.
Marketing Discipline
One cannot help but be intrigued by the discipline you are working in and
this led me to publish two articles on the marketing discipline (Malhotra,
1996, 1999). I examined the impact of the Academy of Marketing Science on
marketing scholarship by an analyzing the research published in the JAMS.
A brief history of the journal was chronicled and its output in recent years
was considered paying attention to the content of the articles published and
the research methods employed. An analysis of frequent contributors was
also conducted. The conclusion was that JAMS has emerged as a major
journal in marketing with an international reputation and standing and
represents a balanced coverage of all the important areas in marketing.
Another indicator of the reputation and top standing of JAMS is that some
of the leading scholars in the field have been frequent contributors
(Malhotra, 1996).
The commentary I offered on the past, present, and future of the
marketing discipline was sobering in many ways (Malhotra, 1999). Since its
inception, advances have been made in several areas of marketing and a rich
body of knowledge has emerged and continues to do so. Yet, the progress
has been hampered by a lack of innovative and creative and integrative
research, as well as lack of conceptual and methodological rigor. The
preponderance of incremental research, inadequate theoretical foundations,
and methodological pitfalls have also prevented progress so that we are not
where we should have been. I offered several recommendations to put us on
the right course and advance the discipline further. We must critically
evaluate existing theories and reexamine their underlying premises and
constructs and develop our own theories while continuing to draw
knowledge from other disciplines in innovative and creative ways. Special
emphasis should be placed on defining and operationalizing theoretical
constructs. Moreover, the procedures followed to empirically investigate
and test theories should be methodologically sound as this will enable us to
generate unequivocal findings and build a body of evidence. While all
aspects of research design are critically important, special attention should
be devoted to measurement issues based on underlying theory. It is also
imperative to use appropriate statistical techniques with due consideration
of their underlying assumptions and limitations. Finally, marketing must

address important substantive, managerial, and public policy issues to
enhance the relevance of the discipline to the society. These recommenda-
tions are still valid today.
VOLUME 6, INTERNATIONAL AND

CROSS-CULTURAL MARKETING
As a member of the faculty, I felt compelled to respond to the needs of
Georgia Tech. When Georgia Tech adopted international education in its
strategic plan and vision around the mid 1980s, I started research in the area
of international marketing and cross-cultural research, developing an
interest that remains with me to date. Over the years, I have taught and
travelled in 31 countries and this has given me a first-hand appreciation of
the complexities involved in researching foreign markets and investigating
other cultures. These experiences have given me a grass-root level
understanding of the complexities involved in international and cross-
cultural research. My contributions in international and cross-cultural
marketing can be grouped into theoretical, conceptual, and methodological,
international market segmentation and regional trading blocs, developing
countries, and cross-cultural research, which I will cover selectively. I have
received two Best Paper awards from IMR and one best paper award
from JIM.
Theoretical, Conceptual, and Methodological Foundations
Malhotra, Agarwal, and Ulgado (2003) argued that a multi-theoretical

framework is needed to explain different entry modes by firms at different
stages of the internationalization process. We integrated several theories of
internationalization and entry modes including the theories of international
product life cycle, market imperfections, strategic behavior theory, resource
advantage theory, transaction cost theory, eclectic theory of international
production, internationalization theory, and network theory and proposed a
multi-theoretical framework, an integrated model and several research
propositions. To make our framework comprehensive, we examined several
moderating factors that explain why firms follow unique patterns of
internationalization vis-à-vis the entry modality. These moderating factors
include the broad categories of global strategic factors, transaction-specific

factors, market factors, and government-imposed factors.
Our framework better explains why many firms may deviate from the
expected trajectory of internationalization and helps firms that have taken
on a global approach to better understand and monitor their efforts. This
framework is also useful to domestic firms that are new to the global market
or planning international entry as they can use it as a guide for strategic
development and implementation. Our contribution was recognized by the
Hans Thorelli Best Paper Award given by the JIM.
Malhotra et al. (2005) summarized the output and content of IMR during
the past 21 years concluding that IMR is a broad-based international
marketing journal covering a wide range of content. A detailed authorship
analysis reported that Naresh K. Malhotra was ranked number one based
on adjusted publications as well as based on the total number of
publications, followed by Vern Terpstra and Johny K. Johansson. These
top contributors are also top contributors to other leading marketing
journals, providing further evidence on the stature of IMR as a leading
journal in the marketing discipline.
International Market Segmentation and Trading Blocs
While the world has become a global market place, regional trading blocs,
such the EU, NAFTA, and ASEAN have emerged as a major force shaping
trading and global commerce. Our work in this area is theoretical as well as
empirical, and I briefly discuss two of the four papers.
Malhotra, Agarwal, and Baalbaki (1998) examined the heterogeneity of
regional trading blocs from a multicultural perspective finding that
although countries strive for standardization (harmonization) within a
bloc, cultural realities points out toward a need for customization both in
the host and home trading bloc countries. We found that cultural
differences across member countries in each trading bloc are quite complex
and sometimes subtle. Firms seeking penetration need to evaluate the
degree of homogeneity/ heterogeneity among the member countries within
the trading bloc and segment the market based on both marketing and
nonmarketing (environmental) factors. We found that the convergence of
consumption patterns and technological developments combined with
more flexible and less costly transportation and distribution systems lead
firms to develop transnational strategies. However, standardized marketing
across Europe does not guarantee a consistent product perception by
consumers in different countries of the EU as brand images may vary

across European countries and marketing strategies may have to be
adjusted accordingly.
Agarwal, Malhotra, and Wu (2002) focused on NAFTA and examined
whether consumers’ attitude toward NAFTA influences consumers’ con-
fidence, attitude, and purchase intention of Mexican-made products. We
developed a theoretical cross-cultural model based on stimulus general-
ization and attitude conditioning theory and tested it using two samples of
buyers/users of Mexican-made personal computers in the United States and
Canada. We found that attitude toward NAFTA positively influences
confidence, attitude, and purchase intention of Mexican-made product in
both samples. Thus, across member countries, the ‘‘country of origin’’ effect
is influenced by the ‘‘bloc of origin’’ effect. Furthermore, the consumer
decision model in the two countries was similar implying that marketing
strategies derived from this model may also be similar. Our study was the
first to extend the country-of-origin paradigm by empirically investigating
the antecedents and consequences of attitude toward a regional trading bloc
in a consumer decision making context.
Developing Countries
Over the past two decades, the importance of developing countries to the
world economy has grown dramatically. So I considered it natural to
include these countries in my research program. I briefly discuss the two
papers, both published in the IMR, that examine dimensions of service
quality in developed and developing economies. Malhotra, Ulgado,
Agarwal, and Baalbaki (1994) developed a framework consisting of 10
determinants or dimensions of service quality, consisting of reliability,
access, understanding of the customer, responsiveness, competence,
courtesy, communication, credibility, security, and tangible considerations.
We derived 14 hypotheses emphasizing differences in the perception of these
dimensions between developed and developing economies by linking these
with economic and socio-cultural factors.
In a subsequent study, Malhotra, Ulgado, Agarwal, Shainesh, and Wu
(2005) empirically tested these hypotheses by collecting extensive survey
data in the context of banking services from three countries, USA, India,
and the Philippines. Multivariate analysis of variance indicated that 13 of
the 14 hypotheses were supported. The results for the USA were system-
atically and significantly different from those for India and the Philippines
in the predicted direction. We discussed the implications of these results for

international marketing strategy formulation, service development, pricing,
communications, and service delivery.
Cross-Cultural Research
While the methodological aspects of cross-cultural research were

discussed in Volume 2, the papers in this volume deal with substantive
issues. I offer brief comments on the two that are among the most recent
papers.
In my review (Malhotra, 2001), I offered several insights and direction for
cross-cultural marketing research in the twenty-first century. Cross-cultural
marketing research has made substantial advances in the areas of conceptual
and definitional issues, theories and substantive findings, and in attacking
methodological problems; yet more progress is needed. An example of the
conceptual and definitional issues is the complex definitions of individualism
and collectivism and the relation between culture and self. Individualism
and collectivism are no longer seen as complete opposites of each other and
they co-exist in individuals at differing levels. Furthermore, individualist
and collectivist cultures are not homogeneous and there are differences
within each culture that need to be further classified into subcultures, for
example, based on social relationships. Social relationships can be either
horizontal or vertical, with the horizontal social relationship describing each
individual as being equal to all others while the vertical social relationship
describes differences among individuals according to rank or hierarchy. In
general, our theories need to be expanded to encompass various factors that
affect the phenomenon of interest, thus increasing their scope and
applicability. For example, the general country of origin paradigm should
be expanded to include culture-specific factors that influence country of
origin evaluations.
Agarwal, Malhotra, and Bolton (2010) extend cross-national research,
where country is the unit of analysis to cross-cultural research, where culture
is the unit of analysis. We conducted a rigorous empirical investigation to
test the validity of cross-national research versus cross-cultural research in
the domain of consumers’ perceived service quality (PSQ). Cross-national
hypotheses derived from theory were tested by estimating a structural model
of consumers’ PSQ for banking services in two countries, USA and India.
Also, corresponding cross-cultural hypotheses were tested by estimating the
same model on culture-based clusters. Our analysis revealed distinctive
differences between cross-national and cross-cultural models of PSQ. On the

basis of these results, we derived insights into vertical and horizontal market
segmentation taking into account differences in consumer perceptions
across countries and cultures.
VOLUME 7, MARKETING OF SERVICES,

RETAILING, AND HEALTH CARE
When I joined Georgia Tech, Atlanta was fast emerging as a service center
and the College of Industrial Management as it was then named had a stated
thrust in the area of services. Accordingly, I shifted some of my research to
services focusing on two areas, retailing and health care marketing. In
retailing my research involved modeling store choice and conceptualizing
and measuring experiential value. In health care, I not only formulated
stochastic choice models but also researched various marketing manage-
ment issues. Just about this time, the AMA had taken over the JHCM, and
this provided a natural outlet for publishing my research in this area. My
enthusiasm coupled with industry support led to a large number of
publications in health care. Then the AMA converted the Journal to a
magazine format and retitled it Marketing Health Services, which led me to
stop publishing in this outlet. I will selectively comment on my research in
these areas.
Retailing
Drawing on my background in biostatistics, I proposed a stochastic model

of store choice based on the concept of preference thresholds (Malhotra,
1983c). The basic notion is that unless a consumer’s preference for a store
exceeds a threshold level, it will not result in the selection of that store and
store choice is modeled in terms of the relevant store image characteristics.
This model was empirically investigated in conjunction with a large record
chain with good results and elaborate estimation and validation procedures
were developed. Not only do the model parameters, typically estimated at
the individual level provide useful diagnostic information that could be used
to formulate actionable strategies and tactics but the choice probabilities
can be conveniently aggregated to a desired level of aggregation to develop
estimates of market shares. Being stochastic in nature, the proposed model
also explains multi-store patronage behavior. This work was recognized by
the Journal of Retailing Best Article Award. It also formed the basis of
subsequent probabilistic store choice models formulated by other researchers
including myself.
I further extended this work to develop a model of store choice based on
censored preference data where information on intensity of preference is
obtained only for the acceptable stores (Malhotra, 1986b). For the
unacceptable stores, the only information utilized is that these stores are
not acceptable; particularly appropriate because in a random sample there
are likely to be many respondents who would not have visited certain
stores. The estimation procedure was based upon limited and censored
variables focusing particularly on the Tobit model. The proposed model
successfully predicted actual consumer dollar expenditures and number
of visits to department stores during the preceding two months. The
theoretical, methodological, and managerial significance of proposed model
were discussed in detail.
My two papers with Mathwick and Rigdon both focused on experiential
value and both were published in the Journal of Retailing. One developed
and tested an experiential value scale (EVS) reflecting the benefits derived
from perceptions of playfulness, aesthetics, customer return on investment
and service excellence. The scale was tested in the Internet and catalog
shopping context and its structure and psychometric properties established.
The second paper examined the effect of consumer shopping tasks and retail
information display properties on consumer perceptions of experiential
value using the cognitive continuum theory (CCT) as a theoretical
framework. The findings indicated that the nature of a consumer’s shopping
task exert a direct influence on consumer perceptions of efficiency, economic
value, and shopping enjoyment, all active dimensions of value. We also
found, congruent interactions between shopping task and retail information
display properties exerted an enhancing effect on the reactive dimensions of
value, as reflected in perceptions of visual appeal, entertainment value, and
service excellence.
The EVS provides a broader examination of the consumption experience
than addressed by earlier customer value research. Experiential value is a
measurement tool that is useful in describing the perceived make-up of a
retail value package and predicting differences in shopping preferences and
patronage intent in multi-channel retail systems. Theoretically, our research
introduced CCT to the marketing literature as a means of integrating the
servicescape framework with models of computer-mediated exchange. In
terms of managerial implications, we demonstrated the central role of
consumer shopping tasks in framing perceptions of value. Managers
contemplating market access by making use of multi-channels must be clear

about what their customers are trying to accomplish while using their
services. Furthermore, retailer and etailers can enhance value perceptions by
designing retail systems that are congruent with the anticipated modes of
interaction typical of a customer base.
Health Care
Eight of the nine papers that I have published in health care marketing are
individually authored. The reason is that at that time we did not have a
doctoral program in marketing and hence I could not involve any students
in this research. Five papers involved a modeling approach to health care.
One presented a conjoint analysis approach and an empirical study based on
a sample of health care administrators for the planning, design, modifica-
tion, and marketing of health care programs and facilities. Extending this
quantitative conjoint analysis approach, I proposed a stochastic procedure
for modeling consumer preferences for hospitals via logit analysis
(Malhotra, 1983d). This approach is useful in not only designing broad
positioning and marketing strategies but also for designing or modifying
specific services. Moreover, the modeling methodology could be applied to
assess the preferences of other consumer groups such as physicians and
medical personnel and this versatile approach has seen a lot of application in
the health care industry.
I proposed yet another quantitative approach for measuring consumers’
health care preferences by using Thurstone’s Case V procedure, a relatively
unknown technique not only in health care but also in the broader
marketing discipline as well. I illustrated this technique in the context of
linen services increasing their penetration of the health care market. I
developed a conceptual framework for understanding the decision-making
process of hospitals with respect to linen services and conducted an
empirical study to assess the relative importance of the factors involved in
various stages of the decision making process using Thurstone’s Case V
analysis. The Case V procedure was also implemented in another study in
the context of segmenting markets for improved management strategy. In a
follow-up paper, I extended the preceding work by proposing a probabilistic
approach to modeling the hospital–supplier marketing interface involving a
two-phase approach. Phase I involved the computation of a probability
function for estimating the probability of contracting linen services as a
function of the relative importance attached to the variable considered
salient at this stage, while Phase II involved the estimation of the conditional
probability of selecting a particular contractor if the hospital has decided to
contract its linen services (Malhotra, 1987d). Although suppliers are a
crucial component of a firm’s marketing strategy, surprisingly little attention
had been paid to them in health care marketing and I was amongst the first
to focus attention on them and present a sophisticated yet practical
approach to modeling their interface with health care institutions.
I also address several strategic issues facing the health care industry. One
paper dealt with the creative use of market segmentation for identifying and
capitalizing upon strategic growth opportunities for hospitals resulting in
specific strategies for hospitals, market penetration (increase market share in
existing segments), market niche (emphasize selected segments), market
development (add new segments for existing products), and market
diversification (add new segments for new products). In a subsequent
paper, I discussed the many developments that had occurred that were
changing the environment of the health care industry in the United States
and discussed their implications for marketing health services. I further
extended my strategic emphasis by introducing the notion of marketing
warfare to the health care industry. Implementing warfare or other strategic
marketing initiatives requires the use of DSSs to provide the necessary
information and so I outlined a DSS and illustrated its usefulness for health
care marketing managers.
With the election of President Obama in 2008 and the return of the House
to the Republican in 2010, the health care environment is undergoing rapid
change in the production, pricing, promotion, distribution, and delivery of
health care. Hospitals are facing increased intra- and intertype competition
with alternative forms of health care delivery and new legislations that
present both opportunities and challenges. To survive, leave alone thrive, in
such an environment, hospitals will have to formulate sound marketing
strategies based on sophisticated modeling and quantitative analysis, much
as I have attempted to do in my research.
VOLUME 8, ETHICS, QUALITY OF LIFE,

AND PEDAGOGY
All the papers in this volume can be unified by the underlying theme of
social responsibility. My research in this area covers ethics, QoL, and
pedagogy. As a Bible-believing Christian, I have strived to maintain high
ethical standards that have also filtered into my research and teaching.
Ethical issues are emphasized in all my courses and are also covered
extensively in my marketing research books with both the graduate and the
undergraduate texts having a section entitled ‘‘Ethics in Marketing
Research’’ in each and every chapter except those covering data analysis.
Being central to my value system, I also devoted some effort to researching
ethical issues. From my early exposure to marketing during my MBA days,
I have believed, partly based on the writings of Peter Drucker and Philip
Kotler, that marketing should be concerned with raising the standard of
living of a society. With this perspective, QoL issues are very much a part
of the domain of marketing and this provided the motivation for research
in this area. One of these papers received an outstanding paper award from
the IMR.
Finally, as an educator, I have believed that teaching is very important
and students have always and will always have a special place in my heart.
Good teaching involves empathy for the students and a responsibility and
desire to teach and deliver the content in the best possible way. This desire
motivated me to undertake research on pedagogical issues. This also helped
me to be an effective teacher, resulting in a few teaching awards including the
Academy of Marketing Science, Outstanding Marketing Teaching Excellence
Award in 2003, and the Great Teacher Award from Georgia Tech several times.
Selective comments are offered on my research in these areas.
Ethics
My research in ethics has focused on ethical issues in marketing research,

marketing education, and managed health care.
Working with former doctoral student Gina Miller, we developed an
integrated model for ethical decisions in marketing research (Malhotra &
Miller, 1998). In this paper we critically reviewed the various ethical
philosophies employed by decision makers and a few enduring marketing
ethical decision-making models, thus laying the foundation for a descriptive
model for ethics in marketing research. Then we developed an integrated
model of ethical decision making that incorporated the perspectives of all
parties involved in the process of making ethical marketing research
decisions, the various philosophies, and external variables. The proposed
model was compared with some of the models considered in the literature
and illustrated with a marketing research application and its contributions
highlighted. Through the proposed model, we were able to introduce the
consumer/public perspective into the literature, an aspect that must be

included in any paradigm of the ethical decision-making process in which
marketing is involved. Given its significant impact, this paper received the
ANBAR Citation of Excellence. This perspective on ethics was further
advanced in a paper with another former doctoral student that presented a
state-of-the-art review of ethical issues in marketing research in the 21st
century.
Gina and I offered an insightful commentary on the marketing educator
code of ethics (Malhotra & Miller, 1999). Our discussion centered on the
concepts of ‘‘Social responsibilities in relation to certain publics’’ and
‘‘Social responsibilities in relation to certain actions’’ that were examined in
light of each of the stakeholder groups, as well as in terms of several ethical
theories. Finally, we compared the proposed Academy of Marketing Science
marketing educator code of ethics to the ethics codes of other marketing
organizations. More attention should be paid to the underlying ethical
theories of the various codes of ethics, as this may prompt a restructuring
of these codes.
Quality of Life
Most of my research in QoL involves Mark Peterson, another former

doctoral student, and much of this deals with the evaluation of objective
QoL measures and their use in segmenting countries of the world. Typical of
this research is Peterson and Malhotra (2000) that used a set of six
commonly derived measures for objective QoL to segment 165 countries.
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the underlying
dimensions of objective QoL, and then tandem cluster analysis using both
hierarchical and non-hierarchical methods was used to identify strategic
classifications of the 165 countries. Non-hierarchical clustering produced 12
clusters in each year of the study. The pattern of the cluster means on the
objective measures of QoL was that of ‘‘haves and have nots,’’ correspond-
ing to extant theory about the development process for nations. As
expected, the clusters representing the First World outperform the other
clusters on each of the measures of objective QoL. These segments can be
used by policy makers to discern strategic rivals or alliance partners, and
international marketing managers can use these macro-level clusters as the
first stage in hybrid segmentation schemes to find micro groups of
consumers dispersed across a number of countries. In view of its impact,
this research received the Outstanding Paper Award from the IMR.
In another paper, I offered an assessment of the current state of the

literature in consumer well-being (CWB) and QoL and illustrated the
challenges facing researchers in this area, and identified some directions for
future research (Malhotra, 2006). It is imperative that CWB and QoL
research be grounded in theory to provide a richer understanding of the
CWB and QoL phenomena leading to appropriate conceptualizations and
definitions of these constructs. Moreover, theory will also guide the
operationalization of these constructs and the appropriate level (on the
micro–macro continuum) at which these constructs should be measured and
aid in the assessment of their psychometric properties. The research
conducted in this area had been largely qualitative and the data have not
been systematically analyzed. Since the goal in qualitative research is to
decipher, examine, and interpret meaningful patterns or themes that emerge
out of the data, I advocated general steps that should be followed to bridge
this gap. I also called for quantitative empirical research based on sound
research designs and appropriate and sophisticated methodologies, for
example, research integrating micro and macro perspectives could make use
of hierarchical linear modeling.
Pedagogy
For more than 30 years, I have taught marketing research using project
method approach. This approach has also been integrated in to my
marketing research textbooks (Malhotra, 2009, 2010), with each chapter in
these textbooks containing a section entitled ‘‘Live Research, Conducting a
Real-Life Marketing Research Project’’ that shows in detail how the
concepts of that chapter could be taught using this approach. This approach
was formally published in the Journal of Marketing Education. The same is
true for international marketing research that is also integrated in a
pervasive way in my marketing research textbooks. I developed a frame-
work for explaining how the six steps of the marketing research process
should be implemented in an international setting and how to help the
students appreciate the differences between international and domestic
marketing research, at each step of the marketing research process. To
enable a wider dissemination of this approach I published it in Journal of
Teaching in International Business. Another area that reflects the same
pattern of innovation in the classroom followed by implementation in my
marketing research textbooks, leading to publication in a pedagogical
journal is the integration of technology. Instructional technology includes
hardware and software, tools, techniques, and methodologies that are used
directly or indirectly to facilitate, enhance, and improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of teaching, learning, and practicing marketing knowledge
(Malhotra, 2002). The role of technology in marketing education should be
clearly defined. This is necessary if we are to formulate the right programs
and initiatives to integrate technology into marketing education. To design
and implement successful technology initiatives, we need the development of
a sound theoretical framework of how students learn and how technology
can facilitate and enhance that learning. The several pedagogical issues
related to the use of technology that I identified need to be more closely
examined. Furthermore, the perspective should shift from the ‘‘use of
technology in teaching’’ to the ‘‘use of technology in learning,’’ to a focus on
the learning of individual students, and to use of technology in the
classroom as well as outside of the class.
The fourth and final area to follow this pattern is the integration of
Internet technology in marketing research and education. Two papers were
published but not before the underlying framework, principles, and
techniques had been class-tested and implemented in my marketing research
books. We called for theoretical progress in this area. For example, the
Diffusion of Innovations Theory may be furthered as a process for
accomplishing a more formal integration of discipline-specific use of the
Internet and other technologies in marketing research and marketing
education. Similarly, the use of ‘‘technology champions’’ may be furthered
as a means of enhancing the Internet and technology diffusion process.
VOLUME 9, MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

SYSTEMS, TECHNOLOGY, AND MARKETING
This volume contains my research on the interface of MIS, technology, and

marketing. Research on MIS is a relatively new area for me and, again, it was
my strong service orientation that got me involved. The GVU Center located
in the College of Computing at Georgia Tech conducted a survey every six
months to assess Internet and computer usage of the general population.
Realizing my expertise in survey research, they asked me to initially serve on
the Faculty Advisory Board and then to serve as a Co-Director of the project.
Despite my numerous other commitments, I agreed. In the process of
redesigning this survey, I hired Sung Kim a doctoral student in Information
Technology and Management (ITM) in the College of Management. Sung
Kim got very interested in this area and requested me to serve as the chair
of his dissertation committee, which again I agreed to do. This got me
deeply involved in the area of MIS. Sung and I continued our research long
after dissertation was completed and this resulted in a stream of research that
has been published in top journals including two papers in Management
Science and two in Information Systems Research. My interest in the larger
area of technology can be traced to my educational background and my
degree in mechanical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology,
Bombay (Mumbai).
MIS Adoption and Use
My research in the area of MIS has covered online information privacy,

technology acceptance and continued use, and methodological issues. One
representative paper from each of these areas will be briefly discussed.
Given the gap in the literature, Malhotra, Kim, and Agarwal (2004)
developed a scale for measuring Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPC), the first such instrument to appear in MIS or the
literature in any area. We offered a theoretical framework based on the
social contract theory and conceptualized the dimensionality of IUIPC as
consisting of collection, control, and awareness rooted in the notions of
distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional and information
justice respectively. The multidimensional notion of IUIPC was operatio-
nalized using a second-order construct. We proposed a causal model of the
relationship between IUIPC and behavioral intention toward releasing
personal information at the request of a marketer and derived several
specific hypotheses. These hypotheses were tested by conducting two
separate large-scale field surveys of household respondents in one-on-one,
face-to-face interviews. The results showed that the second-order IUIPC
exhibited desirable psychometric properties in the context of online privacy.
We also found that the causal model centering on IUIPC fits the data
satisfactorily and explains a large amount of variance in behavioral
intention and all of the hypotheses were supported, indicating that the
proposed model could be useful for analyzing online consumers’ reactions to
various privacy threats on the Internet. The theoretical framework
presented in this study should provide a solid basis for examining issues
related to consumers’ online privacy concerns domestically as well as in
cross-cultural contexts. From a research perspective, the ten (lower number
of) items included in the IUIPC scale is parsimonious and serves as a means
of reducing the data-collection demands imposed on respondents, the length

and duration of the questionnaire, and the cost of data collection. From a
managerial perspective, firms should ensure that their consumers can easily
check what type of information is collected, whether the information is
correct, and how this information is used in and outside the organization.
Also, consumers should be allowed to control, that is, add, delete, and
modify at will, the information in the organization’s database, since control
is also an important dimension of IUIPC.
The original technology acceptance model (TAM) deals with initial
adoption or use. We have made several extensions of the basic TAM
framework; the one I focus on is in the context of continued use. Although
initial use of MIS is an important, it does not necessarily lead to success of
the technology unless it leads to continued use. Kim and Malhotra (2005)
develop a longitudinal model of how users’ evaluations and behavior evolve
as they gain experience to explain continued use of information technology.
They developed an integrated theoretical framework that explains continued
use in the post adoption stage by integrating relevant theory from
four different research streams, (1) the processes suggested by the TAM;
(2) sequential updating mechanisms; (3) feedback mechanisms; and (4) habit
or repeat behavior. The proposed model was empirically tested in the
context of an actual Web-based IS in a nonexperimental setting by collecting
longitudinal data. The data were analyzed by constructing a series of nested
structural models by sequentially adding each theoretical mechanism to the
basic TAM framework. In this way, the contribution of each of the four
mechanisms to explain initial acceptance and continued usage could be
evaluated. As hypothesized, our findings indicated that each of the four
theoretical viewpoints contributed significantly in terms of explaining
continued IS use. The implications of the model are so rich that several
exciting areas were identified for future research. Moreover, this paper
presents a general approach to theory development and testing. One way to
develop a theoretical framework would be to integrate relevant theories
from underlying disciplines. Using our nested SEM approach, the unique
contribution of each stream of research to explain the phenomenon of
interest could then be determined.
Common method variance (CMV) bias is a problem that has plagued
research in many disciplines. This issue arises whenever surveys are
conducted and self-reported data are obtained generally using standard
scales. The MIS area is no exception and so Malhotra, Kim, and Patil (2006)
systematically examined the impact of CMV on the inferences drawn from
survey research. We explained the sources of CMV biases and described the
available approaches for assessing CMV. We designed and conducted an

empirical study to compare the current approaches by collecting survey data
involving 227 respondents. Our results indicated that although CMV bias
was present in the research areas examined, it was not substantial. Also, the
relatively new marker-variable technique (MVT) performed as well as the
more established but also more elaborate and cumbersome MTMM
approach using confirmatory factor analysis in terms of the ability to
detect CMV. Therefore, the simpler MVT was employed to infer the effect
of CMV on correlations from previously published IS studies by reanalyzing
216 correlations in TAM related studies. Our findings indicated that most of
the originally significant correlations remain significant even after control-
ling for CMV and that the inflation in correlations caused by CMV may be
expected to be on the order of 0.10 or less. We also made an important
extension of the MVT to examine the effect of CMV on structural
relationships reported in the literature. Our reanalysis revealed that
structural relationships not only remain significant after adjusting for CMV
but also were not statistically different from uncorrected estimates. In
summary, our comprehensive and systematic analysis offers reassuring
evidence that (1) the marker variable technique can serve as a convenient,
yet effective, tool for accounting for CMV, and (2) common method biases
in the IS domain are not as serious as those found in other disciplines. Ours
was the first study to empirically compare the marker variable technique
with CMV procedures suggested in the literature. We extended the marker
variable technique to examine the impact of CMV in structural relation-
ships. The methodology we have developed can be used to reanalyze past
studies to examine the extent of CMV bias in any discipline. Although our
initial findings are reassuring, clearly more work certainly needs to be done
in this area.
Technology and Marketing
A related stream has been in the area of marketing and technology. This
research covers a range of issues such as the decision-making process of
small businesses for microcomputers and software, the marketing of
technology-oriented products and services, and high-technology product
development.
Earlier I proposed a conceptual framework and a research methodology
for transferring marketing technology to developing countries to address
important societal problems (Malhotra, 1986c). An empirical investigation
in the context of an important problem facing most developing countries,

namely that of revitalizing neighborhood business districts, was provided as
an illustration. The importance of transferring marketing technology to
enhance the social and economic development of developing countries is
emphasized and guidelines for implementation of this methodology in
developing countries were also provided. In most developing countries,
marketing is still considered to be a relatively unimportant element of the
economic system as economic planners tend to focus resources on
investments in projects designed to increase industrial and agricultural
production capabilities. However, it can be argued that, with proper
incentives and public sector guidance, marketing technology can play a
significant role in the development of less developed countries LDCs.
Furthermore, marketing technology could be gainfully transferred to
enhance economic development and address important societal problems.
Malhotra, Tashchian, and Mahmoud (1987) examined the integrative and
pervasive use of microcomputers in marketing research and managerial
decision making. Traditionally, microcomputers have been used mainly in
the data analysis phase, but true integration can be accomplished only if
they are used in each phase of the marketing research process. Several
guidelines were provided toward this end.
Malhotra, Citrin, and Shainesh (2004) briefly summarize current thoughts
on the marketing of technology-oriented products and services with a
special emphasis on developing countries. The marketing of technology-
oriented products and services involves the full range of marketing activities
necessary to achieve success. Radically new technology can give rise to
increased uncertainties in the market place including, technological and
market uncertainty. Technological uncertainty includes uncertainty about
the technical performance of the product in performing its various
functions. Market uncertainty includes uncertainty related to understanding
customer needs for the new technology, speed of market diffusion of the
technology, determining the market potential for the product, and the
market standards that may evolve. Thus, strategies for marketing radically
new technology must address these uncertainties while maintaining a strong
customer focus. Several such strategies were indentified and their implica-
tions discussed. We pointed out that the concept of technology life cycle
(TLC) needs to be further explored and structure of marketing strategy over
the TLC should be systematically examined.
High-technology companies are increasingly meeting the demand for
rapid innovation by building on the work done by other firms. To create
their own innovations or new technologies, many high-technology firms use
technology transformation, a process that involves adding their own

intellectual property (IP) to others’ platform technologies. Quey and
Malhotra (2004) propose purposed play, terminology used to denote
directed experimentation, is important in the transformation process. After
systematically reviewing the old paradigms of organizational technology
adoption and innovation processes, we develop a new paradigm that
incorporates the role of technology transformation. We explain its salient
characteristics and discuss the implications of our model for IP transfer and
value-added product development and marketing for high technology firms.
In doing so, we extended the diffusion of innovation literature to include a
final step of new technology adoption, technology transformation. We
specifically analyzed the role of purposed play in technology transformation
with respect to new technology adoption and in other contexts.
Marketing Research Books
My contributions as a researcher and educator would be incomplete if I did

not mention my marketing research textbooks that are global leaders in the
field. When I was contemplating writing a marketing research textbook, I
knew there were some good marketing research texts by well-known authors
already in the marketplace. However, none of them had a strong managerial
orientation and an emphasis on marketing management that is inherent in
marketing research. This provided the motivation to write my first
marketing research textbook, that was focused at the graduate level given
my research strengths. So Marketing Research, an Applied Orientation, first
edition, was born and published by Prentice-Hall, Inc in 1992. The book is
rather unique in terms of its applied examples, exercises, cases and video
cases. The sixth edition was published by Prentice-Hall, Inc in 2010, and I
am already working on the seventh edition. This book is has been translated
into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Hungarian, French, Bahasa
Indonesia, and Japanese. In addition to the eight translations, this book also
has several English editions including North America, International,
Europe, India, Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. The book has
received widespread adoption at both the graduate and undergraduate levels
with more than 144 schools using it in the USA, and the book is being
widely used in more than 75 countries. Once the graduate book was well
established, I wrote the undergraduate marketing research textbook that
emphasizes a hands-on orientation linking marketing research to marketing
management decision making. Basic Marketing Research, a Decision-Making
Approach, third edition, was published by Prentice Hall in 2009, and the
fourth edition is in press due to be published later in 2011. This book is,
likewise, a global leader at the undergraduate level with several translations
and English language editions. My book, Essentials of Marketing Research
is scheduled to be published in 2012.
Research Lessons and Principles
I want to summarize my research in all these different areas by drawing out

some lesson and principles that I have learned with a hope that these would
be useful to other scholars and researchers as they seek to shape their careers.
1. Core research areas with broadening interests as career progresses. One

good model is to have a couple of core research areas and broaden your
interests as your career progresses. I have two core areas of research,
marketing research and consumer behavior. I developed interest in these
areas while in the doctoral program, an interest that has remained stable
over the years and I continue to publish in these areas. However, over
the years, especially after getting tenured, I broadened my research to
include areas such as marketing management and policy, international
and cross-cultural research, retailing, health care marketing, ethics,
QoL, pedagogy, MIS, and marketing and technology. This provided
opportunities to exercise my creative thinking in different domains and
also opened additional outlets for publishing my research.
2. Programmatic research. Undertake a series of programmatic studies
rather than ad hoc single shot studies. This is necessary to make an
impact. While, I have researched in many different areas as pointed
earlier, I have made a deliberate effort to engage in programmatic
research in each. For example, I have published a series of seven papers
on conjoint analysis and five on MDS and correspondence analysis,
seven papers on the review and prognosis of marketing research, four on
information over load, 15 on cross-cultural and international market-
ing, six papers on consumer cognitive styles, and 10 papers on consumer
decision making in health care (contained in two volumes), five in MIS
(all in top journals), etc. This has also resulted in several top research
rankings in published literature.
3. Interdisciplinary research. Research today increasingly requires an
interdisciplinary orientation in order to make significant contributions.
Given my unique background and training (B. Tech (Hons) in
engineering, MBA, MS in statistical science, PhD in Marketing with a

minor in psychology), I was able to draw on several different disciplines
including psychology, economics, statistics, sociology, psychometrics,
biometrics, engineering, and transportation. I encourage doctoral
students in marketing to be well trained in a few basic disciplines.
Those lacking such training can work with colleagues in other
disciplines to form an interdisciplinary team.
4. Theoretical, Public Policy and Managerial Implications. Work on research
issues that are important from theoretical, public policy, and/or manage-
rial viewpoints. Such research is inherently more satisfying, of greater
relevance to the society, and has a greater likelihood of being published in
top journals. This is something that I have personally endeavored to do.
For example, my research on information over load showed that the
emphasis of policy makers in merely making information available to the
consumers may be misplaced if the consumers could not easily process this
information. Likewise, my research has also significantly contributed to
the practice of marketing, for example, my research in consumer choice,
health care marketing, and international market segmentation.
5. There is no substitute for good theory. Research should build on a solid
theoretical base. It is critically important to have an overarching theory
or theoretical framework that guides your research. Atheoretic
approaches are ad hoc, shot gun and do not contribute to knowledge
development. As discussed earlier, Kim and Malhotra (2005) may be
viewed as a general approach to theory development and testing.
6. Build multiple contributions. To publish in a top journal, you not only
need to have a sound theory but also, for empirical research, a sound
research design that rules out alternative explanations of the findings,
good measures with established psychometric properties, and sophisti-
cated data analyses. The findings should be integrated with the literature
and their implications and directions for future research discussed.
7. Implementation of research procedures. Develop the necessary software
and other aids to facilitate the diffusion of innovative research
techniques that you develop. I have developed software and made that
available to marketing researchers and practitioners to enable them to
implement my procedures and approaches. An example would be
software developed for the approach to measure consumer preferences
using limited information and recently for MGSCA.
8. Individual research. Although collaborating with other researchers is
important and invigorating, yet research credentials can best be
established by individual research. I am the sole author in about half of
the papers I have published in major journals. Indeed, my most significant

work has been authored individually including majority of my papers that
won research awards. Most of my co-authored work involves current and
former doctoral students, which I deem a necessary part of mentoring.
9. It doesn’t get easy. No matter how much you have published, publishing
in a top journal never gets easy. I had to struggle just as much to publish
my tenth paper in the JMR as I had to for the first paper that I
published in this journal.
10. Never give up. As long as you have an opportunity to revise and
resubmit your work, do so no matter how discouraging the reviews may
be. To illustrate from personal experience, Malhotra et al. (2006)
published in Management Science was initially rejected but we were
given the option to submit a new paper on the topic. My co-authors
then wanted to submit this paper to another journal, but I held my
ground and after going through additional rounds of review, the paper
was published in Management Science.
CONCLUSION
As I reflect on my research contributions and selection as a marketing
legend, I experience feelings of satisfaction and humility. It is truly humbling
to realize that many professors, colleagues, students, even administrative
personnel, and many others have contributed to your success. To them I
want to say thank you! I certainly do not want to forget my family.
I want to acknowledge, with great respect, my parents, the late Mr. H. N.
Malhotra, and Mrs. S. Malhotra. Their love, encouragement, support, and
the sacrificial giving of themselves have been exemplary. My heartfelt love
and gratitude go to my wife Veena, and my children Ruth and Paul, for their
faith, hope, and love.
Most of all, I want to acknowledge and thank my Savior and Lord, Jesus
Christ, for the abundant grace and favor He has bestowed upon me. All the
success I have experienced is, truly, the result of His favor – ‘‘For thou,
LORD, wilt bless the righteous; with favor wilt thou compass him as with a
shield’’ (Psalms 5:12). I praise God and give Him all the glory.
Undoubtedly, the most significant event in my life took place as a doctoral
student when I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior and
Lord. ‘‘For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved’’
(Romans 10:13).
NOTE
1. These sections draw heavily from the materials in the Sage series. Given the space
constraints, the discussion here is greatly abridged. Readers wanting more details or a
more complete picture are referred to my legend series published by Sage India.
REFERENCES
Articles Documenting the Top Research Rankings of Professor

Naresh K. Malhotra
Association for Consumer Research (1994). Newsletter, March, p. 18.

Ford, J. B., West, D., Magnini, V. P., LaTour, M. S., & Michael, J. P. (2010). A backward
glance of who and what marketing scholars have been researching, 1977–2002. Review of
Latta, C. (1994). Names in news. Decision Line, 25(March), 5.
Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2003). The anatomy of an international marketing journal. Journal of
International Marketing, 11(1), 2–7.
Wheatley, J. J., & Wilson, L. C. (1987). The origins of published marketing research in the
1980’s. 1987 AMA Educators Proceedings, 5, 260–265.
Xu, S., Yalcinkaya, G., & Seggie, S. H. (2008). Prolific authors and institutions in leading
international business journals. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25, 189–207.
Conjoint Analysis
Malhotra, N. K. (1982a). Structural reliability and stability of nonmetric conjoint analysis.

Journal of Marketing Research, 19(May), 199–207.
Malhotra, N. K. (1986a). An approach to the measurement of consumer preferences using
limited information. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(February), 33–40.
Malhotra, N. K. (1987a). Analyzing marketing research data with incomplete information on
the dependent variable. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(February), 74–84.
Awarded Sigma Xi Best Paper Award, 1987.
Multidimensional Scaling and Correspondence Analysis
Malhotra, N. K. (1987b). Validity and structural reliability of multidimensional scaling. Journal

of Marketing Research, 24(May), 164–173.
Malhotra, N. K., Jain, A. K., & Pinson, C. (1988). The robustness of MDS configurations in the
face of incomplete data. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(February), 95–102.
Malhotra, N. K. (1990). On the effects of fatigue on judgments of interproduct similarity.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 7, 45–51.
Measurement and Validation
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self concepts, person concepts, and product
concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November), 456–464.
Malhotra, N. K. (1992). On the construct validity of intrinsic sources of personal relevance.
Journal of Business Research, 25(2), 143–147.
Discrete Choice Models
Malhotra, N. K. (1983a). A comparison of the predictive validity of procedures for analyzing

binary data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 1(October), 326–336.
Malhotra, N. K. (1984a). The use of linear logit models in marketing research. Journal of
Malhotra, N. K. (1987c). Testing the homogeneity of segments for estimating disaggregate
choice models. Marketing Science, 6(Winter), 98–99.
Structural Equation Modeling and Related Techniques
Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A comparative
study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling.
Journal of Marketing Research, XLVII(August), 699–712.
Review and Prognosis
Malhotra, N. K. (1988a). Some observations on the state of the art in marketing research.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 4–24.
Awarded the JAMS Best Paper Award 1989.
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological issues in cross-cultural
marketing research: A state-of-the-art review. International Marketing Review, 13(5), 7–43.
(ANBAR Citation of Excellence, Highest Quality Rating)
Malhotra, N. K., & Peterson, M. (2001). Marketing research in the new millennium, emerging
issues and trends. Market Intelligence and Planning, 19(4), 216–235.
One of the Top 50 Most Downloaded Articles from amongst the 50,000 articles on the Emerald
LiteratiNetwork, from 2001 to 2005. Award Presented in 2006.
Information Over Load
Malhotra, N. K. (1982b). Information load and consumer decision making. Journal of

Consumer Research, 8(March), 419–430.
(Finalist for the JCR Award).
Cognitive Styles
Malhotra, N. K., Jain, A. K., Patil, A., Pinson, C. R., & Wu, L. (2010). Consumer cognitive
complexity and the dimensionality of multidimensional scaling configurations. Review of
Marketing Research, 7, 199–254.
Information Search, Processing and Decision Making
Malhotra, N. K. (1983b). On individual differences in search behavior for a nondurable.

Journal of Consumer Research (June), 125–131.
Attitude, Affect and Intentions
Malhotra, N. K., & McCort, D. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of behavioral intention

models, theoretical consideration and an empirical investigation. International
Marketing Review, 18(3), 235–269.
Emerald Literati Club 2002 Highly commended Award.
Malhotra, N. K. (2005). Attitude & affect: New frontiers of research in the twenty-first century.
Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 477–482.
Choice Behavior
Malhotra, N. K. (1988b). Self concept and product choice: An integrated perspective. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 9(1), 1–28.
Ndubisi, N. O., Malhotra, N. K., & Wah, C. K. (2009). Relationship marketing, customer
satisfaction and loyalty: A theoretical and empirical analysis from an Asian perspective
and implications for international marketing. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 21(1), 5–16.
Cognitive Processes
Malhotra, N. K. (1991). Mnemonics in marketing: A pedagogical tool. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 19(2), 141–149.
Marketing Management
Malhotra, N. K. (1984b). Analytical market segmentation in non-business situations, marketing

the energy audit in U.S.A. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 1(1984),
127–139.
Malhotra, N. K., & Agarwal, J. (2002). A stakeholder perspective on relationship marketing,
framework and propositions. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1(2), 3–37.
Malhotra, N. K., Ndubisi, N. O., & Agarwal, J. (2008). Public versus private complaint
behavior and customer defection in Malaysia, appraising the role of moderating factors.
EsicMarket (September–December), 27–59.
Marketing Policy
Malhotra, N. K., Wu, L., & Allvine, F. C. (2006). Marketing reform: The case of excessive
buying. In: J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia (Eds), Does marketing need reform. Armonk, NY:
ME Sharpe.
Business-to-Business Marketing
Malhotra, N. K., Uslay, C., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2008). Commentary on the essence of business
marketing theory, research and tactics, contributions by the Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, by Lichtenthal, Mummalaneni, and Wilson: A paradigm shift and
prospection through expanded roles of buyers and sellers. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 15(2), 204–217.
Malhotra, N. K., & Uslay, C. (2009). Commentary, relative presence of business-to-business
research in the marketing literature: The demand-oriented path forward. Journal of
Business to Business Marketing, 16(1&2), 23–30.
Marketing Discipline
Malhotra, N. K. (1996). The impact of the academy of marketing science on marketing

scholarship: An analysis of the research published in JAMS. Journal of the Academy of
Malhotra, N. K. (1999). The past present, and future of the marketing discipline. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27(Spring), 116–119.
International and Cross-Cultural Marketing, Theoretical, Conceptual and

Methodological Foundations
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Ulgado, F. (2003). Internationalization and entry modes,
multi-theoretical framework and research propositions. Journal of International
Marketing, 11(4), 1–31.
Hans Thorelli Best Paper Award, 2004.
Malhotra, N. K., Wu, L., & Whitelock, J. (2005). An overview of the first 21 years of research in the
international marketing review, 1983–2003. International Marketing Review, 22(4), 391–398.
International Market Segmentation and Trading Blocs
Malhotra, N. K., Agarwal, J., & Baalbaki, I. (1998). Heterogeneity of regional trading blocs
and global marketing strategies: A multicultural perspective. International Marketing
Review, 15(6), 476–506.
Agarwal, J., Malhotra, N. K., & Wu, T. (2002). Does NAFTA influence Mexico’s product
image? A theoretical framework and an Empirical investigation in two countries.
Management International Review, 42(4), 441–471.
Developing Countries
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F., Agarwal, J., & Baalbaki, I. (1994). International services
marketing: A comparative evaluation of the dimensions of service quality between
developed and developing countries. International Marketing Review, 11(2), 5–15.
Malhotra, N. K., Ulgado, F., Agarwal, J., Shainesh, G., & Wu, L. (2005). Dimensions of service
quality in developed and developing economies, multi-country cross-cultural compar-
isons. International Marketing Review, 22(3), 256–278.
Cross-Cultural Research
Agarwal, J., Malhotra, N. K., & Bolton, R. (2010). A cross-national and cross-cultural
approach to global market segmentation: An application using consumers’ perceived
service quality. Journal of International Marketing, 18(3), 18–40.
Malhotra, N. K. (2001). Cross-cultural marketing research in the twenty-first century.
International Marketing Review, 18(3), 230–234.
Retailing
Malhotra, N. K. (1983c). A threshold model of store choice. Journal of Retailing, 59(Summer),

3–21.
Awarded the second annual Journal of Retailing Best Article Award for 1983.
Malhotra, N. K. (1986b). Modeling of store choice based on censored preference data. Journal
of Retailing, 128–144.
Health Care
Malhotra, N. K. (1983d). Stochastic modeling of consumer preferences for health care

institutions. Journal of Health Care Marketing (Fall), 18–26.
Malhotra, N. K. (1987d). A marketing orientation to modeling the hospital supplier interface:
A probabilistic approach. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 7(June), 6–14.
Ethics Publications
Malhotra, N. K., & Miller, G. (1998). An integrated model for ethical decisions in marketing
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 263–280.
(ANBAR Citation of Excellence, Highest Quality Rating)
Malhotra, N. K., & Miller, G. (1999). Social responsibility and the marketing educator: A focus
on stakeholders, ethical theories, and related codes of ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,
19, 211–224.
Quality of Life
Peterson, M., & Malhotra, N. K. (2000). Country segmentation based on objective quality-of-
life measures. International Marketing Review, 17(1), 56–73.
The Outstanding Paper Award for the 2000 Volume. Award received in 2001.
Malhotra, N. K. (2006). Consumer well being and quality of life: An assessment and directions
for future research. Journal of Macromarketing, 26(1), 77–80.
Pedagogy
Malhotra, N. K. (2002). Integrating technology in marketing education: Perspective for the new
millennium. Marketing Education Review, 1–5.
MIS Adoption and Use
Kim, S., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). A longitudinal model of continued is use: An integrative
view of four mechanisms underlying post-adoption phenomena. Management Science,
51(5), 741–755.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users’ information privacy concerns
(IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research,
15(4), 336–355.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in is research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management
Science (December), 1865–1883.
Technology and Marketing
Malhotra, N. K. (1986c). Why developing societies need marketing technology. International

Marketing Review, 3, 61–73.
Malhotra, N. K., Tashchian, A., & Mahmoud, E. (1987). The integration of microcomputers in
marketing research and decision making. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
15(2), 69–82Special Issue on Microcomputers.
Malhotra, N. K., Citrin, A., & Shainesh, G. (2004). The marketing of technology oriented
products and services: An integration of marketing and technology. International Journal
of Technology Management, 28(1), 1–7.
Quey, T. M., & Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Technology transformation & purposed play, model
development and implications for high tech product development. International Journal
of Technology Management, 28(1), 62–87.
Marketing Research Books
Malhotra, N. K. (2009). Basic marketing research: A decision making approach (3rd ed). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Pearson.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (6th ed). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Pearson.
SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS
ON PRICING RESEARCH
Kent B. Monroe
ABSTRACT
This chapter traces the development of the pricing research program of
Kent Monroe, beginning with his doctoral dissertation and continuing to
the present time. Drawing on psychophysics and adaptation-level theory
the early research efforts concentrated on validating two important
concepts relative to behavioral pricing research: reference price and
acceptable price range. Then the behavioral pricing research program
expanded to explore how the context of a purchase situation, including the
structure of the prices available for judgment, influences buyers’ price
perceptions and willingness to buy. In the early years his research included
pricing models and research on patronage behavior. Subsequently,
concentrating primarily on behavioral pricing research, he began to
integrate findings from the research program into examining how various
sellers pricing strategies and tactics influence buyers’ judgments and
purchase decisions. These efforts led to the first edition of his book
Pricing – Making Profitable Decisions published in 1979. The book was
subsequently revised and expanded in 1990 and again in 2003.

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008010
209
210 KENT B. MONROE
My doctoral dissertation was a model for product-line pricing (Monroe,

1968). While writing the dissertation, my reading led me to psycho-
physics to learn how people respond to physical stimuli, the underlying
functional relationships of the measures of the intensity of physical
stimuli, and people’s sensations and responses to them. The reason for
studying psychophysics was the idea that numerals comprising the
price of a product could be conceptualized as a physical stimulus,
similar to that of sound, light, or touch. Of particular interest was
research on how people judged differences between magnitudes
of sounds or intensities of light. It seemed that the economic concepts
of price elasticity and cross-price elasticity of demand were addres-
sing similar issues. That is, how did demand for products and
services change relative to perceived differences in prices, whether the
differences occurred because the seller or a competitor had increased or
decreased the price of a product.
In the article from the dissertation (Monroe, 1971a), I proposed that the
functional relationship between prices and price acceptability was logarith-
mic based on Weber’s law and Fechner’s adaptation of it. An implication
of the Weber–Fechner proposition for understanding buyers’ perceptions of
prices and price differences is that the underlying subjective price scale of
buyers is logarithmic.
In addition to testing the proposition that people’s subjective price scale
is logarithmic, two issues seemed important for research. First, the
proposition that people have upper and lower limits of price acceptability
for a product purchase occasion needed empirical verification. The second
issue concerned how people would distinguish or discriminate between
prices for a considered purchase. Borrowing the concept of just noticeable
difference (JND) from psychophysics, I proposed that price sensitivity was
an issue of measuring buyers’ differential price thresholds. That is, how
much must prices for products in a category differ before buyers would
perceive that the prices were different and consequently change their
buying behavior?
One other important point emerged in my thinking concerning how
people evaluate prices. That is, to determine that a particular price is
acceptable, or fair, high, low, or unacceptable people must compare that
price to another price. Therefore, to understand how buyers evaluate or
judge prices, it is also necessary to know what is their standard of judgment
or reference price. Such a reference price might be memory based, stimulus
based, or most likely, a combination of price memory and price (or other
numerical) stimuli available at the point of judgment.
Some Personal Reflections on Pricing Research 211
EARLY RESEARCH
Initially my research focused on validating the proposition that buyers do

have a range of acceptable prices bounded by upper and lower absolute
price thresholds and to investigate the reference price concept.
Acceptable Price Range
The objective of the first pricing experiment was to determine how people’s
reference prices change (adapt) with successive exposure to prices for a
product. We conducted the study at low and high prices for eight products,
with three series of prices: descending – prices sequentially lower with each
trial, ascending – prices sequentially higher with each trial, and a random
presentation of the 10 prices for each test product.
We repeated the study later with high school students using the own-
category sorting technique from assimilation-contrast theory (described
below). Assimilation-contrast theory also supports the proposition that
buyers have a range of acceptable prices implying that there are upper and
lower limits to price acceptability for a specific product and purchase
occasion. Similar to adaptation-level (AL) theory, a basic tenet of
assimilation-contrast theory is that new stimuli encountered by an
individual are compared against a background of previous experience with
the stimuli. This experience forms an individual’s reference scale and this
reference scale is changed by adding new stimuli or shifting the range of
stimuli. The reference scale serves as a basis for an individual to compare
and evaluate other subsequently encountered stimuli.
If new stimuli are encountered for evaluation, they may also serve as
anchors in that they may result in a changing of the reference scale. Whether
this changing or displacement of the reference scale toward the magnitude of
the new stimulus produces a contrast or assimilation effect, depends on how
other stimuli in the category are judged after experiencing the new stimulus.
Both AL theory and assimilation-contrast theory suggest that the person’s
reference price range should move in the direction of this new price. As this
reference price range moves toward the new price, the previously lower
prices become further away from the person’s reference price scale. If
judgments of these previously perceived low prices in the category do not
change when a new price is encountered, an assimilation effect occurs
because the new price is perceived to be similar to the reference prices.
However, when the new price displaces the reference price range sufficiently
212 KENT B. MONROE
far in its direction, the original low prices will be perceived as lower than
previously, and a contrast effect occurs because the new price is perceived as
different from the previous reference price range.
The own-category technique asked the high school students to judge a
series of prices [61 for the females (dress shoes) and 63 for the males (sport
coat)]. They were told to sort the price slips into a number of categories of
their own choosing. After they had categorized the prices, they were asked
to label the piles as to whether the prices were acceptable or unacceptable
and to indicate which pile of prices was most acceptable. They could also
indicate why some of the prices were unacceptable.
We obtained similar upper and lower acceptable price limits across the
products for both techniques and samples (Monroe, 1971b). In these experiments
we established that (1) the concept of acceptable price range was valid and (2) we
could estimate participants’ reference prices across the eight products.
Reference Prices
AL theory postulates that individuals’ responses to stimuli represent modes

of adaptation to three classes of cues: focal, contextual (background), and
organic. This adaptation process results in behavioral responses to prices for
a product category that may range from rejection (too low) to acceptance
and then rejection again (too high). The theory defines the AL as the value
of the stimulus that would be judged ‘‘medium’’ (i.e., neither low nor high).
It is postulated that this standard is a weighted geometric mean of the
stimuli to which the individual has been exposed.
For our research the theory leads to the hypothesis that if a series of prices
are presented sequentially for judgment (e.g., expensiveness) in order of
increasing magnitude, the price stimuli in the series will produce higher
ratings of expensiveness than if the prices were presented in order of
decreasing magnitude (Della Bitta & Monroe, 1974). Consequently, extreme
prices (high or low) presented first in a series of price stimuli anchor price
perceptions, thereby pulling the AL or reference price toward the extreme
end and resulting in depressed or accentuated judgments of expensiveness
for the ensuing prices that the individual sees. That is, once a high reference
price has been established, then prices lower than the original anchoring
prices will be perceived to be lower or less expensive than when initially a
low reference price had been established. The sequential results – ascending
vs. descending – established that the same price for a specific product would
be evaluated as less expensive if participants had evaluated higher prices first
than if participants had evaluated lower prices first.
Order of Presenting Prices
What this study demonstrated is that the order in which buyers are exposed to
alternative prices affects their price perceptions. Buyers who initially see high
prices will perceive subsequent lower prices as less expensive than they would if
they initially see low prices. The prices common to each price series ($10 to $20)
were judged to be significantly more expensive by the people in the increasing
order of magnitude – the ascending price series – than by people judging these
same prices in the decreasing order of magnitude – the descending price series.
When a reference or AL price is higher than the price being judged, then the
perceptual phenomenon of contrast makes the lower price to be perceived as
less than it is. Similarly, when the reference price is lower than the price being
judged, then the contrast effect makes the price being evaluated appear to be
more than it is. This perceptual effect helps explain why people, in general, are
more sensitive to price increases than to price decreases.
Buyers’ Subjective Perceptions of Price
While the above research was being conducted I wrote a review of

behavioral research in pricing that helped to establish the area of behavioral
research in pricing (Monroe, 1973). There were several important
conclusions that influenced the direction of my future research relative to
how buyers respond to prices and price information.
1. Although findings on the price–quality relationship were inconsistent,
nevertheless it seemed that a positive relationship existed, at least over a
range of prices for some product categories.
2. Apparently there was a lack of awareness by consumers of the prices paid
for recent purchases.
3. When buyers compare prices, the range of prices offered, the reference
price, and the end prices (i.e., the high and low prices in the price range)
influence their judgments and decisions.
4. The major conclusion was (p. 78): ‘‘we know very little about how
price affects a buyer’s perceptions of alternative purchase offersy. To
direct research only to the focus variable (price) and ignore or assume
constant the context variables is y a grave error.’’
Contextual Influences on Price Perceptions
An individual’s AL is the result of three pooled classes of cues: focal,

contextual, and organic. The contextual or background cues are all other
214 KENT B. MONROE
stimuli in the behavioral situation providing the context within which the
focal cues are operative (Monroe, 1977). One type of context is the sequence
of prices to which a buyer may be exposed. We have shown how a buyer’s
reference price and subsequent judgment of a price is influenced by the
sequence of prices (Della Bitta & Monroe, 1974). Another important
contextual variable is the range of prices, that is, the difference between the
lowest and highest prices for the product to which the buyer has been
exposed. If each stimulus (price) has been presented with equal frequency,
then the buyers’ judgments are at least partially determined by the stimulus
range.
Price Context
Also, perceptual judgments of a price depend on the difference between the
perceived magnitude of the price being evaluated and the magnitude of
buyers’ current AL or reference price. As indicated earlier, when prices
outside the normal price range are introduced buyers’ reference prices shift
in the direction of these new prices. In addition, the original prices tend to be
judged as less expensive than previous after new higher prices have been
introduced. Conversely, the opposite effect occurs when lower prices have
been introduced (Adaval & Monroe, 2002). Finally, both the frequency of
prices within a distribution of prices and the relative spacing between these
prices will affect buyers’ price judgments.
An application of AL theory to price perceptions was done in a doctoral
dissertation (Nwokoye, 1975). Helson (1964) had defined AL as a weighted
logarithmic or geometric mean of the focal, contextual, and residual stimuli
to reflect the gradual shift in the AL normally observed when extreme
stimuli values are added to an existing set of stimuli. The contextual
variables were the lowest, highest, and median price of each price set.
Participants used the own-category sorting technique to judge 15 prices each
for three products. The AL price for each participant was obtained by
averaging all prices for each product that the participant had labeled
medium. Overall, it was concluded that the price judged ‘‘medium’’ is a
pooled effect of the focal prices (represented by the mean), the contextual or
comparison prices (represented by the lowest price, the median price and the
highest price), and the expected price.
Purpose for Purchase

At the same time we were doing research on the contextual influences on
price perceptions, price acceptability, and willingness to pay (Monroe, Della
Bitta, & Downey 1977). Two contextual factors were examined: (1) intended
use or purpose of purchase and (2) effect of previous exposure to level and
range of prices. In the first part of the study half of the participants sorted,
arranged and categorized prices for a pair of slacks from $1.00 to $25.50 in
intervals of $0.50 (short price range). The remaining participants performed
the same tasks on prices in intervals of $1.00, from $1.00 to $50.00 (long
price range).
In part 1 of the study participants used the same number of categories to
sort the prices, but those in the long price range used broader categories and
placed a disproportionate number of prices into the unacceptable high
category (contrast effect). Also, participants in the long price range had
wider latitudes of price acceptance (assimilation effect). In part 2,
participants rated a given price as more expensive if its intended use was
informal wear (e.g., rock concert, football game) compared to if the
intended use was semi-formal (e.g., cocktail party, church service). Thus, we
empirically showed that consumers’ intended use of a product significantly
influences their acceptable price range and willingness to pay.
Price Position
Where a product’s price is positioned relative to competing products or
other similar offerings in a product line is another contextual variable
influencing how buyers respond to price information. Using experimental
data from a field study, we demonstrated this contextual effect (Monroe &
Gardner, 1976). In the first experiment there were different response
patterns when the price of the higher-priced target product was raised than
when it was reduced. Interestingly, as expected, when the target brand’s
price was raised preference for that brand decreased, but unexpectedly so
did preferences for the lowest-priced competitive brand. An important
conclusion from this first experiment is that responses to a set of price
stimuli depend not only on the specific price change but also on the overall
price structure existing at the time the price change occurs.
In the second experiment utilizing multiple packaged food products an
important insight was that responses to price changes are not symmetric.
That is, behavioral responses to a price increase are not necessarily the
opposite of the behavioral responses to a price decrease even if the price
change is identical in magnitude and from the same price level (see also
Monroe, 1976 and Nwokoye, 1974). Moreover, even with similar response
patterns toward the brand that initiates a price change, the effects on the
competing brands are not similar.
A second important insight was the tendency for preferences to move
toward the ‘‘middle-priced’’ brands. In the second experiment there was a
216 KENT B. MONROE
clear tendency for preferences to shift away from the target brands when
they were either the lowest- or highest-priced options. Preferences for the
target brands were highest when they were priced in the middle of the prices
for the categories. This particular result is consistent with AL theory that
suggests that these preference changes occur because of the characteristics of
the price structure including the actual frequency distribution of prices, the
range of prices offered, and the middle price of the available range of prices.
In another study we hypothesized that buyers perceptions and purchase
intentions would be influenced by the price position of a model in a product
line (Petroshius & Monroe, 1987). That is, a model priced closer to the low-
end price would be perceived as being of lesser value and quality than if the
model was priced closer to the high-end price. The results indicated that
price position had a stronger effect on perceived value and willingness to
buy than on perceived quality. Although the effect of price position on
perceived quality was weaker, nevertheless the product’s quality was
perceived to be higher when positioned in the high-end price position. But,
when the model was positioned in the low-end price position, then
perceptions of value and willingness to buy were significantly stronger.
The implications are that when pricing or altering prices of models within
a product line, a price setter should consider the effect of the total price-
structure offering recognizing that changes in the price structure will affect
demand for all models in the product line. Failure to consider the effect of
changes in the product line’s price structure may lead to a change in buyers’
perceptions of all models in the line.
The Role of Brand Familiarity and Brand Knowledge
During 1970, relying on women from local organizations as participants, I

conducted research exploring the role of familiarity and knowledge on price
perceptions and preferences. This research was the first in consumer research
to consider the role of prior knowledge and brand familiarity on preferences
and how price differences influenced these preferences (Monroe, 1976).
The Experiment
We began with the premise that to understand the role of price in
consumers’ purchase decisions, we need to understand the information or
knowledge they bring to the purchase situation. We established three
cognitive levels for the brands to be used in the research: purchase (recent
purchase-use experience), familiar (purchase-use experience, but not in the
last two years), and unknown (no prior purchase-use experience). Before the
experiment, the women categorized brands from three product categories
according to their purchase-use experience.
Each woman made 19 paired comparisons and indicated her preference
for one of the brands on a seven-point scale ranging from ‘‘prefer brand
A to brand B very strongly’’ to ‘‘prefer brand B to brand A very strongly.’’
In all the cases, the first comparison involved no price differences between
the brands. Next, the price of one of the brands was systematically lowered
(or raised) by a constant amount for nine comparisons; then price was raised
(or lowered) by a constant amount from the no-price difference standard for
nine more comparisons.
Substantive Results
First, all three product experiments revealed asymmetric brand preferences
due to price differences. The strength of participants’ preferences increased
faster when a preferred brand’s (determined at a zero price difference) price
was decreasing than did their preference strengths decrease when that
brand’s price was increasing. That is, brand preferences were more sensitive
to price decreases than to price increases. One reason for this asymmetry is
that price differential thresholds from a reference price are not equidistant
on a linear scale. Indeed, Nwokoye (1974) had observed that tolerance for
accepting a price increase is unlikely to be linear, although acceptance of
price decreases is more likely to be linear.
A second important finding is that previous purchase-use experience with a
product or brand is likely to be a dominant factor in choice behavior. In this
study, the effect of price differences was stronger when cognitive levels for
the two brands were equivalent. When the cognitive levels were not
equivalent, the effect of brand familiarity was relatively stronger; conse-
quently, it took a larger price difference to shift brand preferences.
PRICING DECISION MODELS RESEARCH
The Information Content of Prices
While most of my efforts in the 1970s concentrated on developing a research

program relative to how people respond to price information, there were
several projects related to pricing decision models. Since buyers do not have
complete and accurate information about the satisfaction they might receive
from products or services under consideration, nor the prices of these
218 KENT B. MONROE
products, they have to make judgments and choices on the basis of known
information. One piece of information usually known is the product’s price.
Because other pieces of information about an anticipated purchase are not
always known, buyers cannot always be sure they will be available to assess
quality. Furthermore, even if other information is available, buyers may not
know its completeness or reliability. Finally, buyers may be uncertain about
their ability to predict correctly the product’s quality. Hence, buyers may
use price both as an indicator of cost (allocating role) and as an indicator of
quality (information role).
Drawing on the Weber–Fechner Law then the relationship between price
(P) and quantity purchased (Q) would also be logarithmic (see Monroe,
1971c for a derivation of this functional form):
Q ¼ a þ b log P
This conceptualization provided a way to incorporate the concepts of
absolute price thresholds using the lognormal probability function. A way
of estimating a lower price limit below which buyers would refrain from
buying and an upper price limit above which buyers would decline to
purchase was developed in this model. The empirical research stemming
from this modeling effort has been summarized above (pp. 4–8).
Pricing Decision Models
Recognizing a need to understand the advancements that had been made since
attention in marketing on quantitative analysis and decision models had
emerged in the previous 15 years, we reviewed the major pricing decisions that
managers must make (Monroe & Della Bitta, 1978). The goal was to
determine what decision models were available and suggest how pricing
decisions could be moved from the largely intuitive state to a more scientific
approach. In our discussion of the various decision models we incorporated
recent behavioral research knowledge about how buyers perceive and respond
to price information. This review helped researchers to recognize the potential
for knowledge development in marketing by developing and validating pricing
decision models. We updated this review 10 years later noting the more recent
developments in pricing decision models (Monroe & Mazumdar, 1988).
Pricing a Product Line with Resource Constraints
During 1973 and 1974, the world demand for materials overtook supply
with sudden shortages of metals, wood products, and agricultural products.
The problem of scarce resources led some companies to eliminate slow-

moving and low-margin products. We developed a model that would utilize
price to determine how scarce resources can be allocated to products so as to
maximize a firm’s contributions to fixed costs and profits (Monroe &
Zoltners, 1979).
A simple reality for firms producing and selling multiple products is not
all products make the same use of resources per dollar of revenue or per
dollar of out-of-pocket costs. However, when determining prices, the degree
to which products use available facilities and consume available resources is
important, especially when either facilities or resources are in short supply.
Using mathematical programming we developed and showed that using the
contribution per resource unit criterion when setting prices and allocating
scarce resources (i.e., setting production quotas) would maximize profits
when facing resource constraints.
EXPANDING THE BEHAVIORAL PRICING

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Comparative Price Advertising
In 1979, I was asked by the Federal Trade Commission to design a national

study on the effect of comparative price advertising on consumers. But, in
1980, the FTC research budget was cut and the national study was shelved.
However, we were able to conduct a scaled down study and a replication
(Della Bitta, Monroe, & McGinnis, 1981).
To understand how buyers evaluate or judge prices, it is necessary to
know their standard of judgment or reference price. Simply, people cannot
judge a price without a comparative reference price. Such a reference price
might be memory based, stimulus based, or a combination of price memory
and price (or other numerical) stimuli available at the time of decision.
Because of the potential variability in the reference prices that consumers
might use for a similar purchase, and therefore, variability in the
acceptability of the seller’s price, sellers often provide a reference price via
advertising, point-of-purchase information, or other means. To enhance
perceptions of the value of an offer, the seller-provided reference price
typically will be higher than the selling price.
Underlying this selling approach is the belief that consumers will be more
likely to purchase the item if they perceive the actual selling price is
220 KENT B. MONROE
comparatively lower than this seller-provided reference price. Recognizing

that too little difference in price may not stimulate the desired purchase
behavior, the seller must communicate the value of the offer. Often,
therefore the selling price is compared with a usual or regular price, a
manufacturer’s suggested price, or some other reference price. In addition,
the difference in the prices may be augmented with a statement of relative
savings (percentage), absolute savings (dollars), or other words to
communicate that the selling price is lower.
Using an electronic calculator as the test product the experiment was a 2
(regular price: $50, $120) x 5 (price discount: 10% y 50%) x 8 (amount of
sale information) between subjects design. On the basis of the results, we
made several generalizations relative to how consumers may respond to
price comparison advertisements:
1. A perception of value may be necessary to foster a willingness to buy but

it is insufficient to produce this effect.
2. There was a clear tendency for respondents to stop information search as
the amount of advertised discount increased.
3. The most positively evaluated information condition presented both the
regular price and the dollar amount off. Conditions providing the price
reduction in percentage terms were evaluated less favorably.
4. A price discount or difference threshold seems to be around 20 percent.
That is, to induce a significant positive response, a price reduction
(difference) of 20 percent or more seems necessary. Moreover, positive
responses to discounts greater than 30 percent do not increase
significantly relative to the 30 percent discount level.
The comparative price advertising research led us to distinguish between

an internal reference price and an external reference price supplied by the
seller: ‘‘Regularly sold for $xxx, now on sale for $yyy’’ type of ads. Another
idea emerging from this research was the recognition that consumers’
behavioral intentions after exposure to a comparative price advertisement were
mediated by their perceptions of value. However, while a perception of value
may be necessary to induce willingness to buy, nevertheless it is insufficient to
produce such an effect.
Some other findings from price comparative advertising research are:
The effects of comparative price claims may differ for department stores
compared to discount stores. Regardless, when consumers are asked to
estimate a store’s regular price after seeing a price advertisement with a
‘‘regular price’’ claim, they tend to discount the claim. However, the claim
is discounted less for a department store Although larger discount claims

produce higher ratings of offer value, the effect diminishes so that
implausibly high discount claims do not produce higher perceived value
than plausibly high claims (Hyun & Monroe, 1998).
The effects of comparative price claims differ when presented in an online
versus print medium. If the online medium is more involving than print
then consumers with low motivation to process information may
systematically process the discount claims that are made online versus
in print (Suri, Swaminathan, & Monroe, 2004).
A comparative price claim for a product at the upper end of a category
price range has less effect if surrounded by claims for lower priced
products. This result might occur because lower-price products reduce
consumers’ range of price acceptance (Roundtree & Monroe, 1995).
The opportunity to shop across retail stores reduces the effect of
comparative price claims on consumers’ estimates of lowest market price
for an item, but has less effect on their estimates of the store’s regular price
(Blair, Harris, & Monroe, 2002).
Price-Perceived Quality-Perceived Value
Conceptualization of Perceived Value

In 1982, we began conducting integrative research reviews (meta-analysis).
After reading and coding the previous price-perceived quality studies we
concluded that despite the number of previous studies on the price-perceived
quality relationship, there was a need for a conceptually-based research
program (Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Monroe & Dodds, 1988).
This review and the insights from the comparative price advertising
research led us to refine my initial conceptualization of value (Monroe,
1979, 1990, 2003). Our goal was to explain how consumers’ price
perceptions might influence their perceptions of quality and in turn how
these quality perceptions might influence their willingness to buy. We
developed a conceptual model and argued that perceived value is the result
of a mental tradeoff between what consumers perceive they receive relative
to what they perceive they give up. More formally, we suggested that price
positively influences both buyers’ perceptions of quality and their
perceptions of monetary sacrifice. Perceptions of quality will positively
influence perceptions of value and perceptions of sacrifice will negati-
vely influence perceptions of value. Finally, perceived value will have a
positive influence on buyers’ willingness to buy.
222 KENT B. MONROE
To understand the relationship between perceived quality and will-

ingness to buy, we used the acceptable price concept (Monroe, 1984). If
buyers have a range of prices that are acceptable to pay for a considered
purchase, then it implies that they would not buy if they perceive a price
to be either too high or too low. The implication of such absolute price
thresholds is that perceived value is positive when prices are acceptable.
However, perceived value at a given price will be positive only when
perceptions of quality and benefits are greater than perceptions of sacrifice
at that price.
Moderators of Perceived Quality and Perceived Value

In our initial assessment of the price-perceived quality research area, we
unexpectedly found that research in which price was manipulated either as
present or absent across conditions produced stronger positive effects for
price in the presence of brand name information than in the absence of that
information (Monroe & Krishnan, 1985). This finding suggests that the
influence of price on quality information is stronger in the presence of brand
information than by itself. We also concluded that store name interacts with
price to enhance perceptions of product quality. Finally, we concluded that
generally perceptions of quality increase as price increases.
Using what had been learned in the initial review of the price-perceived
quality research, we conducted an expanded meta-analysis (Rao & Monroe,
1989). We estimated that the effect of price on perceived quality for
relatively low-price consumer products was r ¼ .35. The effect of brand
name on perceived quality was r ¼ .37 and the effect of store name on
perceived quality was r ¼ .22. Both the price and the brand name effects
were statistically significant while the store name effect was not. Also, multi-
cue studies generated slightly larger effects (r ¼ .35) than single-cue studies
(r ¼ .34). Thus, rather than brand name or other cues suppressing price as an
indicator of quality, a reinforcing effect is likely if the multiple cues are
consistent in their signaling of quality.
Experimental Research
Another doctoral student and I presented our first price-perceived quality-
perceived value experiment at an Association for Consumer Research
conference (Dodds & Monroe, 1985). This research showed that perceptions
of quality increased as price increased. The interaction of brand name and
price led to higher perceptions of quality and value and a greater willingness
to buy when brand name was present than when it was absent.
Zeithaml (1988) suggested that research on how consumers evaluate

product alternatives should be expanded beyond the price-perceived quality
relationship. Thus, we examined the effects of the extrinsic cues of price,
brand and store on perceptions of quality and value as well as purchase
intentions (Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991).
In that study, the price-alone effect on perceived quality was larger than
any other combined price cue effect (r ¼ .44). The effect of price with brand
or with brand and store name was moderate (r ¼ .20 and r ¼ .31,
respectively). The effect of brand name on quality perceptions was large in
all conditions (weighted average r ¼ .52). Indeed, the brand name effect was
larger in the presence of price and store information than by itself (r ¼ .47
and .58, respectively versus r ¼ .45). Hence, price and store information when
consistent with the brand image augments perceptions of product quality. The
combined impact of price on perceptions of value was large (r ¼ .44),
whereas the positive effect of brand and store name was moderate and weak
(r ¼ .29 and .11 respectively). Given these effects on perceived value, the
relationships between these three independent variables and willingness to
buy were similar in that brand and store information combined with price to
provide small to moderate positive effects on buying intentions (r ¼ .32).
An important finding from another study was that the extent that buyers
would rely on extrinsic cues, such as price, as opposed to intrinsic cues, such as
product composition differences, depended on their knowledge about the
product and the market (Rao & Monroe, 1988). Buyers with little knowledge
cannot evaluate the attributes and intrinsic cues, so they rely on extrinsic
cues. However, buyers who are knowledgeable about the products and
markets will use price as an indicator of quality if they know that indeed price
is a reliable indicator of quality. If they know that price is not a good
indicator of quality, then they will use the intrinsic cues when judging quality.
The Concept of Transaction Value
Thaler (1985) argued that overall utility to a consumer can be represented as

the weighted sum of acquisition utility and transaction utility. We translated
his notions into the concepts of acquisition value and translation value
(Monroe & Chapman, 1987):
Perceived value ¼ acquisition value þ transaction value, or
pv ¼ vðpmax pÞ þ vðpref pÞ
224 KENT B. MONROE
where
pmax is the highest acceptable price to pay (absolute price threshold);

pref is the buyer’s reference price for the transaction.
p is the actual selling price.
In this model, acquisition value v(pmax – p) essentially is the original

perceived value described above. That is, pmax is the monetary equivalent of
the perceived value of the benefits the buyer receives from the product. If the
monetary sacrifice represented by p is less than the monetary equivalent of the
perceived benefits then acquisition value would be positive. Augmenting
acquisition value is transaction value that is positive if the actual price is less
than the buyer’s reference price. Thus, the concept of transaction value, by
using the concept of reference prices, provides a mechanism for incorporating
price discounts into the original price-perceived quality-perceived value model.
Initially we accepted the notion that these two value concepts were
independent constructs and tested an extended price-perceived quality-
perceived value model. Four price frames were tested: (1) sale price only, (2)
regular price and sale price comparative ad, (3) regular price with a coupon,
and (4) regular price with a rebate offer (Chapman, 1987). One key finding
was that as the size of the discount increased, transaction value increased for
promotion frames (2), (3), and (4). The hypothesis that perceived value
should increase as the discount increased was supported for the regular
price/sale price condition, but not for either the coupon or rebate frames.
The extended conceptual model suggests that redemption effort would
negatively influence transaction value, that is, the more perceived effort
needed to take advantage of the promotion, the less would participants
perceive the offer as a ‘‘deal.’’ This expected negative relationship between
effort and transaction value was supported. Moreover, perceived redemp-
tion effort for the rebate condition had a more negative effect on transaction
value when compared to the coupon condition.
However, on closer thinking we were concerned that the concepts of
transaction value and acquisition value are not independent since the
selling price is a part of each concept. Simplifying the conceptual model
we tested the structure assuming independence of the constructs against an
alternative in which perceived transaction value is an antecedent to
perceived acquisition value (Grewal, Monroe, & Krishnan, 1998). It is
reasonable to expect that a price promotion that leads to positive
transaction value (i.e., the psychological pleasure associated with obtaining
favorable financial terms) would influence buyers’ perceptions of the value
of the acquisition (i.e., more net gain by reducing the financial outlay).
Moreover, drawing on equity theory, transaction value could be considered
as similar to fairness (i.e., the pleasure associated with a perceived fair
price). Thus, we proposed that perceived acquisition value would mediate
the relationship between perceived transaction value and behavioral
intentions.
Since in the absence of a price promotion the original price-perceived
value model suggests that perceptions of value are formed from a mental
trade-off between perceived quality (benefits) and price, then logically
buyers should perceive a price promotion as enhancing the overall value of
the acquisition. The advertised selling price affects perceived acquisition
value through its effect on perceived transaction value. Two empirical
studies confirmed this conceptual argument. Finally, the results also
support the argument that perceived transaction value influences willingness
to buy and intentions to search through its effect on buyers’ perceptions
of acquisition value. The results clearly support the argument that perceived
acquisition value and perceived transaction value are not independent
constructs.
One implication of the finding that perceived transaction value enhances
buyers’ perceived acquisition value is that buyers need to feel confident that
they can either determine quality before purchase or infer quality because
the sellers’ signals of quality are credible (Rao & Monroe, 1996).
Price Bundling
The tactic of price bundling is the offering of two or more products as a

package at a price that is less than the sum of the prices of the individual
products. In this type of selling total transaction value is defined as buyers’
perceived savings associated with buying the bundle (Yadav & Monroe,
1993). The perception of savings on the items may result from comparing
what it takes to buy all the items separately at the regular prices with the
price paid if the items are purchased as a bundle. That is, the amount needed
to purchase all the items separately serves as a reference price to evaluate the
bundle price. The research indicated that perceived total transaction value
was a combination of perceived additional savings on the bundle plus
perceived savings on the individual items if purchased separately. That is,
perceived savings on the individual items in the bundle (if purchased
separately) and additional savings on the bundle were perceived as two
separate savings.
226 KENT B. MONROE
Later we found that when people have prior intentions to purchase either
one or none of the items in a two-item bundle, perceived transaction value of
the bundle was significantly influenced by the bundle transaction value only
(Suri & Monroe, 1999). Thus, if a consumer has no prior intentions to buy
all the items in a bundle, the perceived bundle transaction value is an
important influence on the perceived total savings of the bundle.
Framing Price Information
Presenting a price offer or a price change in different ways is similar to the

framing of purchase decisions. Whether buyers process price information in
an absolute or relative sense affects their perceptions of price changes or
price differences. That is, if they process a $20 reduction on a $100 item or a
$400 item in an absolute way they will perceive a $20 savings for either
purchase opportunity. But if they process the $20 reduction relatively, they
will perceive that the $100 item has been reduced by 20 percent and that the
$400 item has been reduced by 5 percent. Since the perceived magnitude of
20 is much larger than the perceived magnitude of 5, the price reduction on
the $100 item will be judged to provide more transaction value and
evaluated more favorably.
The relative attractiveness of a price promotion depends on both the
absolute amount of the monetary savings and the price level of the
promoted product (Chen, Monroe, & Lou, 1998). An offer of 50 percent off
on a $1 item would be perceived more favorably than an offer of 50 cents
off. On the contrary, an offer of $1,000 off on a $20,000 item would be more
attractive than an offer of 5 percent off. Partly, these perceptual differences
depend also on the mental number line or scale people have in their minds
(Monroe & Lee, 1999). On a monetary scale $0.50 is perceived as small, but
$1,000 is perceived as relatively large. Whereas on a percentage scale
(between 0 and 100), 50 percent is perceived as large but 5 percent is
perceived as small.
Automatic Construction and Use of Reference Prices
In our previous research, we did not consider whether consumers were

aware of the processes that led to these results. Yet, much of the processing
of price information is automatic and proceeds without conscious
monitoring (Monroe & Lee, 1999). In a series of experiments we provided
evidence that the reference standards people construct when judging products
can be influenced by stimuli of which they are unaware (Adaval & Monroe,
2002). Furthermore, some stimuli that influence the construction of the
standards may be irrelevant to the evaluation task and the effect of these
standards persist over time. Our first two experiments indicated that
although people may be aware that they are using an internal judgment
standard, they may not always be aware of the experiences that influence the
construction of this standard. Experiments 3–5 showed that these
comparative standards can be constructed without conscious awareness.
These experiments indicate that the standards people use when evaluating
products can be formed unintentionally and may be influenced by exposure to
stimuli of which they are not consciously aware. The subliminally primed
stimuli influenced evaluations only when they were followed immediately by
the product information (experiment 5). That is, the standard constructed
on the basis of subliminal exposure to stimuli was used spontaneously to
evaluate the product even though participants did not report this judgment
until sometime later. These results indicate that consumers often are unaware
of the factors that influence the standards they apply and that exposure to
stimuli that are high or low in magnitude may be sufficient to influence these
standards even when the stimuli refer to an attribute that differs from the one
being judged.
EXTENDING BEHAVIORAL PRICE RESEARCH
The Processing of Prices as Numerical Information
In my research, two different processes underlying people’s ability to process

numerical information have been relevant. First, people mentally manip-
ulate sequences of words or symbols according to fixed rules (number
transcoding and calculation process). This process occurs when buyers are
calculating the numerical difference between two prices, adding the
surcharge of shipping and handling to determine the total cost of a
purchase, or determining the unit price of an offering (Monroe & LaPlaca,
1972; Xia & Monroe, 2004). When comparing offers and prices, consumers
face diverse methods of how prices and add-ons are presented, requiring
them to perform arithmetic calculations when evaluating comparable offers.
A second process of approximation and processing of quantities is relevant
for understanding how buyers process price information. Approximation is
the process by which Arabic numerals are first converted into an internal
228 KENT B. MONROE
magnitude representation in memory. This encoding is automatic, fast,

independent of the number that is encoded, and these internal numerical
magnitudes seem to follow the Weber–Fechner Law.
Remembering versus Knowing Prices
As has been demonstrated above, it is recognized that buyers’ purchase

behaviors may be influenced not only by the price of a product but also by
price information stored in their memory and by what they have learned
about prices from previous shopping experiences (Ofir, Raghubir, Brosh,
Monroe, & Heiman, 2008).
Learning and memory are different sides of the same behavioral coin, and
it is necessary to relate the different ways of processing information to
learning. A key issue is the distinction between intentional and incidental
learning (Monroe, Powell, & Choudhury, 1986; Mazumdar & Monroe 1990,
1992). Incidental learning is learning that happens by chance, or where there
is no active information search. This learning could occur during browsing
(Xia & Monroe, 2003), unintentionally (Xia & Monroe, 2007), or non-
consciously (Adaval & Monroe, 2002; Monroe & Lee, 1999). Intentional
learning results from an active search for information before, during, or
after actual shopping. The primary distinction between intentional and
incidental learning is the degree that the shopper consciously attempts to
acquire and process relevant information concerning the item under
consideration.
These two types of learning can have different effects on the recognition
and recall of price information. Recall is the mental reproduction of a
response or item that has been experienced or learned before, whereas
recognition is deciding (or awareness) that a stimulus has been experienced
before. A recognition test gives cues to the person that can trigger the
memory to retrieve the information, but a recall test offers no such cues. The
limitation of a recall test is that although the information might be in
memory, there are no cues given to start the retrieval process for that
information.
Individuals’ recognition judgments of whether they have seen a stimulus
before may depend on their consciously recollecting the encounter or on a
sense of familiarity with the stimulus. There is evidence that remembering
responses are closely related to conscious retrieval of information stored in
memory, while knowing responses are based on a sense of familiarity. The
distinction between remembering and knowing contrasts the capacity for
conscious recollection of facts and events versus the capacity for non-
conscious retrieval of a past event as in priming, skill learning, habit
forming, and classical conditioning (Monroe & Lee 1999).
Focusing on two types of price memory (actual prices and relative price
positions), a study showed that internal representations of price information
are related to buyers’ processing goals (Mazumdar & Monroe, 1990). When
buyers tried to remember prices of specific brands, they were more accurate
in recalling the specific prices than the brands’ relative price positions in
the choice set. But when buyers acquired price information incidentally
while making choice decisions they were more accurate in remembering
the relative price positions of alternative brands than the actual prices of the
selected brands. Thus, this study demonstrated that buyers may encode
the same price information differently, and therefore, vary in their ability to
retrieve the information later.
In another study, we demonstrated that buyers’ ability to judge prices or
price claims depends not only on the accuracy of their estimates of the prices
but also on their confidence about the correctness of their estimates
(Mazumdar & Monroe, 1992). Price recall accuracy reflects buyers’ objective
price knowledge while confidence judgments about the recalled price
information reflect their internal assessment about the correctness of their
subjective price knowledge. In later research we demonstrated that ease of
recall of price information about a store’s prices might not be diagnostic
about the store’s relative price position (Ofir et al., 2008).
Integrating, Price, Quality, and Sacrifice Information
Buyers are faced with a difficult mental activity of integrating both positive
and negative information about alternative products when judging the value
of these offerings. Moreover, if some of the information to be integrated is
numerical, there are additional difficulties of processing numerical
information. Price is one cue that can be used to infer quality, but how
does the buyer infer actual quality across multiple choices in a product line
with different prices, different qualitative cues or labels about quality
variation, and different numerical cues about quality variation?
An important issue is how buyers integrate these different bits of
information to determine their overall perceptions of value. That is,
information about the product or service attributes and benefits represents
positive information (i.e., what the buyer gains from acquiring the product).
230 KENT B. MONROE
Using price as an indicator of cost represents negative information (i.e.,

what the buyer gives up) when acquiring the product.
Complicating the task even further is the realization that price may
simultaneously provide positive information relative to product quality
(gain) and negative information relative to sacrifice (loss). Rarely will buyers
view price solely as a conveyor of positive or negative information. To
understand how price influences buyers’ value perceptions and purchase
behavior requires understanding the various situations or context when
these different roles of price are likely to be operating.
When conditions constrict or interfere with people’s ability to process
information, they tend to use simpler decision rules or heuristics when
making judgments. Heuristics such as high price means high quality are
necessary when a quick, less effortful response is required. When buyers
make decisions within limited amounts of time, there is pressure to make the
selection quickly. For a specific price, when buyers place more emphasis on
the price–quality inference, we would expect higher perceptions of value
than when buyers place more emphasis on the price-sacrifice inference.
When buyers are motivated to process information, but the time available
to decide decreases, price information is more likely to be processed
heuristically, making it more likely that price will be used to infer quality.
To investigate this prediction, we tested two products, each at a relatively
high price and a relatively low price (Suri & Monroe, 2003). For a relatively
high price, subjects’ perceptions of quality increased and perceptions of
sacrifice decreased as the amount of time pressure increased, resulting in a
continuous increase in perceived value. Conversely, for a relatively low
price, subjects’ perceptions of quality decreased and perceptions of sacrifice
increased as the amount of time pressure increased, resulting in a continuous
decrease in perceived value.
Thus, consumers who are motivated to process information, but are
unable to process the information, are more likely to use a price–quality
heuristic. For a relatively high-priced product, the perception of high quality
leads to a relatively higher perception of value. But, for a relatively low-
priced product, the perception of low quality leads to a relatively
low perception of value. Moreover, under either price condition, perceptions
of sacrifice change in the opposite direction of the changes in perceptions of
quality, even though the price is the same across the different amounts of
time pressure.
When motivation to process information was low, price information was
processed heuristically at both low- and high-time pressure conditions,
resulting in price being used more as an indicator of product quality.
However, at a moderate level of time pressure, information was processed

more completely and price was used more as an indicator of monetary
sacrifice. Consequently, at a relatively high price, perceptions of value were
relatively high at either the low or high pressure conditions, but lower at a
moderate level of time pressure. Conversely, for a low price level,
perceptions of value were higher at the moderate level of time pressure.
Similar to when the motivation to process information was high, perceived
value showed a reversal in the pattern of response depending on whether the
product was priced relatively high or relatively low. What this research
shows is that the processing of price information depends both on the buyers’
motivation to process the information and whether they have sufficient
cognitive resources for this processing.
Frequency of Discounts vs. Magnitude of Discounts
A previously reported research finding indicated that depending on the

temporal distribution of the prices of competing brands, the frequency and
magnitude of discounts may have different effects on consumers’ price
perceptions (Alba, Broniarczyk, Shimp, & Urbany 1994; Alba, Mela,
Shimp, & Urbany 1999). In Alba et al. (1999) participants estimated the
average prices of two brands of shampoo over simulated multiple months.
For any trial, each brand was offered either at its regular price or a
discounted price. The frequency brand was discounted more often but at
shallower levels, whereas the depth brand was discounted less frequently but
at deeper levels than the other brand. When there were only two possible
prices for the brands, participants estimated the depth brand to have a lower
average price. But when the discounted prices differed over trials, the
frequency brand was estimated to have a lower average price. To examine
the generalizability and robustness of these results, we conducted three
experiments (Lalwani & Monroe, 2005).
Study 1 almost exactly replicated their experiment producing nearly
identical results. Using different price distributions with larger prices and
discount magnitudes the results of study 2 indicated that the frequency effect
in study 1 shifted to a depth effect. Participants estimated the average price
of the depth brand to be lower than the frequency brand in both
price distributions. Increasing the discriminability of the magnitude of the
discounts led participants to put more attention on the depth of the
discounts rather than their frequency. Study 3 replicated our first study
except the ratio of the frequency of the discount for the frequency brand
232 KENT B. MONROE
relative to the depth brand was increased from 2:1 to 10:1. Now the
frequency brand was perceived to have a lower average price in both price
distributions.
Overall, these three studies indicate that the salience of frequency
or magnitude of discounts influences price perceptions. For magnitude of
discounts, the salience is due to the absolute size not the percentage
of discounts. Also, the frequency and depth effects can be observed in price
distributions other than those previously studied.
Perceived Price Unfairness
An important point that we have established throughout this article is that

to judge whether a price is acceptable or fair, buyers must compare that
price to a reference price. Similarly, fairness judgments are determined when
an outcome is judged comparatively to other possible outcomes. Price
fairness refers to consumers’ assessments of whether a seller’s price is
reasonable, acceptable or justifiable (Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004).
Fairness Principles
The principle of distributive justice, or fairness of outcomes, maintains that
individuals judge the fairness of a relationship based on the allocation of
rewards resulting from their relative contributions to the relationship. On
the other hand, procedural justice, concerns judgments of whether the
processes or procedures are based on prevailing norms and behaviors.
When people receive process information before outcome information,
they are more apt to be influenced by the fair process effect (the tendency for
evaluations of outcomes and behaviors to be influenced by perceptions of
procedural fairness). One explanation for this effect is that procedural
information may be a signal that the fairness of an outcome would be
consistent with the fairness of the process leading to that outcome.
However, when people receive outcome information before process
information, they are affected by the fair outcome effect or fair equity
effect (the positive influence of perceived distributive fairness on subsequent
behavioral responses).
Effect of Fairness Judgments on Perceptions of Value

In the early 1990s, we expanded the research program to consider the effect
of perceived price unfairness on buyers’ perceptions of value and willingness
to buy. We conceptualized that perceptions of price unfairness would
increase buyers’ perceptions of sacrifice, which in turn would decrease their

perceptions of value and willingness to buy (Martins & Monroe, 1994).
These expectations were supported (Martins, 1995).
Perceived Fairness of Pricing Procedures

Various factors including types of cost increases, inferred motives of the
seller, and types of retail stores can be used to infer the procedure used to set
the final price. However, no previous research had examined the effect of a
store-wide pricing policy, such as a price-matching guarantee, as a
procedure that could influence price fairness perceptions. Thus, a price-
matching policy offered an excellent case to study the joint effect of
perceived pricing procedure fairness and consumers’ perceptions of the
fairness of the final price paid.
Three studies confirmed the influence of consumers’ perceptions of pricing
policy fairness on price fairness judgments (Kukar-Kinney, Xia, & Monroe,
2007). Perceptions of price-matching policy fairness influenced consumers’
shopping intentions indirectly through perceived price fairness, while
perceptions of price fairness influenced their shopping intentions directly. In
addition, price fairness perceptions influenced shopping intentions indirectly
through perceived value consistent with Martins and Monroe (1994).
Effect of Consumers’ Efforts on Fairness Perceptions

Using different price promotion tactics, we found that consumers’ perceived
level of effort to obtain a reduced price negatively influences their fairness
perceptions when they are denied the promoted price (Xia, Kukar-Kinney, &
Monroe, 2010). Exploring this effect, we showed that the amount of effort
consumers exert to obtain a promoted price leads to their feeling of
deservingness and entitlement. When the promoted price is denied, this
feeling of entitlement is violated, causing unfairness perceptions to occur.
Perceived Transaction Value and Fairness Perceptions

When some buyers receive the benefit of a lower price for an equivalent
product or service but other buyers do not, the price-disadvantaged buyers
may perceive that the price is unfair. Such situations may arise when sellers
provide discounts for buyers with certain characteristics, for example age,
employment status or buyer status. Furthermore, if there is no perceived
discrepancy between the efforts that the favored buyers make to qualify for
the lower price, then they will be receiving the same benefits as the
disadvantaged buyers but incurring less sacrifice. Thus, whether considering
buyers’ judgments of price fairness in terms of their relationships with
234 KENT B. MONROE
sellers, or their lateral relationships with other buyers, a price judged as

unfair can lead to lower perceptions of value and less willingness to pay.
Previous research has shown that if consumers are aware that they are
paying more than another customer for a similar transaction, then they may
perceive the price to be unfair. A concept that is closely related to price
fairness perception is perceived transaction value, which is consumers’
perceptions of psychological (dis)satisfaction obtained from the price paid in
comparison to a (lower) higher reference price (Grewal et al., 1998). We
conceptualized that although consumers’ perceptions of price fairness and
transaction value share many similarities, nevertheless there are also
important differences.
The research produced several important results. First, our research
demonstrated that paying a price that is less than the reference price may be
perceived to be less fair when the reference price is a higher price paid by
another customer for a similar transaction (Xia & Monroe, 2010). In the
context of social comparisons, an advantaged price inequity had a negative
effect on fairness perceptions. As a result, the good deal does not necessarily
convert into higher purchase intentions or willingness to provide positive
word-of-mouth as otherwise might be expected. Indeed, it may even
negatively influence these behavioral intentions. However, compared to a
disadvantaged price inequity, an advantaged price inequity effect on
unfairness perceptions is smaller. Furthermore, consumers may perceive a
good deal as a less fair price only when the comparative reference is another
customer and the consumers are not disadvantaged relative to other
customers at the time when multiple comparative references are available.
Second, we showed that social comparisons have a crucial role in fairness
perceptions both when consumers are price disadvantaged and advantaged.
Third, the question of whether a good deal is a fair deal represents a
potential conflict between what consumers would prefer and what they may
think is the right thing. The results showed that while a disadvantaged price
inequity is perceived to be unfair as well as producing negative transaction
value, an advantaged price inequity while producing positive transaction
value, nevertheless was perceived to be less fair than paying an equal price
under certain circumstances. These findings shed light on the psychological
processes underlying the intriguing interplay between consumers’ preferences
and fairness considerations when evaluating outcomes.
Relationship between Perceived Price Fairness and Satisfaction

This research linking perceived price fairness and customer satisfaction was
examined in an automobile purchase context in Germany (Herrmann, Xia,
Monroe, & Huber, 2007). We showed that price perceptions directly

influence satisfaction judgments as well as indirectly through perceptions of
price fairness. Demonstrating the influence of perceived price fairness on
satisfaction judgments has several important implications.
First, consumers’ perceived vulnerability, induced by their perceived
urgency of need for the product, negatively influenced perceived price offer
fairness. This result implies that sellers should not only avoid exploiting
their customers but also anticipate consumers’ potential feelings of being
exploited. Being sensitive to the psychological state of buyers and assuring
them of fair treatment will enhance perceptions of price fairness.
Second, both the price offer and the procedure used to develop a price are
important in influencing satisfaction judgments. In complex purchases such
as an automobile, consumers need to understand the procedure for setting
the price and terms and conditions related to a price to be able to judge the
price offered. Therefore, explaining this procedure and offering such
information to consumers will enhance the transparency of the price and
perceived fairness, positively influencing satisfaction judgments.
Third, consistent with previous research, we showed that overall
judgments of satisfaction are influenced by consumers’ satisfaction with
various stages in a purchase process. In the context of automobile
purchases, overall judgments of satisfaction were determined by satisfaction
with the dealer’s service and satisfaction with the conditions of the product
upon delivery in addition to perceptions of price fairness.
Dynamic Pricing on the Internet

The purpose of this research was to study different ways of framing prices
on the Internet so as to moderate the negative effect of consumers’
perceptions of price unfairness, distrust, reductions in value and purchase
intentions due to dynamic pricing practices (Lee & Monroe, 2008; Weisstein
& Monroe, 2009). Four different online price framing tactics (dollar off,
percentage off, cash coupon, and free gift) were used. It was expected that
the price framing tactics would reduce consumers’ perceived price unfairness
and increase their perceived value, trust, and purchase intentions.
Furthermore, the more consumers perceive their transactions to be
dissimilar relative to those of other people, the lower will be their perceived
price unfairness and the higher will be their perceived value, trust, purchase
intentions (Xia et al., 2004).
Study 1 examined the effect of two different price presentation formats on
buyers’ perceptions. Study 2 investigated the effect of different compensa-
tion tactics on buyers’ perceptions and their preferences for such tactics. All
236 KENT B. MONROE
four price framing tactics (format: $ off, % off, free cash coupon, and free
gift) significantly reduced perceived price unfairness while enhancing
perceived trust and purchase intentions. This reduction in perceived
unfairness occurred even though participants were aware that they paid a
higher price than their friends for the same product at the same online store.
This effect is due to the differences in perceived transaction dissimilarity and
perhaps insufficient price adjustment by consumers (e.g., process and
calculate the product base price ($) and percentage (%) off).
Furthermore, as perceived fairness increased, consumers perceived a
higher value, purchase satisfaction, and trust. Consumers’ repurchase
intentions were mainly driven by trust (i.e., mediator of price fairness on
repurchase intentions) in the high-priced product category while it was
driven by both trust and perceived value in the low-priced product category.
Surprisingly, our results reveal that percentage off and free gift framing are
more effective than dollar off and cash coupon framing in reducing
consumers’ negative perceptions of dynamic pricing. Both free gift and
percentage off are in different units from the initial list price (monetary
unit). The non-dollar promotion format also will produce a dissimilarity
effect such that consumers, when comparing with other people’s
purchases, will perceive their own purchases differently. Overall, the
findings suggest that consumers’ perceived transaction dissimilarity is an
important antecedent of perceived price fairness. Different promotion
framing tactics can effectively mitigate consumers’ negative perceptions of
dynamic pricing.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this chapter has been to trace the development and
expansion of my price research program from its beginnings. Drawing on
published research as well as unpublished dissertation and thesis research,
the chapter traces the development and expansion of behavioral pricing
research since 1968. What have not been documented are the efforts of other
researchers who have made significant contributions to this research
domain, including some of my former students and research colleagues.
Also, not all of my pricing research has been described including product
line pricing, price promotions, price partitioning and ongoing research
relative to numerical cognition and the processing of price information.
Moreover, other research related to consumer shopping behavior, research
methods, and my writings on pricing management has not been included.
One of the most important lessons I have learned over these years is that
knowledge grows by bits and pieces and generally somewhat haphazardly.
This point has been reinforced while writing this chapter as I have gone back
and reviewed the various papers that I and my colleagues have written on
the various research projects. It is hoped that this selected and brief review
of my pricing research program will help young researchers understand that
individual research projects, which in the scheme of things are relatively
small, nevertheless can have a large cumulative effect. My research program,
and I believe the domain of behavioral pricing research, has benefited
greatly by the several integrative reviews that I have conducted over the
years (e.g., Monroe, 1973; Monroe & Krishnan, 1985; Monroe & Lee, 1999;
Xia et al., 2004).
Hopefully, the research success that others and I have enjoyed after these
reviews came into the public domain will encourage other researchers to
periodically step back and ask the question ‘‘What do we now know about
an area of research?’’ Then, of course the next and very important question
is ‘‘What do we not know about that area of research?’’ To paraphrase the
major conclusion from my 1973 review article: we still know very little about
how price information affects buyers’ perceptions of alternative purchase
offers and how these perceptions influence purchase decisions. What we do
know is this basic issue is far more complex than anyone has imagined and
there is still much we need to learn about it.
REFERENCES
Adaval, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Automatic construction and use of contextual information
for product and price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(March), 572–588.
Alba, J. W., Broniarczyk, S., Shimp, T. A., & Urbany, J. E. (1994). The influence of prior
beliefs, frequency cues, and magnitude cues on perceptions of comparative price data.
Journal of Consumer Research, 21(September), 219–235.
Alba, J. W., Mela, C. F., Shimp, T. A., & Urbany, J. E. (1999). The effect of discount frequency
and depth on consumer price judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(September),
99–114.
Blair, E. A., Harris, J., & Monroe, K. B. (2002). Effects of shopping information on consumers’
responses to comparative price claims. Journal of Retailing, 78(Autumn), 175–181.
Chapman, J. D. (1987). The impact of discounts on subjective product evaluations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Chen, S. F., Monroe, K. B., & Lou, Y. C. (1998). The effects of framing price promotion
messages on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3),
353–372.
238 KENT B. MONROE
Della Bitta, A. J., & Monroe, K. B. (1974). The influence of adaptation levels on subjective
price perceptions. In: S. Ward & P. Wright (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 1,
pp. 359–369). Urbana, IL: Association for Consumer Research.
Della Bitta, A. J., Monroe, K. B., & McGinnis, J. M. (1981). Consumer perceptions of comparative
price advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November), 416–427.
Dodds, W. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1985). The effect of brand and price information on
subjective product evaluations. In: E. C. Hirschman & M. B. Holbrook (Eds), Advances
in consumer research (Vol. 12, pp. 85–90). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store
information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August),
307–319.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising
on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions.
Journal of Marketing, 62(April), 46–59.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-Level theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of price fairness on
customer satisfaction: An empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal
of Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 49–58.
Hyun, S., & Monroe, K. B. (1998). The effects of contextual cues on Korean consumers’
perceptions of comparative price advertisements. In: K. Hung & K. B. Monroe (Eds),
Asia-Pacific advances in consumer research (Vol. 3, pp. 166–172). Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research.
Kukar-Kinney, M., Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2007). Consumers’ perceptions of the fairness of
price-matching refund policies. Journal of Retailing, 83(August), 325–337.
Lalwani, A. K., & Monroe, K. B. (2005). A re-examination of frequency-depth effects in
consumer price judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(December), 480–485.
Lee, F., & Monroe, K. B. (2008). Dynamic pricing on the internet: A price framing approach.
In: A. Y. Lee & D. Soman (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 35, pp. 637–638).
Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Martins, M. O. B. (1995). An experimental investigation of the effects of perceived price fairness
on perceptions of sacrifice and value. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate
College, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Martins, M. O. B., & Monroe, K. B. (1994). Perceived price fairness: A new look at an
old construct. In: C. Allen & D. R. John (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 21,
pp. 75–78). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Mazumdar, T., & Monroe, K. B. (1990). The effects of buyers’ intentions to learn price
information on price encoding. Journal of Retailing, 66(Spring), 15–32.
Mazumdar, T., & Monroe, K. B. (1992). Effects of learning and choice task goals on price recall
accuracy and confidence judgments. Journal of Retailing, 68(Spring), 66–89.
Monroe, K. B. (1968). A method for determining product line prices with end –price constraints.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate College, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Monroe, K. B. (1971a). The information content of prices: A preliminary model for estimating
buyer response. Management Science, 17(April), B–B532.
Monroe, K. B. (1971b). Measuring price thresholds by psychophysics and latitudes of
acceptance. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(November), 460–464.
Monroe, K. B. (1971c). Psychophysics of prices: A reappraisal. Journal of Marketing Research,

8(May), 248–251.
Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research,
10(February), 70–80.
Monroe, K. B. (1976). The influence of price differences and brand familiarity on brand
preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(June), 42–49.
Monroe, K. B. (1977). Objective and subjective contextual influences on price perceptions. In:
A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth & P. D. Bennett (Eds), Consumer and Industrial Buying
Behavior (pp. 287–296). New York: North-Holland.
Monroe, K. B. (1979). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Monroe, K. B. (1984). Theoretical and methodological developments in pricing. In:
T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 636–637). Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Monroe, K. B. (2003). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co.
Monroe, K. B., & Chapman, J. D. (1987). Framing effects on buyers’ subjective product
evaluations. In: P. Anderson & M. Wallendorf (Eds), Advances in consumer research
(Vol. 14, pp. 193–197). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Monroe, K. B., Della Bitta, & Downey, S. (1977). Contextual influences on subjective price
perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 5(December), 277–291.
Monroe, K. B., & Della Bitta, A. J. (1978). Models for pricing decisions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 15(August), 413–428.
Monroe, K. B., & Dodds, W. B. (1988). A research program for establishing the validity of the
price-quality relationship. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(Spring),
151–168.
Monroe, K. B., & Gardner, D. M. (1976). An experimental inquiry into the effect of price on
brand preference. In: Proceedings, Fall Conference (pp. 552–556), Chicago: American
Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1985). The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. In:
J. Jacoby & J. C. Olson (Eds), Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and
merchandise (pp. 209–232). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Monroe, K. B., & LaPlaca, P. (1972). What are the benefits of unit pricing? Journal of
Marketing, 36(July), 16–22.
Monroe, K. B., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). Remembering vs. knowing: Issues in buyers’ processing
of price information. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(April),
207–225.
Monroe, K. B., & Mazumdar, T. (1988). Pricing-decision models: Recent developments and
research opportunities. In: T. M. Devinney (Ed.), Issues in pricing: Theory and research
(pp. 361–388). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Monroe, K. B., Powell, C. P., & Choudhury, P. (1986). Recall versus recognition as a measure
of price awareness. In: R. Lutz (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 13, pp. 594–599).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Monroe, K. B., & Zoltners, A. A. (1979). Pricing the product line during scarcity. Journal of
Marketing, 43(Summer), 49–59.
240 KENT B. MONROE
Nwokoye, N. G. (1974). An experimental study of the relationship between responses to price

changes and price level for shoes. In: M. J. Schlinger (Ed.), Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 2, pp. 693–703). Chicago: Association for Consumer Research.
Nwokoye, N. G. (1975). An experimental inquiry into the effects of parameters of price structure
on buyers’ price judgments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst, MA.
Ofir, C., Raghubir, P., Brosh, G., Monroe, K. B., & Heiman, A. (2008). Memory-based store
price judgments: The role of knowledge and shopping experience. Journal of Retailing,
84(December), 414–423.
Petroshius, S. M., & Monroe, K. B. (1987). Effect of product-line pricing characteristics on
product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(March), 511–519.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1988). The moderating effect of prior knowledge on
cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(September),
253–264.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on
buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing
Research, 26(August), 351–357.
Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Causes and consequences of price premiums. Journal of
Business, 69(October), 511–535.
Roundtree, R. I., & Monroe, K. B. (1995). Context setting and comparative price
advertising effects on the acceptable price range. In: F. Hansen (Ed.), European
advances in consumer research (Vol. 2, pp. 251–257). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (1999). Consumers prior purchase intentions and their evaluations of
savings on product bundles. In: R. Fuerderer, A. Herrmann & G. Wuebker (Eds),
Optimal bundling: Marketing strategies for improving economic performance (pp. 177–194).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judgments of
prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(June), 92–104.
Suri, R., Swaminathan, S., & Monroe, K. B. (2004). Price communications in online and
print coupons: An empirical analysis. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(Autumn),
74–86.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(Summer),
199–214.
Weisstein, F. L., & Monroe, K. B. (2009). Promotion framing effects on consumers’ perceptions
of customized pricing. In: A. L. McGill & S. Shavitt (Eds), Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 36, pp. 716–717). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Xia, L., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Monroe, K. B. (2010). Effects of consumers’ efforts on price and
promotion fairness perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 86(1), 1–10.
Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2003). Beyond information search: Browsing as consumer
information acquisition. In: R. Zwick & T. Ping (Eds), Asia-Pacific advances in consumer
research (Vol. 5, p. 302). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2004). Price partitioning on the internet. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 18(Autumn), 63–73.
Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2007). The effect of unintended information acquisition. In:
G.J. Fitzsimons & V. Morwitz (Eds), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 34, pp. 97–99).
Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Xia, L., & Monroe, K. B. (2010). Is a good deal always fair? Examining the concepts of
transaction value and price fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(December),
884–894.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of
price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(October), 1–15.
Yadav, M. S., & Monroe, K. B. (1993). How buyers perceive savings in a bundle price: An
examination of a bundle’s transaction value. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(August),
350–358.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(July), 2–22.
A JOURNEY OF AN ACCIDENTAL
MARKETING SCHOLAR$
Balaji C. Krishnan and Jagdish N. Sheth
ABSTRACT
This article attempts to synthesize the contributions of Jagdish Sheth to the
discipline. This is done by following the development of the field in various
subdisciplines such that one can observe the impact Sheth’s thinking has
had on the field. This is the career of an ‘‘accidental marketer’’ who started
as a social scientist, got interested in buyer behavior, and made his mark in
that field. Noticing similarities between organizational buyer behavior and
individual buyer behavior, he ventured into that field too. As a visionary, he
started developing theories in international marketing in the seventies,
which was a popular area that time. Similarly, he published a handbook on
Customer Relationship Marketing and worked in the area before it became
a major area of emphasis. As a multifaceted person, he has contributed
to the practitioners through books and consulting projects. However,
this article focuses mainly on his academic contributions including his
research, teaching/mentoring, and his philanthropic activities.
$
This article focuses on the work of the second author and is largely written from the
perspective of the first author as a tribute to the second author. While the first author is mainly
responsible for the contents of the article, the second author’s views are largely expressed
through his interviews for the ‘‘Legends in Marketing’’ series.

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008011
243
244 BALAJI C. KRISHNAN AND JAGDISH N. SHETH
Marketing as a discipline started coming into its own at the turn of the
twentieth century. Initially, it was merely seen as an extension of economics
and focused on reducing the distribution costs and making distribution
efficient. By the 1920s, the focus of marketing academics was on developing
principles of marketing and integrating the existing knowledge in marketing.
In the 1930s, the study of marketing extended to delineating specialized
areas of marketing (Bartels, 1976). A world away, in current day Myanmar,
Jagdish Sheth was born in 1938. The 1940s were a time when the concept of
marketing was being reappraised, and scientific aspects of marketing were
being considered. The 1950s and 1960s saw an increased focus on
managerialism and greater emphasis on the multidisciplinary nature of
marketing (Bartels, 1976). It was during this time, in 1961, that Jagdish
Sheth arrived at the University of Pittsburgh to get his MBA degree. By a
quirk of fate, he decided to stay back and study in the doctoral program. He
viewed himself as a social psychologist. He was interested in the application
of psychological theories and hence gravitated toward marketing when he
decided to work with Professor John Howard. The area of buyer behavior
was attracting a lot of interest, and the area of marketing was being
influenced by theories in fields other than economics, such as psychology,
sociology, and anthropology. Jag Sheth was a voracious reader, and it
helped him navigate through the literature in disparate fields of inquiry as he
helped his professor John Howard with the Howard–Sheth Theory of Buyer
Behavior.
Whereas the 1960s was a period where marketing and consumer behavior
benefitted from theories in other disciplines, in the 1970s, theories developed
in consumer behavior and marketing were being applied in other areas,
mainly in political science and social issues among others. Given his eclectic
background, it was not a surprise to see the second author be at the
forefront of this movement to spread marketing theories into other
disciplines. The 1980s were marked by a significant increase into the
managerial applications of marketing theories. The second author had
started consulting with major corporations and governments by this stage
and was interested in disseminating his work for both the academic and the
practitioner audiences through articles and books. In the late 1980s, the
second author started focusing on the role of relationships in marketing and
thus started a research stream on relationship marketing. The 1990s may
well be called the decade of relationship marketing. This was a topic of
interest to a number of other researchers too, and there were special issues of
major journals devoted to this topic. Furthermore, it also spawned an
interest in Center for Relationship Marketing (CRM). Hence, it is clear that
A Journey of an Accidental Marketing Scholar 245
the second author has either been intimately involved or spearheaded the
defining moments in the marketing discipline in the last half a century.
The remainder of this article is presented as follows: firstly, we trace the
work of the second author from the mid-1960 s to the present. As his work is
eclectic, we attempt to trace the various topics that have captured his
interest at different times along with his motivations for being interested
in these topics. Secondly, we present a macro perspective of his research
and find the reasons for the transformation of his interests. Academic
publications are just one of the areas this multifaceted social scientist has
excelled in. We attempt to complete the picture by providing a glimpse of his
other contributions to the marketing discipline.
WHERE IT ALL BEGAN
Professor John Howard was working on a buyer behavior project in the

early 1960s. He had a Ford Foundation grant and was looking for a good
colleague to collaborate with. While teaching an MBA class, he provided his
class the latest results from a DuPont project, which stated that 42 percent
of American women did not make a shopping list and hence were buying
impulsively. A shy and rather short international student in the first row
queried if it meant that all illiterate people were impulsive buyers. The
Professor appreciated the question although he did not provide an answer.
Later, when the same student was looking for a professor to work with for
his doctoral degree, John Howard decided to accept him. Thus was born the
collaboration between John Howard and Jagdish Sheth. This later led to the
Howard–Sheth Theory of Buyer Behavior.
With Jag Sheth’s voracious appetite for reading, it is not a surprise that
the Howard–Sheth Theory encompasses Hull’s work on behavior systems
(1952), Berlyne’s theory of exploratory behavior (1960), and Osgood’s
theories of perception (1957). The theory was not only multidisciplinary but
also was integrative too in that it provided a framework that explained the
theories that were operational under different sets of circumstances. Thus,
they proposed three types of decision making that consumers follow. These
were extensive problem solving, limited problem solving and routinized
response behavior (Howard & Sheth, 1969). The authors of the theory
realized that a theory needs to be empirically verified. Hence, the second
author’s dissertation (he was simultaneously working on the theory and his
doctoral degree) consisted of empirically verifying parts of the theory.
Interestingly, due to the objection of one of his committee members, he
could not include the review part of his research in his dissertation. This part
of the dissertation turned out to be his first journal publication in the form
of his Management Science paper ‘‘Review of buyer behavior’’ (1969a).
The second author continued working on empirically verifying other parts
of the buyer behavior theory and published on risk reduction with Ven
Venkatesan (Sheth & Venkatesan, 1968) and on post-purchase dissonance
(1968a, 1970). In the late sixties, he also understood the changes that were
taking place in the methodological arena. He published a number of significant
articles in the Journal of Marketing Research on factor analysis (1968b) and
multivariate analysis (1971a). He also published articles on other techniques
such as canonical correlation (Sheth & Johannson, 1973), cluster analysis
(Roscoe, Sheth, & Howell, 1974), and factor analysis (1969b) in other avenues.
During the late sixties, there was a critical mass of researchers in the area
of consumer behavior, and this research was led by marketing academics. In
1969, the second author moved from Columbia to University of Illinois
where there was a significant group of consumer behavior researchers such
as Joel Cohen, David Gardner, Seymour Sudman, and Robert Ferber. At
this time, Jim Engel at The Ohio State University organized a special
meeting of those interested in the study of consumer behavior and was the
driving force to establish the Association of Consumer Research (ACR).
He invited the second author and Ven Venkatesan among others to be
cofounding members of ACR. Hence, besides his interest and considerable
success in research, Jagdish Sheth was making his mark as someone who
thought about the health of the discipline and institutions in the discipline.
FROM CONSUMER BEHAVIOR TO CUSTOMER

BEHAVIOR
The second author had demonstrated his ability to integrate eclectic

research in codeveloping the Theory of Buyer Behavior. Having made his
mark in the field by publishing a number of conceptual, empirical, and
methodological papers in the field, he decided to move on to other areas that
stoked his curiosity. The 1970s witnessed the second author expanding his
knowledge on buying behavior to other related but different contexts. He
specifically focused on buying behavior in the context of a family decision
(1971b), across cultures (Seth & Sethi, 1977), and industrial buyer behavior
(1983a). His interest in the factors that influenced industrial buyer behavior
led to a significant stream of research through the years. While his
publication record was prolific in the 1970s, he also had to expend

considerable energies and time as the head of the department at the
University of Illinois. The marketing department had a consumer behavior
focus, and he managed to recruit some top notch researchers such as Peter
Wright, Russell Belk, and Johnny Johansson among others.
Another facet of the second author’s research in the 1970s was an
awareness of socially important issues. These were the post-OPEC years,
and there was considerable anxiety in the country about conserving oil
resources. Hence, he applied his knowledge to understand what motivated
consumers to change their mode of travel to include carpooling (Sheth,
1976; Sheth & Horowitz, 1977; Krishnan, Nicolaidis, & Sheth, 1978). This is
in keeping with his philosophy that research needs to be relevant and
provide practical solutions to existing problems. In the late 1970s and early
1980s, he began his focus on international issues. While he had earlier
published on buyer behavior in a cross-cultural context and cross-cultural
advertising, he now focused his energies on multinational strategies for firms
(1977, 1980). Furthermore, as a senior researcher in the field, he started
contributing his thoughts on the current state and future direction of the
disciplines of marketing (1980, 1983b) and consumer behavior (1982,
1984b).
The early eighties also saw another aspect of the second author’s
repertoire come to the fore. He had already published a number of articles
on multivariate statistics. His continuing interest in this area brought AT&T
to him when they were searching for someone who could delve into their
data. Thus, he started his long association of providing training seminars in
various corporations. Initially, it was on multivariate statistics. However, he
realized that the statistics were a means to an end, the end being strategic in
nature. Thus, his executive education was also focused on strategic issues
faced by the firm.
This exposure and involvement with large corporations such as AT&T,
GM, and Whirlpool influenced the research questions he was exploring.
Hence, he started studying macro trends that impact industries. He
specifically studied the trends that impact the retail industry (1983c),
education (1988), and consumer behavior (1987). In the mid-1980s, one of
his doctoral students, Bruce Newman, was interested in political marketing.
Sheth collaborated with him on applying his knowledge of consumer
psychology to the political marketing realm that resulted in some publica-
tions in this area (1985, 1987). This brings to the fore another interesting
aspect about the second author’s contributions. He encouraged his students
to think independently and did not hesitate to research in an area that he was
not familiar with. His eclectic background was certainly a help in going
outside his primary domain of buyer behavior. The Theory of Buyer Behavior
was an integrative cross-disciplinary theory. Having developed a theory early
in his career, it may have been easy for him to empirically test out various
aspects of the theory for a majority of his research life time. However, instead
of settling for this path of least resistance, he decided to explore other areas,
much to the benefit of the discipline.
Another significant contribution that the second author made to the
discipline from the late 1970s to the nineties was through editing different
series of publications. The most successful of them was the Research in
Marketing series. Top researchers in the field and up and coming young
researchers with something interesting to say were recruited to write original
papers. Interestingly, this series was a double-open process where the
author(s) and the reviewers would see their role as collaborative to improve
the quality of the paper. The editor occasionally was called on, in case of
disagreements. A similar series on consumer behavior called, Research in
Consumer Behavior, was coedited with Elizabeth Hirschman, and another
on the telecom industry called Advances in Telecommunications Management
was coedited with Gary Frazier. Thus, the second author’s contribution
began as a young researcher publishing in journals to someone who builds
institutions and as a gatekeeper of knowledge in various domains of
marketing, marketing research, and consumer behavior.
STRATEGIC MOVE
Although the second author had started his career in marketing by working on
the book The Theory of Buyer Behavior, he focused on publishing articles in
the initial phase of his career. However, when he returned to publishing his
work in the form of books, it was in the area of strategic marketing. As has
been noted earlier, his interactions with major corporations convinced him of
the need for knowledge in the area of strategic marketing targeting
practitioners as well. With this in mind, his first such book (1984a) in the
form of Winning Back Your Market: The Inside Stories of Companies That Did
It focused on a strategic play book to success. This was followed shortly later
with The Customer is Key: Gaining an Unbeatable Advantage Through
Customer Satisfaction with Milind Lele in 1987. This was followed by Bringing
Innovation to Market: How to Break Corporate and Customer Barriers, in
1987, with S. Ram, one of his students. As the titles of these books suggest, the
books were primarily targeted at the practitioners but had rigorous analysis.
Furthermore, he also published a number of articles on marketing strategy in

the form of journal articles and as chapters in books. Some of these were
focused on specific marketing tools such as segmentation, and others were
focused on specific industries such as telecom or health care marketing.
He followed this up later in his career in the twenty-first century with
some further successful books such as Clients for Life: Evolving from an
Expert-for-Hire to an Extraordinary Adviser (Sheth & Sobel, 2000), Value
Space: Winning the Battle for Market Leadership (Sheth & Mittal, 2001),
The Rule of Three: Surviving and Thriving in Competitive Markets (Sheth &
Sisodia, 2002), Firms of Endearment (Sisodia, Wolfe, & Sheth, 2006), The
Self-Destructive Habits of Good Companies y And How to Break Them
(Sheth, 2007), Tectonic Shift: The Geoeconomic Realignment of Globalizing
Markets (Sheth & Sisodia, 2007b), and Chindia Rising: How China and India
will Benefit Your Business (Sheth, 2008). As is evident from the titles, his
practitioner-oriented books have spanned a whole host of topics. It has
focused on how firms could increase their market share to how they can
increase customer satisfaction. It has also focused on how firms can identify
habits that may destroy their company and how to avoid them. Reflecting
the increasing globalization of the economies, he has also written about the
changes in the global economy, Chindia, as well as applied his Rule of Three
in a global context. Most recently, he has focused on how and why purpose-
driven firms out performed firms that are financial driven. For a more
detailed understanding of the second author’s contribution to the field
through his books, please refer to Sisodia (2004).
RELATIONSHIP MARKETING
As mentioned earlier, the second author’s research interests included buyer
behavior in an industrial/organizational context. Studying issues at the
organizational level of analysis rather than the individual consumer level
spurred his interest into studying how organizations formed alliances (Sheth &
Parvatiyar, 1992), alliance governance (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1994), and
investigating how firms are satisfied with and the reasons for continuity in
marketing alliances (Shamdasani & Sheth, 1995). Another area of inquiry
that stemmed from this research interest of approaching issues from the
organizational perspective was his interest and leadership in relationship
marketing.
The term relationship marketing was coined by Len Berry (1983). It found
significant proponents in the Scandinavian schools with researchers such as
Chris Grönroos (1982) having applied it in a services marketing context.

Given the second author’s interest in strategy and research at the organi-
zational level of analysis, he gravitated toward this paradigm of marketing.
He set about organizing a Center for Relationship Marketing at Emory
University in Atlanta. He along with his colleague Atul Parvatiyar
published a number of defining research papers. Together, they first
established the domain of relationship marketing (1994), examining the
antecedents and consequences of relationship marketing in consumer
markets (1995), tracing the evolution of relationship marketing (Sheth &
Parvatiyar, 1995), examining the financial benefits of relationship marketing
in hospitals (Naidu, Parvatiyar, Sheth, & Westgate, 1999), and examining
the emerging issues in the field (1997). Parvatiyar and Sheth (2000) also
published a Handbook of Relationship Marketing in which they laid out the
conceptual foundation of the domain of relationship marketing. The second
author also applied the relationship marketing perspective to industrial
buying in collaboration with Arun Sharma and published papers on the
relationship orientation of firms (1997b), established a research agenda
(1997), and examined the relationships between firms and their suppliers
(1997a). The second author further provided guidance on the future of
relationship marketing (2002).
When the second author believed in a particular paradigm or approach that
might benefit the discipline, he invested considerable energies in developing a
programmatic research agenda, examining the domain, and establishing its
boundaries, antecedents, and consequences. Furthermore, he focused on
identifying various fields it may be applied in. This can be observed in his
research on concepts in consumer behavior such as consumer dissonance as
well as domains such as relationship marketing.
MUSINGS AND CLARION CALLS
As a senior academic and gatekeeper of knowledge in the field, the second

author has pondered about the health of the discipline of marketing
and consumer behavior. He has shared his thoughts through many articles
and books. He has also been invited to share his thoughts on the same subject
by various journal editors. Some of his early works were on the surpluses and
shortages in consumer behavior (1982). In this paper, he observed that while
there have been a plethora of work done in the area of individual consumer
behavior, there is a distinct shortage in the study of group behaviors. He
specifically noted a lack of work on household behavior, cross-national
buying behavior, and organizational buying behavior. As one would expect,

he went about trying to fix these gaps by working in all of these areas.
He particularly concentrated on organizational buying behavior where his
contributions have been described earlier.
His next major paper (Sheth, 1992) was on the invitation of the editor of
the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, ‘‘Acrimony in the ivory
tower: A retrospective on consumer research.’’ In this paper, he analyzed the
strides made by consumer research and pointed out the attendant issues in
the development of this field of inquiry. It generated considerable debate.
The second author’s contention was that consumer research’s quest to
become a respected discipline had led to a number of paradoxes. The
perspective paradox led to the lack of development of a unique theory in the
discipline. The domain paradox was caused by the discipline not having a
well-understood and agreed-upon field of inquiry. The power paradox refers
to the trade-off between understanding and prediction. His contention was
that while consumer research was very good at the former, they were not so
successful in the latter. The clan paradox is born out of a ‘‘us-versus-them’’
mentality as well as inbreeding. Finally, the Peter paradox has to do with
the burnout among researchers who have to survive in the ‘‘publish or
perish’’ environment. He also provided a framework in which the discipline
as a whole needs to decide ‘‘what to research?’’ and ‘‘how to research?’’
to be viable as a standalone discipline. The second author did provide
some of the answers, especially to the domain paradox in one of his
earlier papers with his doctoral students Bruce Newman and Barbara Gross
(1991).
In 1995, the second author along with coauthor Rajendra Sisodia published
a two-part article in Marketing Management, called ‘‘Feeling the heat’’
(Sheth & Sisodia, 1995). In these articles, the authors focus on the
accountability issue in marketing practice. They argue that there is a
productivity crisis in marketing, and for marketers to overcome this, they
define and provide solutions to improve marketing productivity. Specifically,
they suggest different solutions to each component of the marketing mix and
some overall strategies such as collaborating to increase the marketing
productivity in firms in part one of the two-part essay. In the second part, they
focus on the use of technology to improve the productivity in the marketing
function within firms.
The second author again with Rajendra Sisodia published another essay
on the state of a discipline in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science. This time, the focus was on marketing, and it was titled ‘‘Revisiting
marketing’s lawlike generalizations’’ (Sheth & Sisodia, (1999). They argue
that many regularities have achieved lawlike generalizations by being

empirically validated. They classify such generalizations into location-
centric, time-centric, market-centric, and competitor-centric generalizations.
They further argue that there are major environmental changes that are
likely to impact each of these generalizations and develop research questions
that need to be addressed in each category of lawlike generalizations. They
argue that location-centric generalizations such as Reilly’s law of gravitation
will be impacted by the emergence of the Internet (which at that time was
still in its infancy) due to cybermediaries. Time-centric generalizations such
as diffusion of innovations and depreciation of assets will be impacted by
the new growth economics such as increasing returns to scale and changes in
the product replacement cycle and democratization of innovations. As
customers and markets are the core of marketing, we have market-centric
concepts such as market segmentation and customer satisfaction. However,
increasing market diversity and demographic diversity is likely to lead to
market fragmentation leading to mass customization and the need to
manage customer expectations. The focus on competition in a globalized
world led to the development of competitor-centric concepts such as
competitive positioning and competitive advantage. The authors however
argued that competition may have to be replaced by ‘‘coopetition’’ or
cooperation and competition coexisting between businesses. Interestingly,
they proposed customer outsourcing as a solution for competition-centric
generalizations. It is interesting because they discussed outsourcing as a
concept before it was in vogue.
In the past five years, the second author has expressed his deep concern
at the declining impact of marketing in the boardroom and in decision
making within firms (Sheth & Sisodia, 2007a, 2007b; Sheth & Sisodia,
2005; Krishnan, 2010, Vol. 5). His analysis indicates that some of the
major reasons for the decline include the fact that many marketing
decisions are being spread through the rest of the organization.
Marketing actions are viewed as exploitative and unethical. Another
major issue identified was the ‘‘tyranny of low expectations.’’ Marketing’s
aspirations are seen as very low and narrow (Sheth & Sisodia, 2007a,
2007b). One proposal to avoid this tyranny of low expectations and
performance is to establish a National Academy of Marketing on the lines
of the National Academy of Science (2005). His basic premise is that
having a standard similar to that of the GAAP (generally accepted
accounting principles) will be useful in raising the bar and establishing
standards of marketing, which will then be useful in raising higher
aspirations in the field of marketing.
A related but separate issue with marketing has been the lack of visibility
for academic marketing. As he states in a recent interview,
We are not good marketers of our own research even though it impacts people’s daily
lives! I believe it is the responsibility of the Editors of the top academic journals to make
our research newsworthy as they do in medicine and to some extent in science,
engineering and law. Interview to Krishnan in Legends in Marketing, Vol. 3 (2010).
He further notes that most of our research is confined to narrow domains,

and we seem to be exploring more and more about less and less. Ideally, he
would like the Wall Street Journal and The Economist to carry summaries of
articles published in the top marketing journals. He also notes that the
tendency to publish in narrow domains is due to the pressure of tenure. As
there is a finite number of pages and hence articles in what are acknowledged
to be the top journals in the field and researchers need to get tenured, they have
to focus on narrow areas that are of interest to these journals. Hence, he
suggests that besides valuing journal publications, if the discipline started
evaluating the impact of the research and considering monographs and books
as viable high-quality publications, it may help in making academic marketing
more robust.
AN INSTITUTION IN INSTITUTION BUILDING
The second author’s interest in history led him to the belief that it was
important to nourish institutions for the discipline to thrive. Hence, from his
early days, he has focused on setting up and nurturing institutions. As an
aside, the first institution that he set up was a young people’s literary society
in Chennai, India. This is where he met his future wife. One cannot ask for a
better reason to invest their energies on building institutions!!
Besides being a founding member of the ACR when he was at University
of Illinois (as discussed earlier), he also set up the Center for Telecommu-
nications Management (CTM) when he moved to University of Southern
California (USC) in 1985. This was the time just after the break up of
AT&T. AT&T, a monopoly, was broken up into AT&T and seven Baby
Bells. The second author had previously worked with AT&T and hence had a
good feel for the industry. At CTM, he started a newsletter that he knew
would be useful for the industry as a whole. Hence, he was able to create a
value proposition that would be of interest to the phone companies. Soon, he
had all the Baby Bells and AT&T (save one) signing up to support the Center.
While the newsletters were essentially compilation of industry news, CTM
also produced a strategic planning document called the ‘‘Telecom outlook

report.’’ Besides these publications, the Center also organized academic
conferences on the subject. Thus, he was able to get the practitioners and
academics discussing issues in the same forum. This has been something that
the second author has been espousing for a long time.
After his move to Emory University in 1991, the second author had to leave
the Center for Telecommunications, which was housed at USC. At this point
in time, his research interests were focused on relationship marketing, and he
realized that this domain would get greater prominence if there was an
institution to support it. As was typical of him, he set up the CRM with Atul
Parvatiyar, a colleague at Emory University. Whereas CTM was industry
based, Center for Relationship Marketing was discipline based. Sheth and
Parvatiyar organized a number of academic conferences under the aegis of the
CRM, spurring academic interest in the subject. Furthermore, they also
devised ways to support research in the area by providing funding and awards
for doctoral students working in this domain.
As has been the case throughout his career, the second author was able to
get companies interested in the Center for Relationship Marketing and
participate in its activities. Several world class companies supported the
Center for Relationship Marketing including Procter & Gamble, Coca Cola,
Chubb Insurance, Motorola, and Ernst & Young. Besides the academic
conference, the CRM also organized a practitioner conference where the firm
that implemented the best relationship strategies was selected and awarded in
front of a distinguished audience. All of these activities with businesses as well
as academics led to a great deal of interest in the topic of relationship
marketing and allied topics of customer loyalty and loyalty programs.
Since 2000, the second author has focused on the issue of globalization
and has authored a number of articles and books about it. His most recent
book Chindia Rising is a good example of his work. He has also expanded his
earlier book Rule of Three to apply it on a global scale. Out of this area of
interest, he established a research institute called India China America
Institute (http://www.icainstitute.org). This nonprofit entity’s mission is to
study the impact of the rise of China and India on the global economy and the
potential emergence of a new Triad power. ICA institute has a well-respected
newsletter and an academic journal, called Journal of Emerging Knowledge in
Emerging Markets, an online journal. In keeping with the times, they also
conduct a number of webinars. Thus, in each of his institutional building
endeavors, Jag Sheth has attempted to establish an institution to encourage
research in a particular topic and in most cases has done so by bringing the
academics and practitioners together to make the research relevant.
The second author’s latest endeavor has been setting up the Academy of
Indian Marketing (http://www.academyoim.org). It is an academy that
aspires to become the world’s leading research and practice-driven academic
organization with a focus on emerging markets such as India, Africa, and
Latin America.
Besides the institutions, he has started or cofounded, he has also been
asked to lead existing organizations. As his wont, he has done it with great
enthusiasm and success. In the 1970s, he was invited to serve as the President
of Div. 23 of the American Psychological Association (APA). Similarly, he
was the President of the ACR in 1984. During this year, he worked tirelessly to
have an international ACR conference and was instrumental in getting the
first one held in Singapore in 1985. Currently, the international conference is
an annual feature of ACR’s activities.
PHILANTHROPY THE SHETH WAY
The second author, along with his wife Madhu Sheth, cofounded the Sheth
Foundation. Most readers may be familiar with the name of this
foundation. Since its inception in 1991, it has played an increasingly
important role in the marketing discipline. Initially, the idea of setting up
the foundation was to give back to the two institutions that played
important roles in the second author’s life – namely, the University of
Pittsburgh where he received his MBA and doctorate degrees, and the
University of Illinois. However, he also wanted to contribute to the
discipline. Hence, he combined the two and supported marketing scholar-
ship in both institutions through fellowships and scholarships. At the
University of Pittsburg, the Sheth foundation supports a winter camp where
the doctoral students and faculty in marketing invite three or four top
scholars to join them at a ski resort near Pittsburgh. The two-day retreat
consists of presentations by the scholars and informal activities and one-on-
one conversations. At Illinois, a Sheth Fellow program was created for the
top students in marketing.
Shortly after it was set up, the Foundation’s goals were extended to
supporting academic scholarship beyond just the two institutions. Hence,
the Sheth foundation is actively involved in promoting scholarship through
the membership organizations in the discipline. For example, the Sheth
Foundation provides financial support for the Doctoral consortium con-
ducted by the American Marketing Association (AMA). Furthermore, the
Foundation also funds the Long Term Impact Award for articles in the
Journal of Marketing. The article must be at least five years old and deemed
to have made the most impact by a scholar panel. Also, to honor his thesis
advisor, a John A. Howard doctoral dissertation award was endowed to
recognize the best dissertation by a doctoral student every year. Similarly,
the Best Paper award at the ACR annual conference is supported by the
Sheth Foundation. Moreover, it also provides stipend for two or three
doctoral dissertations that are selected by the ACR.
Given the second author’s background and interest in international
issues, it is not surprising that the Sheth Foundation also supports the
Academy of International Business (AIB) conference. It does so by helping
cover the travel costs and other expenses of the Sheth Fellows who attend.
At the Academy of Marketing Science, the Foundation supports the premier
journal JAMS by funding the Best Paper award and the editorial support
staff. Besides supporting academic scholarship through these organizations,
the second author is also involved in supporting the cause of management
education in a number of countries, especially India. It also sponsors a
speaker series in some of the universities that the second author has been
involved in his long and distinguished career.
Other significant activity that the second author supports is the
international alumnus award at the University of Illinois, which is awarded
to international alumni who have made the most significant impact in their
home country. This is a university-wide award, and the award is presented in
a gala event. At Emory University, he and his wife have endowed the Sheth
Distinguished Emeriti Lecture Series. The objective is to invite the retired
professors and their spouses for a day of intellectual stimulation. It is a
rather unique way to acknowledge the contributions of retired faculty
members. They have also endowed an annual Sheth lecture on Indian
studies.
One can be reasonably certain that many academic colleagues are
involved in philanthropy. However, it is rare to find someone who gives
back as much and to as many organizations with the sole purpose of
supporting academic scholarship in the field in which they earned their
fame. The latest venture of the Sheth foundation has been to support the
Living Legends Series. The idea originally was to honor and celebrate the
top scholars in the field by videotaping their interviews on a vast variety of
topics. It was also to preserve the scholarship that they had produced and
understand the motivations, obstacles, and the secret of their success. This is
currently implemented by the AMS. To preserve the legacy of marketing
scholars, the second author has signed Sage Publications to compile the
lifelong works of leading marketing scholars including Richard Bagozzi,
Paul Green, Shelby Hunt, Philip Kotler, V. Kumar, Naresh Malhotra, Kent
Monroe, Yoram Wind, and Gerald Zaltman.
His own publications were edited by the first author in the following eight
volumes. Hence, the first of the Legends in Marketing series had eight
volumes with each of the volumes being edited by a scholar who had worked
with the second author. The volumes were as follows:
1. Consumer Behavior: Conceptual Foundations (Richard Lutz)
2. Consumer Behavior: Empirical Research (C. W. Park)
3. Visioning the Future (Balaji Krishnan)
4. International Marketing (Abdi Eshghi)
5. Managerial Marketing: The Early years (Can Uslay)
6. Managerial Marketing: Current Thought (Rajendra Sisodia)
7. Organizational Buyer Behavior (Arun Sharma)
8. Relationship Marketing (Atul Parvatiyar)
Each volume editor in turn recruited three to five scholars in the field who
could comment on the articles selected for each volume. Across all the 8
volumes, more than 30 scholars commented on Sheth’s work. The most
unique aspect of this series was each of the volume editors interviewed the
second author based on the articles that were selected for their volume. This
provided a keen insight into his thinking and his motivation for writing the
articles. Some of the questions were broader and provided a rich
understanding of the history of the discipline too.
A LEGEND IN MARKETING
Volume one of the series focuses on the second author’s conceptual work in
the area of consumer behavior. It has 16 articles that the second author had
authored or coauthored. Some of his early work like the Review of Buyer
Behavior is reproduced in this volume. The volume was edited by Richard
Lutz, a preeminent scholar in the field. He was one of the doctoral students
who the second author had recruited during his time at the University of
Illinois. Besides editing the volume, Lutz also provides a very good analysis
of Sheth’s contribution to the field. Eminent scholars such as Michael
Houston, Peter Wright, and Hal Kassarjian provided commentaries on the
second author’s work as well as their personal association with him. The
highlight of the volume is Rich Lutz’s (2010) interview of the second author
titled ‘‘Knowledge is an appreciative asset: The more you use it, the better it
gets’’ (2010). In this interview, Rich asked the second author as to what
advice he would give to a young scholar who wishes to make an impactful

and enduring conceptual contribution in consumer behavior. The second
author’s response was as follows:
There are three different pieces of advice for young scholars to make an impactful and
enduring conceptual contribution. First, question an existing orthodoxy and think of an
alternative perspective or even a contrarian hypothesis. Second, publish as a sole author.
Very few top scholars in most disciplines are co-authors. Third, think of making an
impact on a much broader audience than just peers.
The second volume of the series focuses on the second author’s empirical
work in the area of consumer behavior. This volume was edited by noted
researcher C. W. Park. Interestingly C. W. Park was also recruited as a
doctoral student to University of Illinois when the second author was the head
of the marketing department. This volume has 13 papers authored or
coauthored by the second author. Most of the articles are from his early work
on testing parts of the Howard–Sheth model on buyer behavior. Five scholars
in the form of Bill Bearden, Valerie Folkes, Mary Gilly, Flemming Hansen,
and David Stewart shared their thoughts and analyzed Sheth’s contribution
to the discipline. Park’s (2010) interview with the second author was titled ‘‘I
don’t see any breakthrough theory in consumer behavior anchored to
learning or motivation’’ (2010). Addressing a question on the difference
between values and attitudes, he provides us an understanding of why some
theories are better received than others. The second author notes,
I was always puzzled as to why Daniel Katz’s framework was not as well-diffused as
Fishbein’s model of attitudes. My first conclusion was that Fishbein had a scale to
measure his theory but Katz’s was a conceptual paper and he did not provide a
measurement tool. And you know that in today’s focus on empirical research, what is
measured and tested gets published.
He further went on to explain the reason why the Howard–Sheth Theory

of Buyer Behavior was well received.
Fortunately, we had collected longitudinal panel data at Columbia University funded by
General Foods. The Columba Buyer Behavior project was managed by George Day, who
was one of our doctoral students at Columbia University. Also, John Farley and Don
Lehmann, who joined Columbia University’s faculty, provided econometric approach to
testing what is generally considered to be a very complicated theory y My view is that one
must develop a measureable theory which can be replicated across buying behaviors with a
standardized measurement tool and with appropriate analytic techniques.
The third volume of the series was titled Visioning the Future. It includes 13
articles authored by the second author, and the articles focus on his predictions
about the future of different areas of marketing and critique of the marketing
discipline and includes some prognostications based on trends in the society.

This volume was edited by the first author. He is also the editor of the eight
volume series and had worked with the second author as a post-doctoral
student at Emory University. Eminent scholars such as O. C. Ferrell, Rajan
Varadarajan, and Barton A. Weitz commented on his scholarship and
contributions to the disciplines. The interview he had with the second author
was titled ‘‘We are not good marketers of our own research.’’ Answering a
question on how budding academics should select an area of research, he stated,
Selection of a research area is a function of three things. First, is it something you are
passionate about learning and investing your time and talent? y Second, do you have a
perspective, hypothesis or a theory which is either different or has a significant and
differential value add to prevailing wisdom y Finally, is it a research area which is at a
tipping point? In other words, it has been growing peripherally and now it is about to
become mainstream in marketing.
Volume four of the Legends in Marketing series focuses on the second

author’s contributions to the domain of international marketing. As noted
earlier, his interest in this field led him to set up the ICA Institute. Sixteen of
his articles were published in this volume, which was edited by Abdolreza
(Abdi) Eshghi, who has coauthored a number of books on international
business with the second author. Six scholars in the field of international
marketing commented on his work in this area and came from different
countries. They are Johny K. Johansson, Masaaki Kotabe, Howard
Thomas, Guenter Schweiger, David K. Tse, and W. Fred van Raaij. The
interview conducted by Abdi Eshghi (2010) was titled, ‘‘Key research issues
would be around affordability and market access.’’ Answering a question
about the topics that are likely to emerge as top research priorities in
international marketing in the next five years, the second author observes,
First, understanding and participating in emerging markets such as the BRIC nations is
a top priority. Should a company extend its four Ps of marketing or does it need to
adjust? And if so, which P is most in need of adjustment? y Second, the rise of global
enterprises from emerging economies, especially from the BRIC countries has created a
tremendous opportunity for scholarly research y Third, what is the impact of the
Internet on international marketing? y The Internet will simultaneously encourage both
consolidation and fragmentation of markets. In other words, what is happening is more
and more reverse marketing where the transaction begins with online ordering and
impacts the factory and warehousing y Finally, global sourcing is a key emerging
research area in international marketing. This includes global supply chain, reverse
auctions, and strategic partnering with key global suppliers.
The fifth volume of the series focuses on the second author’s early writings
on marketing management. It consists of 10 of his articles on a variety of
strategic topics such as innovation, marketing mix, strategy and political

marketing. It also includes commentary by four scholars of marketing,
namely, Rajesh Chandy, Gary Frazier, Ajay Kohli, and Naresh Malhotra.
It was edited by Can Uslay, who was a student in the second author’s doctoral
seminar and is also a coauthor. Can’s interview (2010) with the second author
was titled ‘‘I want to give whatever I have earned back to the marketing
discipline.’’ While answering a question on altruism and the Sheth
Foundation, the second author mentioned the following:
One can give money to religion. One can give money to social causes. I want to give
whatever I have earned back to the marketing discipline. This has led to establishing the
Sheth Foundation, which supports furtherance of marketing discipline. The Foundation
is now expanding into emerging economies.
The sixth volume of the series includes the second author’s articles on
managerial marketing from 1990 to 2008. It includes a number of commen-
taries on marketing, marketing strategies, and macro marketing. A total of
15 articles were published in this volume. Furthermore, it also includes
comments by five scholars in marketing who commented on him and his
work. They are David Aaker, Philip Kotler, V. Kumar, Robert Peterson,
and Glen Urban. The volume was edited by Rajendra S. Sisodia, as we have
discussed before, has coauthored a number of articles and books with the
second author. The title of the interview that Raj Sisodia (2010) conducted
with the second author is ‘‘Marketing as an institution will survive by
adapting to external changes.’’ In this very interesting interview, the second
author lays out the biggest challenges that marketing managers face today.
The three biggest challenges facing marketing managers are: (a) how to reallocate
marketing resources to alternative channels, alternative media and alternative products/
services; (b) how to get more out of vendors of marketing services, since marketing is the
most outsourced function, even more than human resources, finance, legal, and
information technology services; and (c) how to do internal marketing. In other words,
how to make marketing the most admired function in the company.
The seventh volume of the series focuses on his work in the area of
organizational buying behavior. It includes 13 articles that spanned four
decades. The topics covered are industrial markets and buying behavior,
organizational buying behavior, and buyer–seller relationships. It was edited
by Arun Sharma, who has coauthored a number articles with the second
author in the area of business to business marketing. The volume includes
commentaries by Evert Gummesson, Wesley Johnston, Peter LaPlaca, and
Arch Woodside. Arun Sharma’s (2010) interview with the second author
was titled ‘‘My interests in B-to-B marketing: Customer outsourcing, global
sourcing, e-commerce, and rise of global multinationals.’’ Answering a

question on the reason for a paucity of theories in the B2B domain between
the 1970s to now, he responds,
I think the paucity of thought has to do fundamentally with a lack of a tier one journal
that specializes in this area. I know there are journals on business-to-business marketing
but they have not become tier one journals like the Journal of Retailing and Marketing
Science have become. In terms of tenure and promotion, and in terms of academic
representation, it is critical to be included in the social science citation indexes. If a B2B
marketing journal had been started by the American Marketing Association, the
discipline may have been different. And so in my view, there is no outlet that is well
recognized. The research may be great, but the outlet is lacking.
The final volume of the series focuses on the second author’s pioneering work
in the area of relationship marketing. The volume was edited appropriately by
Atul Parvatiyar, who cofounded the Center for Relationship Marketing along
with the second author at Emory University. The volume consists of 10 articles
that focus on conceptual and theoretical foundations, the evolution of the
relationship marketing paradigm, and relationship marketing practice. The
volume also includes the perspectives of scholars such as Adel-El-Ansary,
Gregory Gundlach, Pervez N. Ghauri, Robert Morgan, and Adrian Payne.
Atul Parvatiyar’s (2010) interview of the second author was titled ‘‘Will
relationship marketing become the basis for a grand theory of marketing?’’
Responding to a question on the impact of relationship marketing on the field
of marketing theory and practice, the second author responds,
Relationship Marketing has had at least three seismic shifts in marketing. First, it shifted
the focus from customer acquisition to customer retention. In other words, as markets
mature, it is more profitable to realign marketing dollars toward customer loyalty
programs and other customer retention tactics with respect to all four Ps of Marketing
y Second, it encouraged customer selectivity. Not all customers can be satisfied
profitably and a company must decide which customers to serve and which ones to
deselect and let go. In other words, RM both in B2B as well as in consumer services
enabled marketers to understand the economics of one-to-one marketing and practice
segment of one. It brought a shift from revenues to profitable revenues y Finally, RM
shifted the focus away from products/services to customers. This was especially important
for one stop shop full line generalists where one could cross-sell across unrelated product
categories. It led to the shift from share of market to share of wallet concept.
APPLYING SHETH TO SHETH
The second author is famous for explaining most of his concepts through a
2 2 matrix. Mary Gilly (2010) used a 2 2 matrix to ‘‘prove’’ that the
second author was a scholar and a gentleman (Legends in Marketing, Vol. 2,

pp. 198–199). As he himself notes in one of his interviews, ‘‘The 2 2 s that I
think have tremendous potential’’ (Vol. 5, p. 192). Hence, it seems apropos
to analyze Sheth and his work using a 2 2 matrix.
Knowledge
Topic Generation Dissemination
breadth
Micro Consumer behavior, Class rooms first, followed
multivariate by board rooms
Macro Organizational buyer Board rooms first,
behavior, Relationship followed by class rooms
marketing, strategy after refinement
The two major facets of academics is knowledge generation and

knowledge dissemination. Hence, this would form one dimension of the
analysis. The second aspect of research and hence teaching is the breadth
of topics or unit of analysis, which could be micro or macro. From the
earlier information, it is evident that Jagdish Sheth started his academic
career in the sixties as a researcher at the micro level and was focused on
knowledge generation. He started disseminating the same knowledge
shortly afterwards in classrooms initially and then in boardrooms. By the
late 1970s having sated his thirst in this area and partly due to his
observations on what the industry needed, he started focusing his
considerable energies on studying issues at a macro level. He did this by
focusing his research on organizational-level and industry-level analyses.
This time, there was hardly any lag time between knowledge generation
and dissemination at the macro level because it was an iterative process. He
would analyze an issue, present his findings to academics and practitioners
alike, and based on the questions raised or suggestions made, would involve
himself in further research. This helped him to keep his research relevant
without sacrificing rigor. It is certainly not surprising that this was an
iterative process as knowledge generation without dissemination is not of
much use and knowledge dissemination is just not possible without
knowledge generation. Although Sheth may like the simplicity and elegance
of a 2 2 matrix, it is not possible to capture the multifaceted Sheth in a 2 2

matrix entirely. Hence, this analysis has been strictly restricted to his research
and teaching.
The second author has been honored with a number of awards. He was
the recipient of the Most Outstanding Contribution to Marketing
Excellence in 1986, Viktor Mataja Medal from the Austrian Research
Society in Vienna (1977), and the 1989 Outstanding Marketing Educator
Award from the Academy of Marketing Science. In 1991, he was also
recognized as the Marketing Educator of the year by Sales and Marketing
Executives International (SMEI). In 1992, the American Marketing
Association awarded him the PD Converse Award for his lifelong
contribution to the discipline of Marketing Theory. In 1996, he was elected
to be the Distinguished Fellow of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Recipient of Outstanding Leadership Award and Distinguished Scholar
Award in 2002, Distinguished Marketing Educator and Charles Coolidge
Parlin Award in 2004, Global Innovation Award in 2008 and in 2011 he was
awarded the Global Management Guru award. However, the ones he
cherishes the most are the ones that he has received for his teaching. Despite
being a legend in the field of marketing and contributing to the research in
various domains, he prides himself as an educator and mentor. Needless to
state, he has been an excellent mentor, and a number of people in the
discipline have benefitted from his mentorship. He has served on the
committees of 55 doctoral students, many of whom are not in the marketing
discipline.
There are a number of academics who are very good researchers and great
educators. However, there are two aspects about the second author that
make him unique. He has not just been a great researcher, but he has been a
preeminent researcher in more than one discipline. The breadth of his work
is such that 11 volumes of different areas where he has made significant
impact were possible. However, only eight were published due to time
constraints. It is very rare for someone to have the kind of profound impact
he has had in the various domains of marketing. The second aspect that
makes him unique is the sincerity and humility with which he approaches
the task of giving back to the discipline. As many of the commentators have
noted through the different volumes of the Legend series, he has been at
the forefront of supporting young academics in the field through the Sheth
foundation. To be as successful as he has been in one of the above mentioned
facets is good. To be successful in every facet makes him a renaissance man
(Sisodia 2004).
REFERENCES
Bartels, R. (1976). The history of marketing thought (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Grid.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berry, L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In: Berry, Shostack & Upah (Eds),
Emerging perspectives on services marketing. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Eshghi, A. (2010). Key research issues would be around affordability and market access. In:
B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in Marketing: Jagdish Sheth (Vol. 4, pp. 227–231). Sage
Publications.
Gilly, M. (2010). A gentleman and a scholar. In: B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in Marketing:
Jagdish Sheth (Vol. 2, pp. 198–199). Sage Publications.
Grönroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of Marketing, 16,
30–41.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.
Hull, C. (1952). A behavior system: An introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual
organism. New Haven: Greenwood Press.
Krishnan, B. C. (2010). We are not good marketers of our own research. In:
Publications.
Krishnan, K. S., Nicolaidis, G. C., & Sheth, J. N. (1978). Analysis of intended bus usage: An
application of the analysis of covariance. Transportation Planning and Technology,
4(Spring), 219–226.
Lutz, R. J. (2010). Knowledge is an appreciative asset: The more you use it, the better it gets. In
Publications.
Naidu, G. M., Parvatiyar, A., Sheth, J. N., & Westgate, L. (1999). Does relationship marketing
pay? An empirical investigation of relationship marketing practices in hospitals. Journal
of Business Research, 46(3), 207–218.
Newman, B. I., & Sheth, J. N. (1985). A model of primary voter behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12(September), 178–187.
Newman, B. I., & Sheth, J. N. (1987). A review of political marketing. Research in Marketing, 9,
237–266 (JAI Press).
Osgood, C. E. (1957). A behavioristic analysis of perception and language as cognitive
phenomena. In: J. Bruner (Ed.), Contemporary approaches to cognition. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Park, C. W. (2010). I don’t see any breakthrough theory in consumer behavior anchored to
learning or motivation. In: B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in marketing: Jagdish Sheth
(Vol. 2) (pp. 207–217).
Parvatiyar, A. (2010). Will relationship marketing become the basis for a grand
theory of marketing? In: B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in marketing: Jagdish Sheth
(Vol. 8) (pp. 237–244).
Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (1997). Paradigm shift in interfirm marketing relationships:
Emerging research issues. Research in Marketing, 13, 233–250.
Parvatiyar, A., & Sheth, J. N. (2000). The domain and conceptual foundations of relationship
marketing. In: J. N. Sheth & A. Parvatiyar (Eds), Handbook of relationship marketing
(pp. 3–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roscoe, A. M., Sheth, J. N., & Howell, W. (1974). Intertechnique cross-validation in cluster
analysis. In: R. C. Curham (Ed.), Combined proceedings (pp. 145–150). American
Shamdasani, P. N., & Sheth, J. N. (1995). An experimental approach to investigating
satisfaction and continuity in marketing alliances. European Journal of Marketing, 29,
6–23.
Sharma, A. (2010). My interests in B-to-B marketing: Customer outsourcing, global sourcing,
e-commerce, and rise of global multinationals. In: B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in
marketing: Jagdish Sheth (Vol. 7) (pp. 231–237).
Sharma, A., & Sheth, J. N. (1997). Relationship marketing: An agenda for research. Industrial
Marketing Management, 26, 87–90.
Sheth, J. N. (1968a). Influence of brand preference on post-decision dissonance. Journal of the
Academy of Applied Psychology, 5, 73–77.
Sheth, J. N. (1968b). A factor analytical model of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research,
5(November), 395–404.
Sheth, J. N. (1969a). Review of buyer behavior. Management Science, 13(August),
B718–B756 (Series B).
Sheth, J. N. (1969b). Using factor analysis to estimate parameters. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 64(September), 808–822.
Sheth, J. N. (1970). Are there differences in post-decision dissonance reduction between
housewives and students? Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 243–245.
Sheth, J. N. (1971a). Multivariate revolution in marketing research. Journal of Marketing,
35(January), 13–19.
Sheth, J. N. (1971b). A theory of family buying decisions. In: P. Pellemans (Ed.), Insights in
consumer and market research (pp. 32–48). Namur University Press.
Sheth, J. N. (1976). A psychological model of travel mode selection. In: B. Anderson (Ed.),
Advances in consumer research, (Vol. 3, pp. 425–430).
Sheth, J. N. (1977). A market-oriented strategy of long-range planning for multinational
corporations. European Research, 5(January), 3–12.
Sheth, J. N. (1980). Research in industrial buying behavior: Today’s needs, tomorrow’s seeds.
Marketing News, pp. 10–11.
Sheth, J. N. (1982). Consumer behavior: Surpluses and shortages. In: A. Mitchell (Ed.),
Advances in consumer research, (Vol. 9, pp. 13–16).
Sheth, J. N. (1983a). A model of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37(October),
50–56.
Sheth, J. N. (1983b). Marketing megatrends. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1(Summer), 5–13.
Sheth, J. N. (1983c). Emerging trends in the retail industry. Journal of Retailing, 59(Fall), 6–18.
Sheth, J. N. (1984a). Winning back your market: The inside stories of companies that did it. New
York: Wiley.
Sheth, J. N. (1984b). Broadening the horizons of ACR and consumer behavior. In:
E. Hirschman, M. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11).
Sheth, J. N. (1988). Changing demographics and the future of graduate management education.
Selections (Spring), 22–27.
Sheth, J. N. (1992). Acrimony in the ivory tower: A retrospective on consumer research. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(4), 345–353.
Sheth, J. N. (2002). The future of relationship marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(7),
590–592.
Sheth, J. N. (2007). The self-destructive habits of good companies y and how to break them.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Publishing Group.
Sheth, J. N. (2008). Chindia rising: How China and India will benefit your business. India: Tata
Mc-Graw Hill.
Sheth, J. N., & Horowitz, A. D. (1977). Strategies of increasing carpooling behavior among
urban commuters. Seminar on Social Research, ESOMAR, Amsterdam, pp. 183–198.
Sheth, J. N., & Johannson, J. (1973). Canonical correlation analysis of competitive market
structure. In: H. W. Hopfe (Ed.), Advancing, applying and teaching decision sciences
(pp. 324–327).
Sheth, J. N., & Lele, M. (1987). The customer is key: Gaining an unbeatable advantage through
customer satisfaction. New York, NY: Wiley.
Sheth, J. N., & Mittal, B. (2001). Value space: Winning the battle for market leadership. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of
consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1992). Toward a theory of business alliance formation.
Scandinavian International Business Review, 1(3), 71–87.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). Relationship marketing in consumer markets:
Antecedents and consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 23(4),
255–271.
Sheth, J. N., & Parvatiyar, A. (1994). Toward a theory of alliance governance. In: Relationship
Marketing: Theory, Methods and Applications. Center for Relationship Marketing.
Sheth, J. N., & Ram, S. (1987). Bringing innovation to market: How to break corporate and
customer barriers. New York: Wiley.
Sheth, J. N., & Sethi, P. S. (1977). A theory of cross-cultural buyer behavior. In: A. Woodside,
J. N. Sheth & P. Bennett (Eds), Consumer and industrial buying behavior (pp. 17–34).
American Elsevier.
Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (1997a). Supplier relationships: Emerging issues and challenges.
Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 91–100.
Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (1997b). The relationship orientation of firms: A framework for
analysis. Relationship Marketing Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1995a). Feeling the heat. Marketing Management, 4(Fall), 9–23.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1995b). Feeling the heat – Part 2. Marketing management,
4(Winter), 19–33.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (1999). Revisiting marketing’s lawlike generalizations. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(Winter), 71–87.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2002). The rule of three: Surviving and thriving in competitive
markets. New York, NY: Free Press.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2005). Does marketing need reform? Journal of Marketing,
69(October), 10–12.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2007a). Raising marketing’s aspirations. Journal of Public Policy
and Marketing, 26(1), 141–143.
Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. S. (2007b). Tectonic shift: The geoeconomic realignment of globalizing
markets. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sheth, J. N., & Sobel, A. (2000). Clients for life: Evolving from an expert-for-hire to an
extraordinary adviser. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Sheth, J. N., & Venkatesan, M. (1968). Risk reduction processes in repetitive consumer
behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 5(August), 307–311.
Sisodia, R. S. (2004). The books of Jagdish Sheth: Enduring contributions to marketing theory
and practice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 461–467.
Sisodia, R. S. (2010). Marketing as an institution will survive by adapting to external changes.
In: B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in marketing: Jagdish Sheth (Vol. 6) (pp. 261–266).
Sisodia, R. S., Wolfe, D. B., & Sheth, J. N. (2006). Firms of endearment. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Wharton Publishing Group.
Uslay, C. (2010). I want to give whatever i have earned back to the marketing discipline. In:
B. C. Krishnan (Ed.), Legends in marketing: Jagdish Sheth (Vol. 5)(pp. 187–212).
YORAM ‘‘JERRY’’ WIND’S
CONTRIBUTIONS TO
MARKETING
Yoram ‘‘Jerry’’ Wind
ABSTRACT
The chapter briefly reviews the eight volumes in my Legend series –

organizational buying behavior, consumer behavior, product and new
product management, marketing strategy, market segmentation, global
marketing, marketing research and modeling, and the future of market-
ing. In addition, the chapter highlights the three driving forces of much of
my research: (a) the real world challenges facing corporations and
organizations, (b) the search for new methodological developments, and
(c) the continuous challenge of the prevailing marketing concepts
and approaches. The chapter concludes with some reflections on the
evolution of marketing in the past five decades and my wish list for the
discipline and my future activities.

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008012
269
270 YORAM ‘‘JERRY’’ WIND
INTRODUCTION
I am honored and humbled to be included as one of the first 10 ‘‘Legends of

Marketing.’’
Although the initial assignment of identifying major streams of my
research and editors for these volumes was a relatively easy task, the task
Naresh asked for – a single chapter summarizing all of my contributions – is
a daunting and difficult challenge.
The difficulty is not only in trying to summarize the content of the eight
volumes, but the mere fact that I would have hoped that a major part of my
contributions have not only been my published research but through
interactions with students, colleagues, and executives of the various
companies and organizations with whom I have worked over the years.
These interactions have also had a major influence on my own thinking and
writing and are reflected in many of my publications, many of which are
referenced in this chapter, and which can be found on my website: http://
marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/cv/Jerry_Wind_CV.pdf.
In pulling together my various publications and organizing them for the
Legends series, I identified eight domains, which are listed with their volume
editors and contributors, in Table 1. They have some significant overlap and
to understand the overlaps, it will be helpful to state at the beginning the
three underlying themes that have influenced most of my research activities:
a. The real world challenges facing corporations and organizations.
b. The search for and use of the latest methodological developments to
assure the rigor and validity of the solutions.
c. The continuous challenge of prevailing concepts and approaches in
search of better ones.
The Real World Challenges
One of my strong beliefs has always been that a major part of our role as
academics of an applied field such as marketing is to bridge the gap between
the academia and business.
Advances in medicine have been possible because of the close link
between the medical schools and their hospitals. For us in marketing, the
consulting world (whether for corporations, governments, or nonprofits,
and whether for pay or as pro bono activities) offers the opportunity to
develop and apply concepts and methods that could address and solve real
Table 1. The Jerry Wind Legends of Marketing Series.
Volume Editors Commentators
Organizational Buying Robert J. Thomas

Behavior Professor of Marketing & Executive Robert Spekman
Director, Georgetown Center for Arch Woodside
Professional Development & Innovation; Wesley Johnston
McDonough School of Business,
Georgetown University
Consumer Behavior Barbara Kahn John Deighton

Patty and Jay H. Baker Professor; Professor Arun Jain
of Marketing; Director, Jay H. Baker Dave Schmittlein
Retailing Center, The University
of Pennsylvania
Robert Meyer
Gayfryd Steinberg Professor; Professor of
Marketing; Co-Director, Risk Management
and Decision Processes Center, The
Wharton School, University of
Pennsylvania
Product and New Vijay Mahajan Glen Urban

Product John P. Harbin Centennial Chair in Eitan Muller
Management Business, Professor of Marketing; Arvind Rangaswamy
McCombs School of Business, The
University of Texas at Austin
Marketing Strategy David Reibstein Christine Moorman

William Stewart Woodside Professor of George Day
Marketing; The Wharton School, The Don Lehman
University of Pennsylvania Dominique Hanssens
Market Segmentation David Bell Josh Eliashberg

Xinmei Zhang and Yongge Dai Professor; Sunil Gupta
Professor of Marketing; The Wharton Gary Lilien
School, The University of Pennsylvania
Global Marketing Arun Jain C. Samuel Craig

Samuel P. Capen Professor of Marketing Johnny K. Johansson
Research, University of Buffalo Roger Calontone
Roger Layton
Marketing Research Vithala R. Rao Howard Moskowitz

and Modeling Deane W. Malott Professor of Joel Steckel
Management, Professor of Marketing and Naresh Malhotra
Quantitative Methods; The Johnson School,
Cornell University
The Future of George Day Phil Kotler

Marketing Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor; Professor Dave Reibstein
of Marketing; The Wharton School, The Fred Webster
University of Pennsylvania
Notes: The Legends of Marketing series was launched by Sage. The 10 initial legends include:
Jagdish Sheth, Philip Kotler, Kent Monroe, Shelby Hunt, Naresh Malhotra, V. Kumar,
Richard Bagozzi, Gerald Zaltman, Paul Green, and Jerry Wind.
world problems. In my case, many of the methodological developments with

which I have been involved relating to multidimensional scaling, conjoint
analysis, diffusion models, and other methods or the design of research
processes such as concept testing approaches and adaptive experimentation
have been the direct response to management challenges. Even my recent
works on mental models have been motivated by the realization that one of
the major obstacles to successful business transformation is the mental
models of the executives.
Search and Development of New Marketing Research and Models
Ever since my doctorate studies at Stanford in the mid-1960s, I have been

intrigued with new research methods and models in many of the behavioral
sciences. Most notable are the breakthrough developments in mathematical
psychology (especially MDS, clustering, and conjoint analysis), in decision
theory (especially the development by Tom Saaty of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process) and in diffusion models, and recently, in complexity theory and
networks. Many of these methods were superior to the approaches used at
the time in marketing and provided opportunities to explore and experiment
with the design of innovative methods to better address the real world
challenges faced by management.
Challenging the Prevailing Concepts and Approaches
As a result of the need to address real world challenges and the opportunities
to develop new research designs utilizing new research and modeling
approaches, I was able to challenge some of the conventional wisdom of
marketing and introduce new concepts. In the past decade, with the increased
importance of the empowered consumers, radical technological advances,
globalization, and increased demand for greater accountability for return
on marketing and advertising investments, challenging the current mental
models of marketing and advertising became a must and was the thrust of my
recent activities, including the publication of the Power of Impossible Thinking
and the initiation of the Future of Advertising Project (http://myfoa.net/).
These driving forces of my research and professional activities are
illustrated in Fig. 1. The balance of this chapter will provide a brief
summary of each of the eight domains covered in my Legends of Marketing
series. The chapter will conclude with (a) some reflections on the evolution
Yoram ‘‘Jerry’’ Wind’s Contributions to Marketing 273
I. Real World II. Methodological

Challenges Developments
III. Challenging
Prevailing
Concepts &
Approaches
Fig. 1. The Driving Forces of My Research.
of marketing in the past five decades and the role I have played and (b) with
my wish list for the discipline and my own activities.
ORGANIZATIONAL BUYING BEHAVIOR

My 1966 doctoral dissertation at Stanford focused on organizational buying
behavior and its implications for marketing to organizations. Until then,
studies of business-to-business marketing were almost always focused on
purchasing agents and how they acquired products and services for their
organizations; my research identified a broader group of participants – the
buying center – and a more comprehensive process of industrial buying
behavior and its determinants.
As I continued to study organizational buying behavior, my research
evolved into six interrelated topics, driven by my concern for a focus on
relevant problems, improved research methods, and challenging existing
ways of thinking about organizational buying behavior:
organizational buying processes;

drivers of organizational buying behavior;
the organizational buying center;
industrial market segmentation;
creative insights on markets of organizations; and
evolving futures in organizational buying behavior.
When I joined the Wharton faculty in January 1967, I also started

working with the Marketing Science Institute (MSI), where I contributed
several chapters to MSI’s Industrial Marketing and Creative Marketing
(Robinson, Faris, & Wind, 1967) book. The chapter that resonates most
with me is The Determinants of Industrial Buyers’ Behavior in which I
identified five sets of variables instrumental in understanding and explaining
the behavior of individual organizational buyers: the links between a buyer’s
own psychological and behavioral characteristics; the interpersonal influ-
ences of other organizational members; organizational variables; inputs
from various sources of supply; and environmental variables. This expanded
my thinking into the BuyGrid model – Fig. 2 – which introduced the
concept that marketing to an organization requires an understanding of
three key dimensions of buyer behavior and their interaction:
The buying situation and buying context – the purchase status of an
individual product or service as a new task, a straight rebuy, or a modified
rebuy. A challenging supplier will attempt to influence the buying
organization to engage in a new task or modified rebuy, whereas the
incumbent supplier will try to keep the purchase as a straight rebuy.
Fig. 2. The BuyGrid Model.

The buying process – the phases or processes through which products and
services are acquired. The complexity, uncertainty, and specific phases of
the process vary according to the buying situation – for example new task
buying tends to be the most complex buying process, often with high
degrees of uncertainty and a multiperson buying center.
The buying center – all those involved in the buying process. The composition
and dynamics of the buying center depend on the buying situation.
Several papers evolved from this early work. Industrial Source Loyalty
(Wind, 1970), moved beyond the then-customary practice of studying
consumer loyalty to brands and stores, and examined the loyalty of industrial
firms to their suppliers. A Reward-Balance Model of Buying Behavior in
Organizations (1971) introduced the proposition that the set of criteria
used to reward the buyer is a major determinant of buying decisions. In
formulating it, I applied the behavioral principle of homeostasis and found
support for the model with a case study of two electronic component
manufacturers. With Fred Webster, I developed A General Model for
Understanding Organizational Buying Behavior (Webster & Wind, 1972). The
so-called Webster–Wind Model proposed the most comprehensive concep-
tualization of organizational buying behavior at the time and provided a
basis to design marketing strategies that could reach the organization in an
effective manner.
Although my 1966 dissertation initially formalized the buying center
concept as a two-part phenomenon – those who had direct contact with the
purchase decision, and those in the organization who were linked to those
who had direct contact with the purchase, but with lesser influence – I later
broadened the definition to include all the organizational members involved
in the purchase decision, a more structured approach to marketing and
selling. This expanded approach was formalized in Organizational Buying
Center: A Research Agenda (Wind, 1978), which focused on the challenge of
implementing the concept of the buying center. It was also reflected in
Emerging Models of Organizational Buying Processes (Nicosia & Wind,
1977). With The Linking Pin Role in Organizational Buying Centers (Wind &
Robertson, 1981), we introduced the role of linking the buying organization
with other organizations.
My interest in new research tools and methods of analysis was reflected in
all my work on organizational buying behavior. Over the years the methods
I employed included attitude measurement (Integrating Attitude Measures in
a Study of Industrial Buying Behavior, Wind, 1968), simulations (Wind &
Robinson, 1968), complex marketing research designs in the development of
industrial products and services (Grashof & Wind, 1981), decision analysis
of high-risk patient referral (Richardson, Gabbe, & Wind 1984), and of
course conjoint analysis, which has been at the core of many of my B2B
consulting projects and resulting publications. In Organizational Psycho-
graphics and Innovativeness we utilized a hospital setting to demonstrate that
psychographics – or attitudes, opinions and beliefs – were also important in
business to business activity. As part of my effort to expand the understanding
of buying behavior, in Strategy-Driven Industrial Marketing Research
(Wind & Thomas, 1991), we developed a framework for integrating strategic
decisions and organizational buying behavior. My initial work on Market
Segmentation with Ron Frank and Bill Massy, (Frank, Massy, & Wind, 1972)
was extended to organization buying behavior with Industrial Market
Segmentation (Wind & Cardozo, 1974), which focused on the concepts
of macro- and micro-segmentation. In this and later works, we examined
the effects of market segmentation on organizations as well as consumers.
In Segmenting Industrial Markets (Wind & Thomas, 1994), we built the
segmentation decisions into a comprehensive managerial approach to
industrial market segmentation, extending the segment focus to include the
sales force and other relevant stakeholders. In an effort to improve the
understanding of the structure of segmented markets and strategic marketing
decisions, I collaborated on Market-Based Guidelines for Design of Industrial
Products (Wind, Grashof, & Goldhar, 1978), which explained how marketing
decisions can be made based on the integration of many of the concepts and
methods discussed in my earlier research.
Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Organizational Buying Behavior
(Wind & Thomas, 1980), provided a comprehensive review of the major
issues facing the field, whereas Blurring the Lines: Is There a Need to Rethink
Industrial Marketing? (Wind, 2007) challenged academic researchers and
practitioners with the thesis that an emerging ‘‘convergence’’ in business-to-
business and consumer marketing blurs the traditional boundaries between
how organizations buy and how consumers buy. This convergence opens the
door for new conceptualizations, research methods, and managerial oppor-
tunities to capitalize on the richness of studying organizational buying
behavior.
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
Studies of consumer behavior have been at the core of my research, which

applied methodological rigor and innovative conceptualization in its pursuit.
As The Institute of Management Science (TIMS) representative on the

policy’s board that established JCR, I stressed the need for methodological
innovation and rigor and the integration of the behavioral and management
sciences.
In recognition of the importance of understanding of consumers’
activities, interests and opinions in gaining an overall understanding of
consumer lifestyle and its relationship to marketing initiatives, I wrote Life
Style Analysis: A New Approach (1971). Although life style analysis had
gained a prominent role in many commercial segmentation studies, most
utilized simple correlation and cross-tabulation to relate the AIO and other
background characteristics to product usage data. This chapter – which
suggested that a multiple discriminant analysis seemed to be a more
appropriate method given the multivariate nature of lifestyle data – was also
the first attempt at an operational conceptualization of life style, and was
undertaken in the hope it would lead to more systematic selection of the
dimensions of life style and thus to better questionnaires and resulting life
style data.
In 1972, Paul Green, Arun Jain and I published Benefit Bundle Analysis,
which addressed the question of quantifying benefit importance, and
provided an explicit approach for examining the components of overall
product-service utility in the realistic case where the consumer must make
tradeoff decisions among benefits. This approach also provides ways to
examine individual differences in benefit evaluations. Further, while we
employed an additive model, various extensions can be made to cope with
interactions. By using different types of fractional factorial designs one can
keep the respondent’s ranking task manageable.
With the publication of Preference of Relevant Others and Individual
Choice Models (Wind, 1976) I suggested an approach, based on recent
developments in choice models, for quantifying the relative importance of
the preferences of relevant others in decision-makers’ choice behavior and
whether individuals differ with respect to the importance of the influence of
others on their own decisions. As the chapter detailed, I found that utilizing
a two-stage conjoint measurement approach provided insight not only on
the magnitude of influence but also on the reasons for accepting or rejecting
such influence.
With On the Measurement of Purchase Data: Surveys Versus Purchase
Diaries (Wind & Lerner, 1979), we linked individual consumers’ survey
responses to their panel diary recordings and found that the results for some
(margarine) categories indicated correspondence between the two data sets
at the aggregate brand share level but great discrepancies at the individual
consumer level. This called into question the use of survey reports as an
indicator of individual purchase in product positioning, segmentation,
advertising, media, and copy research and concept-product testing.
The chapter suggested the need for future research examining the
relationship between survey and diary purchase data for other product
categories; assessments of the characteristics of households that report
accurately versus those that have a high discrepancy between their reported
and recorded purchases; and called for the direction of attention and effort
to the development of more reliable and accurate ways of measuring
reported purchases in a survey context.
The chapter also called for consideration of research designs that would
combine diary purchase data with survey data of respondents’ perception of
and preference for various brands; and the undertaking of a research
program aimed at providing systematic answers to questions concerning the
validity of purchasing measures, reported survey data, and determining
which specific survey methods should be used for what objective.
In Courtyard by Marriott: Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-
Based Marketing Models (Wind, Green, Shifflet, & Scarbrough, 1989), we
used conjoint analysis among business and nonbusiness travelers to design
the new Courtyard by Marriott hotel chain. It was the first attempt to use
marketing science to supplement designers, architects and others in the
creation of a new hotel. The study (which was a finalist for the Adelman
Award) served as a model to subsequent hotel designs and design of other
products and services involving large set of attributes (in the case of
Courtyard by Marriott over 50 factors of 2–7 levels each).
Studies of consumer behavior have been at the core of my research for
publications, consulting, and legal cases. These studies utilized a variety of
research approaches from multidimensional scaling, conjoint analysis;
psychophysics in Experiments in the Multidimensional Psychophysics of
Taste and Semantic Descriptions (Green & Wind, 1972); the quantitative
analysis of qualitative data in Analyzing Free-Response Data in Marketing
Research (Green, Wind, & Jain, 1973); and the use of multiple approaches in
the search for convergence validity in A Comparison of Three Brand
Evaluation Procedures (Wind, Denny, & Cunningham, 1979).
In addition, my consumer behavior research included a number of
conceptual developments, including:
Incongruency of Socioeconomic Variables and Buying Behavior

(Wind, 1969)
Models of Customer Behavior (Wind, 1970)
Intentions to Buy as Predictors of Buying Behavior (Douglas & Wind,

1971)
Preference Measurement of Item Collections (Green, Wind, & Jain, 1972)
Brand-Features Congruence Mapping (Green, Wind, & Claycamp, 1975)
Multiperson Influence and Usage Occasions as Determinants of Brand
Choice (Wind, 1975)
On the Usage of ‘Modified’ Personality Trait Measures in Consumer
Research (Wind & DeVita, 1976)
A 1975 Retrospective View of Bourne’s 1957 ‘‘Group Influence in
Marketing’’ (Wind, 1977)
Brand Choice (Wind, 1977)
Examining Family Role and Authority Patterns: Two Methodological
Issues (Douglas & Wind, 1978)
Sociology of Consumption and Trade-Off Models in Consumer Public
Policy (Nicosia & Wind, 1978)
A Note on the Relationship Between Perceived Problems, Severity, and
Frequency of Occurrence (Wind & Shubs, 1981)
Exploration Into the Time-Money Tradeoff: Concepts and an Application
(Deighton, Nicosia, & Wind, 1983)
One of the streams of my consumer research has been the changing

dynamics of consumer behavior. Table 2 illustrates some of these changing
dynamics and their importance to business and marketing strategy. In recent
years, most of my research focused on the increased empowerment of the
consumers and its implications to the traditional mental models of
marketing and business strategy.
The empowered consumers are in control (Wind & Mahajan, 2002), and
management has to adjust its strategies to provide platforms that engage
consumers as co-designers (Dell), co-producers (user-generated content),
co-distributors (diapers.com), and co-marketers (Ford Fiesta).
NEW PRODUCT MANAGEMENT
When I began researching product policy it had not yet received much
attention, and was often viewed just as one of the 4Ps of marketing
management.
In Product Policy (Wind, 1982) – one of the first textbooks in this area – I
developed a theory and methodology for product policy, arguing that it
should be viewed as an integral part of a business’ growth strategy.
Table 2. Illustrative Changes in Consumer Dynamics.

Increasingly empowered consumers
Consumer as co-designer, co-producer, and co-marketer
Fear, lack of trust and confidence
Market heterogeneity
The blurring of the lines between B2C & B2B
The emergence of social networks and C2C
From Customer Relationship Management (CRM) to Customer Managed Relationship
(CMR)
The changing dynamics of the buying center
The changing buying process for different buying situations
The duality of cognitive and emotional appeals
The power of Positive Psychology
The impact of priming
The importance of life time value and share of wallet
The centrality of engagement, customer experience, and advocacy
The paradox of choice
Changing loyalties
One of the major areas of my research in the product policy domain

developing was new analytical approaches to portfolio analysis. At the time,
portfolio analysis utilized simplified models such as the Boston Consulting
Group growth-share matrix; but in An Empirical Comparison of Standar-
dized Portfolio Models (Wind, Mahajan, & Swire, 1983), we pointed out that
the existing approaches were extremely sensitive to the way the market share
and growth measures were defined and showed how these simplified
portfolio models offered little valid guidance to the composition of the best
portfolio of products.
A series of papers, Planning Product Line Strategy: A Matrix Approach
(Wind & Claycamp, 1976) Risk Return Approach to Product Portfolio
Strategy (Cardozo & Wind, 1985) and Integrating Financial Portfolio
Analysis with Product Portfolio Models (Mahajan & Wind, 1985) showed
how a risk-return portfolio analysis – originally developed in economics and
finance – could be applied to product line decisions and directly relate
corporate or divisional financial objectives of level and volatility of earnings
to product/market choices. Stochastic Dominance Rules for Product
Portfolio Analysis (Mahajan, Wind, & Bradford, 1982) extended the
analysis beyond mean and variance to all the moments of the distribution.
We also expanded the product line portfolio focus to global strategies
with International Portfolio Analysis and Strategy: The Challenge of the 80s
(Wind & Douglas, 1981) which outlined an operational approach to

strategic planning for international marketing strategy utilizing portfolio
perspectives.
With the publication of Business Synergy Does Not Always Pay Off
(Mahajan & Wind, 1988), we provided an approach for the consideration of
synergy within a portfolio. We also described how the search for synergy
should be guided by a focus on specific synergistic dimensions, taking into
consideration the type of business involved.
Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Wind & Saaty,
1980) introduced the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as an approach to
the design of portfolios of products, market segments, and businesses.
Designing Product and Business Portfolios (Wind & Mahajan, 1981)
provided an overview of the various approaches to portfolio analysis,
including: (a) Standardized Portfolio Approaches, which included matrices
composed of univariate dimensions (such as the BCG model), the composite
dimensions approaches of GE/McKinsey of industry attractiveness and
business strength, the business profit matrix composed of competitive
marketing position and industry maturity and the directional policy matrix
focused on profitability of the market segment and the competitive position
in the segment, (b) Financial-Based Portfolio Approaches – The risk-return
model and the stochastic dominance approach and (c) the Customized
Portfolio Approach, including product performance matrix, conjoint
analysis-based approaches, and the AHP-based approaches.
Assessing these diverse approaches, we recommended a shift toward the
customized approaches and the use of multiple approaches. We also
prepared a seven step approach for evaluating an existing portfolio model or
designing an idiosyncratic approach.
Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass Customization (Wind &
Rangaswamy, 2001) proposed that the next stage of evolution of mass
customization is customerization – a buyer-centric strategy that combines
mass customization with customized marketing. Spurred by the growth of
the Internet and related technologies, many leading companies (e.g., Dell
and Nike) started deploying customerization on a large scale. In this chapter
we defined customerization and described how it is different from the related
strategies of mass customization, personalization, and one-to-one market-
ing. We also described the opportunities and challenges companies face in
deploying a customerization strategy, and the potential benefits that they
might realize.
In The Challenge of ‘Customerization’ in Financial Services (Wind, 2001), I
explored customerization in financial service firms, noting that although it
raises a number of challenges that include issues of customer privacy,

customerization also offers financial institutions tremendous opportunities
to grow their companies and expand strategic relationships. The recent
technological advances and the trend toward more empowered consumers
make this topic even more timely and critical and applicable to ALL
products and services.
In On the Use of Attitude Research in Product Policy (Wind & Tyebjee,
1977), we explored the way attitude research – the study of respondents’
awareness, perceptions, beliefs, and other characteristics – may be used to
improve an organization’s design and control of its product policy. Toward
a Change in the Focus of Marketing Analysis: From a Single Brand to an
Assortment (1997), noted that the traditional focus on the purchase of a
single brand as the dependent variable in marketing studies and brand
choice models is misleading. In contrast, the focus should be on the
assortment of brands considered, purchased, stored, used, and discarded.
The concept of product assortment was also explored in Going to Market:
New Twists for Some Old Tricks (1980), which explored the importance of
segmenting a company’s constituents, understanding the different behaviors
of the different segments, and developing a marketing strategy that will
produce a desired positioning for each segment.
Product positioning and segmentation as a key foundation of product
policy was featured in a series of works that included:
Positioning Analysis and Strategy (Wind, 1990)
Got Emotional Product Positioning? There’s More to Positioning Than Just
Features and Benefits (Mahajan & Wind, 2002)
Beyond Product Substitution: The Impact of Satellite Radio on Sale of CDs
and Music Downloads (Wind & Kreiger, 2008)
I also addressed concepts related to product and marketing analysis
and planning in Product-Marketing Planning Models: Concepts, Techniques,
and Needed Development (1979). In it, I suggested that marketing prac-
titioners should not ask whether analytical approaches work, but should
instead determine which of the many analytical approaches are better
suited for their firm and the specific product/market situation that’s being
considered.
When I was asked to present the keynote address at the European Society
for Opinion and Marketing Research, I used the occasion to highlight
research in the area of product management and new product development
as described in The Contribution of Research to Product Management and
New Product Development (Wind, 1983). I noted that despite the increased
sophistication in product-associated research and analytical approaches, the

rate of new product failure continued to be staggering. In the address I
identified some of the major obstacles to the effective utilization of the
available research and analytical approaches; and proposed 12 rules for
increased effectiveness of research utilization for product management and
new product development. These are summarized in Table 3.
New Product Models: Practice, Shortcomings and Desired Improvements
(Mahajan & Wind, 1992) assessed the role of new product research and
models in supporting and improving the new product development process.
Marketing Hype: A New Perspective for New Product Research and
Introduction (Wind & Mahajan, 1987), focused on marketing hype, and a set
of prelaunch activities that can lead to the creation of a supportive market
environment.
Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to
a Special JMR Issue (Wind & Mahajan, 1997) demonstrated that current
Table 3. How to Get More Out of Marketing Research and Modeling

Approaches.
1. Assure the relevance of the research and modeling activities
2. Get user involvement in problem definition, research and model design and data
interpretation stages
3. Get researcher involvement in strategy generation and evaluation
4. Management approval should be of expected output, not of a questionnaire
5. Design and analysis should reflect state-of-the-art methodology, reliance only on cross tabs
can no longer be accepted
6. Focus on innovative research designs and data collection procedures but avoid fads
7. Assure the reliability, validity, and needed level of generalizability of the (research and
modeling) results
8. Reduce reliance on a single comprehensive report, focus on short-specific reports and on the
ongoing use of the data and modeling to answer management questions
9. Integrate data from all marketing research studies with relevant data bases (including
secondary data, competitive analysis, internal data, etc.) in a decision support system
10. Coordinate marketing research with other research and data gathering and analysis
activities of the firm
11. Consider switching from a ‘‘buy’’ mode (company researchers as brokers) to ‘‘make’’ mode
(in-house research)
12. Conduct a periodic audit of the marketing research and modeling function, including the
new product development activities
Source: The Contribution of Research to Product Management and New Product Development,
Jerry Wind (1983).
approaches to new product development were inadequate, given the rapid

technological and other changes that the business environment was under-
going. As marketing researchers and modelers approach their tasks, we called
for a portfolio of both incremental and breakthrough innovations and for
new research and modeling initiatives aimed at addressing the critical new
product development issues such as the ones illustrated in Table 4.
With Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance: A
Reexamination (Mahajan & Wind, 1986) we suggested that the high failure
rate of new product introductions indicated the need for further work in
basic diffusion models; the use of analytical approaches that can assist in
linking various types of sales data to the number of adopters; and the
development of conceptual and analytical frameworks to study the impact
of the timing of entry and exit of firms and their competitive strategies on a
product’s growth.
Table 4. Critical NPD Issues.

The Output of the NPD Process
1. Incremental innovation and breakthrough innovation
2. Speed and quality
The context of NPD
3. Design standardized multicountry products and design to meet the local market needs
4. Design for the $10,000 club of countries and design for the rest of the world
5. Technology solutions and socio-technological solutions
6. The genius inventor and organizational efforts to innovate
7. Isolated NPD effort and organizational commitment to innovation
The Scope of NPD
8. Executive foresight (and technology ‘‘push’’) and customer insight (and market ‘‘pull’’)
9. Mass production and mass customization (and the impact of WWW)
10. Product proposition and value proposition
11. Internal R&D development and external development (including licensing, strategic
alliance, etc.)
12. Customer and especially lead user focus and input and involvement of suppliers,
distributors and other stakeholder
The Process of NPD
13. Stage gate process and concurrent development
14. Functional depth and cross-functional integration
15. Project portfolio and multigeneration portfolio and platforms
16. The use of decision tools (including expert systems) and creativity
17. First to market and market readiness
18. Teams and champions
Source: Wind and Mahajan (1997).

In New Product Diffusion Models: From Theory to Practice (Mahajan,

Muller, & Wind, 2000) we continued to explore diffusion models, demon-
strating that in addition to prelaunch forecasting, they could be useful in
analyzing major strategic decisions that explicitly require considerations of life
cycle dynamics over time.
We also argued for wider analysis of consumer characteristics in
Experiments in the Multidimensional Psychophysics of Taste and Semantic
Descriptions (Green & Wind, 1972), where we pointed out that analytical
techniques – like multidimensional scaling, conjoint measurement, and
multivariate analysis – could be utilized to gain a better understanding of
multidimensional psychophysics and semantics related to the evaluation of
beverage and food items. Further, these research procedures could be
employed in the analysis of consumers’ reactions to other nontaste physical
stimuli, including visual, auditory, and skin responses.
Reflecting on this body of work suggests that while the concepts and
methods we used are still valid, the focus on products has been too narrow
and should be expanded to include services, total solutions, and customer
experience.
MARKETING STRATEGY
In Marketing Strategy: New Directions for Theory and Research (Wind &
Robertson, 1983), we looked beyond the then-dominant marketing manage-
ment approach, and articulated a focus on marketing strategy. We pointed
out that marketing management was fundamentally concerned with the
design of the marketing program, or mix, bypassing issues like the mission
of the firm and how to achieve consumer or competitive advantage.
In contrast, marketing strategy explicitly focused on the quest for long-
run competitive and consumer advantage, and was positioned to be an
integral part of an organization’s overall business strategy, providing a
marketing perspective that makes use of relevant marketing concepts and
methods as input to the organization’s strategic business decisions.
The overlap of business strategy and marketing strategy was further
explored in Customerization: The Next Revolution in Mass Customization
(Wind & Rangaswamy, 2000). Viewing customization as a business strategy
that recasts a company’s marketing and customer interfaces in a buyer-
centric manner, letting an organization offer numerous product options that
give customers a customized shopping, purchasing, and consumption
experience that is under the control of customers and initiated by them.
In Convergence Marketing: Meeting the Challenge of the New Hybrid

Consumer (Wind, 2005), I expanded the concepts of Convergence Marketing
(Wind & Mahajan, 2002) and suggested that as new technologies emerge
and develop, ‘‘hybrid’’ customers integrate them into their lives, changing
their behavior in ways that companies may not anticipate. Companies need
to combine strategies of standardization and customization both online and
offline, in what is called ‘‘the five Cs’’ of convergence marketing:
Managing the convergence of mass-produced, mass-marketed products

and services with ‘‘customerization,’’ or the tailoring of product, service,
and message to individual consumers.
Converging with virtual and nonvirtual communities through online and
offline efforts.
Converging on channels by establishing multiple ‘‘touch points,’’ that let
consumers connect electronically or in person, easily moving between the
mediums.
Converging on competitive value by integrating flexible pricing options –
in addition to the traditional fixed price offering – into marketing
strategies, and by enhancing value. Flexible pricing could include
auctions, ‘‘name your own pricing’’ and other creative initiatives. Value
can also be enhanced by expanding an offering beyond the product to
include service, brand, speed, availability, and convenience.
Converging on choice, or empowering consumers by giving them more
choice and decision-making options with search engines that let them
compare prices, and other online and in-person tools, like access to
professional advice.
I continued to integrate marketing strategy into overall business strategy
with Marketing as an Engine of Business Growth: A Cross-Functional
Perspective (Wind, 2005a), which described how, in an environment of
rapid change, market insights could drive innovation. They may do so
when marketing perspectives are integrated across the organization –
touching research and development, finance, operations, and other
aspects of the entire firm –while leveraging technology and marketing to
create convergence and rethinking the customer experience and relation-
ships.
I noted that creating these kinds of broader perspectives may not always
mean dismantling existing organizational silos. One alternative might
involve maintaining a disciplinary/functional structure, by creating linking
processes, developing a matrix structure, changing the corporate culture and
incentive and reward systems, or engaging in creative reengineering and

restructuring of the entire organization.
Although I was trying to advance the integration of marketing with broad
business strategy, I was also reexamining the viability of the discipline of
marketing itself in my acceptance address of the Buck Weaver Award at
MIT which was published as A Plan to Invent the Marketing We Need Today
(Wind, 2008b). There I noted that tools like conjoint analysis and data
mining have raised the level of sophistication of marketing and enabled
the discipline to provide the enterprise with greater insights. But many of
the most rigorous marketing tools were developed years ago to address
problems of the past, not of the present and future.
I proposed seven strategies to improve the rigor and relevance of
marketing research and practice:
Bridging disciplinary silos. Bridging the artificial barriers between research

and development, operations, finance, and marketing; between company
and consumer; and between quantitative and behavioral approaches.
Shift from traditional management to network orchestration. Marketing
increasingly depends on an approach that connects with markets and
resources across the boundaries of both enterprises and nations.
Expanding the enterprise-centric model of customer relationship manage-
ment (CRM) to one that also empowers customers to manage their
relationship with the enterprise – a customer managed relationship (CMR).
As part of this effort, the focus of marketing needs to evolve from
its traditional solution development function to one that includes
the creation of tools that enable customers to co-create their own
solutions.
Shifting from company branded products to customer branded solutions.
Instead of the traditional focus on branded products, companies could
brand integrated solutions to specific customer needs. Consider for
example the typical case of a patient with multiple ailments such as high
cholesterol, diabetes, and depression. Is the current offering of three
different brands, one for each disease, the right solution? Or should we
develop for this segment of patients one brand that includes the three
drugs as well as exercise, diet, and life style information?
Revising return on investment analytics and metrics to move beyond today’s
backward-looking financial measures that are too narrow and too late.
Alternatives include developing customer profitability measures like share
of customer’s wallet and lifetime value of the customer. By linking these
and other metrics to marketing activities and performance measures like
sales and share, the relationship of marketing initiatives to performance

outcomes could be directly measured.
Adopting the adaptive experimentation philosophy – or integrating research
and action – in all of the organization’s activities. Encouraging the use of
diverse strategies – such as launching multiple experimental marketing
initiatives at varying budget levels, instead of pouring the entire budget
into a single strategy – can enable an organization to learn by comparing
results from more than a single market initiative while establishing a
foundation for additional experiments in successive periods.
Challenging and changing mental models. Organizations need to rethink the
way they interact with increasingly empowered customers – developing
new ways to understand their behavior and capture and analyze data
associated with it, and devising strategies to influence their behavior in a
way that’s consistent with the company’s objectives.
A major part of my work on marketing strategy centered on the needed

tools – both new concepts and methods – for effective design and
implementation of marketing strategy and marketing driven business
strategy. This included:
Models for Marketing Planning and Decision Making (Wind 1986)
Effective Competitive Strategies: A Marketing Perspective (Wind 1986)
An Analytic Hierarchy Process Based Approach to the Design and
Evaluation of a Marketing Driven Business and Corporate Strategy (Wind,
1987)
A Marketing Perspective for Competitive Strategy (Wind, 1988)
Inducing Creativity and Innovation in Large Bureaucracies: Lessons from
Marketing (Wind, 1993)
Growth Strategies (Wind, 1996)
The Challenge of Digital Marketing (Wind & Mahajan, 2002)
Marketing as an Engine of Business Growth: A Cross-Functional
Perspective (Wind, 2005a)
Putting the Organization on Wheels: How SEI Uses Workplace Design and
Art to Create a Corporate Culture that Drives Innovation and Growth
(West & Wind, 2007)
Marketing Strategy Models (Wind & Lilien, 1993)
Marketing Strategy Analysis (Wind, 2010)
In Rethinking Marketing: Peter Drucker’s Challenge (Wind, 2009), I cited

some of the legendary management consultant Peter Drucker’s work to
demonstrate how marketing can benefit from exposure to thinkers from
outside the discipline. Drucker pointed out that companies often get into
trouble when the assumptions the business is based on, or the ‘‘theory of the
business,’’ no longer fit reality.
This highlights the limits that our ‘‘mental models’’ (Wind & Crook,
2005) place on our innovation, obstructing our ability to see emerging
opportunities and threats that fall outside the current view.
Decentralization and specialization strategies originally arose because
communication mechanisms were so poor and coordination costs were so
high that a large company could not operate as a single unit. Instead, it was
broken down into ‘‘manageable’’ component parts, divisions and strategic
business units, brands and product lines. The supply chain itself was
separated into suppliers, manufacturers, and buyers.
But advances in information technology are shattering walls between
industries, shifting the balance of power to empowered consumers and
creating a ‘‘global grid’’ of users and portals with free communications and
scalability for even the smallest corporations.
In a similar way, marketing is bound by a set of core concepts, including
marketing as exchange; the four Ps of product, price, place, and promotion;
and the three Cs of company, customers, and competitors.
But these and other concepts are being challenged and changed by
empowered consumers, heightened competition, globalization, rapid and
radical advances in technologies, changing regulatory environment, the
availability of unprecedented amount of data and new analytics, and the
interdependency of all these forces.
Drucker believed, as I do, that marketing has to be the core of an
interdisciplinary perspective, bridging corporate and functional silos. Doing
this means rethinking strategy to escape narrow boxes like low-cost,
differentiation, or focus. In a world that is changing rapidly, marketing has
to combine traditional planning and research with a process of adaptive
experimentation for more rapid learning. I wholeheartedly agree with
Drucker, who once noted that marketing needs to be more entrepreneurial.
In challenging the conventional mental models of marketing and
marketing strategy my current research challenges the mental models of
business strategy to include:
The co-creation model,

The relationship model,
The open innovation model,
Network orchestration model,
The competitive value model,
The holistic model, and

The emerging market innovation engines.
The mental models of marketing are also challenged to address question

such as:
Do you have a platform to engage consumers as co-designers and

co-producers?
Do you have a platform to engage consumers as distributors and
salespeople?
Do you have platform to engage consumers as your marketing advocates?
Do you have platform to allow customers to determine the price and
value of your offering?
Do you have processes to listen to your customers and engage them in
conversation?
And the mental models of advertising are constantly challenged by

my Future of Advertising Project (Wind & Gardner, 2011), as illustrated in
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Toward a New Mental Model of Advertising.

SEGMENTATION
The most enduring finding in marketing with the strongest theoretical

support is that all markets are heterogeneous. Thus, the breaking down of all
markets into homogenous segments (and lately even into segments of one) is
a must! Market Segmentation (Frank, Massy, & Wind, 1972), our seminal
book on the topic, challenged the conventional thinking at the time that
ignored the heterogeneity of all markets. Our key empirical generalizations
about segmentation have withstood the test of time and include:
All markets are heterogeneous.
Benefits sought, augmented by buying/usage behavior and recognizing the
context of the purchase and usage are the most powerful basis for
segmentation.
Demographic and psychographic variables are good segment descriptors,
but are not that useful as bases for segmentation.
Conjoint analysis-based segmentation studies augmented by simulation
and optimization of product/service/experience/design for each target
segment are among the best approaches for segmentation.
Strategies for market segmentation are based on two key dimensions:
i. Method of targeting marketing effort, which includes not only
controlled effort but also customer self-selection.
ii. Marketing tool variables, which include not only promotion, price,
and channels, but also product characteristics and appeals.1
Our understanding of segmentation was further developed with the
publication of Segmenting Media Buyers (Wind & Silver, 1973), which
demonstrated that although the concept of market segmentation was being
implemented primarily in the consumer goods market, it applied equally
well to industrial and other markets in which the buyers are members of
formal organizations.
Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research (Wind, 1978) was the lead
article in a special JMR issue on segmentation research that I edited. In the
article I identified the major considerations involved in segmentation
research. These are included in Table 5.
Thirty-three years later and with the enormous advances in marketing,
consumers, and segmentation research the considerations identified in 1978
still hold. The difference of course is the richness of the available data,
including individual level data, the emergence of single source data, and the
advances in research approaches including data mining and text mining of
consumer natural behavior on the web.
Table 5. Some Major Considerations Involved In Segmentation

Research Studies.
I. Problem definition
A. Managerial requirements
B. A baseline vs. ongoing segmentation
C. The segmentation model
1. Selecting the variables for the model
2. Traditional a-priori and clustering-based designs vs. the newer flexible
and componential segmentation designs
II. Research design
A. The unit of analysis
B. Operational definitions
C. Sample design
D. Data reliability
E. Segment stability
F. Segment homogeneity
G. Segmentability of the market
H. Validation
I. Cost considerations
III. Data collection
A. Primary vs. secondary sources
B. Conventional vs. newer procedures
IV. Data analysis
A. For determining the segments: classification
B. For establishing the segments’ profiles: discrimination
C. For simultaneous classification and discrimination
V. Data interpretation and implementation of results
A. Determining the number of segments and selection of target segments
B. Translating segmentation findings into strategy
Source: Wind (1978).
Product Positioning and Market Segmentation: Marketing and Corporate

Perspectives (Wind, 1979) and Going to Market: New Twists for Some Old
Tricks (Wind, 1980) are examples of a stream of research that focused on the
dual decisions of segmentation and positioning. These papers offered
guidance on integrating analytical tools into a marketing/business strategy;
focusing on the interdependency of segmentation and positioning.
With the publication of Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (Wind & Saaty, 1980) we integrated our segmentation research with
an analytical approach, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which
utilizes management subjective judgments to structure any multiperson,

multicriterion, and multiperiod problem in a hierarchical manner and
prioritizes the identified decision options. The AHP has been applied to the
questions of segment identification and prioritization including how best to
allocate resources among the segments. The AHP allows the resulting
hierarchies to reflect likely environmental scenarios, corporate objectives,
current and proposed product/market alternatives and various marketing
strategy options. AHP provides a framework and methodology for the
determination of key corporate and marketing decisions, offering specific
guidelines for resource allocation among the firm’s current and potential
market segments and distribution outlets, among various new product
concepts, and among various marketing mix strategies under alternative
environmental conditions and various objectives. One of the key benefits of
the AHP is the ability to conduct sensitivity analysis of the results. Today,
the AHP has been extended to the Analytic Network Process (ANP) and is
supported by sophisticated and user-friendly software (http://www.
decisionlens.com/).
Market segmentation is still one of the foundations of all marketing and
business strategies. Understanding the segments’ evolving needs, percep-
tions, preferences, and behavior are key input to marketing and business
decisions. A review of the segmentation field was prepared by me in 1995 in
Market Segmentation and updated with David Bell, Market Segmentation
(Wind & Bell, 2007; Bell & Wind, 2011). To appreciate the range of
decisions involved in this important area, see the illustrative segmentation
audit in Table 6.
In considering the concept of segmentation, one should realize that it
applies not only to consumers of B2C and B2B but to all stakeholders such
as employees, suppliers, analysts, shareholders, and partners.
GLOBALIZATION
At the time of my doctoral studies in marketing during the mid-1960s, many

American marketing executives and scholars viewed the subject of interna-
tional marketing through an American sales prism: if an item was successful
in the United States, it would likely sell overseas with minimal, if any
modification. Even as late as the early 1970s, American car manufacturers
continued to export cars – built for the U.S. market with the steering wheel
on the left side – to nations where the driver sits on the right. At the time
U.S. companies were also exporting products that ran on 110 volts of
Table 6. A Segmentation Audit.

Practice Completely Somewhat Does not Do Not
Describes us Describes us Describe Us Know
at Aall
1. Our business strategies recognize

the need to prioritize target
segments
2. Our marketing plans include
specific plans for each of the
selected segments
3. We have specific product offerings
for each target segment
4. We have a process for updating the
information of our segments of an
ongoing basis
5. Our segments balance the unique
country needs with potential
synergies across countries
6. We have an effective process for
implementing segmentation
research
7. We have an effective process for
implementing segmentation
strategies
8. We have P&L reports and
accountability by segment
9. We have detailed information
about segments, including:
Current size of segment
Potential size of segment
Key business needs of the
segment
Information systems needs of
the segment
Their prioritized needs/benefits
sought
Their prioritized preference for
product and service features
Demographic characteristics of
the segments
Product/system ownership and
usage
Competition’ strength in each
segment
Perceived positioning of each
competitor by the members of
the segment
Table 6. (Continued )
Practice Completely Somewhat Does not Do Not
Describes us Describes us Describe Us Know
at Aall
10. Information about the target

market segments are incorporated
effectively into the following
strategies:
Positioning
Product and service offerings
Pricing
Promotion
Advertising
Distribution
Distribution
Sales force
Source: Wind and Bell (2007).
electricity, the American standard, even if the targeted overseas markets

utilized a 220 volt standard.
In developing the foundation to this emerging field, my collaborators and
I first addressed the issue of what to compare and how to make the
comparison in On the Meaning of Comparison: A Methodology for Cross-
Cultural Studies (Wind & Douglas, 1971). With the publication of
Environmental Factors and Marketing Practices (Douglas & Wind, 1973),
we pointed out the deficiencies of then-current research methodology, which
typically relied on results from single-country studies to infer comparisons
with other nations.
In contrast, we found that countries at similar levels of development or
with similar cultural patterns did not tend to have similar marketing
practices. Further, even within a country there was a wide variation of
marketing practices that could only be properly studied by considering their
relationship to firm characteristics and market structure.
We built on that concept with Guidelines for Developing International
Marketing Strategies (Wind, Douglas, & Perlmutter, 1973) which examined
the ways that the firm’s ethnocentrism, polycentrism, regioncentrism, or
geocentrism orientation could serve as guidelines in developing effective
international marketing strategies. Our findings showed that international
orientation alone does not appear to provide sufficient guidelines for
developing international marketing strategies and has to be augmented with

the marketing orientation of the firm.
As international marketing activities continued to gain momentum,
Some Issues in International Consumer Research (Wind & Douglas, 1974)
addressed the issue of what international marketers needed to do to identify
the relevant needs and wants of international consumers. We concluded that
marketers needed to go beyond the study of national culture to consider
social class and roles, group influences and other factors. We also suggested
that training for international consumer researchers should encompass
behavioral concepts, and knowledge of modern marketing research
techniques.
In Comparative Consumer Research: The Next Frontier? (Wind &
Douglas, 1982) we examined three approaches: ‘‘Emic,’’ which holds that
attitudinal or behavioral phenomena are expressed uniquely in each culture
and are therefore best understood in their own terms; ‘‘Etic,’’ which is
primarily concerned with ‘‘culture free’’ methods of universal concepts; and
the ‘‘Hybrid’’ approach that develops country, culture or subculture-specific
concepts and measures that are compared, combined, or modified to
develop, wherever possible, ‘‘pan-cultural’’ concepts that do not have a
specific cultural bias. We also advocated for devoting more resources to
comparative consumer research, both within a country – comparing
subgroups, regions, and institutions – and across countries or country
groupings.
We followed up with a warning against the then-prevailing tendency to
see all customers as being alike. In The Myth of Globalization (Douglas &
Wind, 1987) we argued against the then-perceived belief that the key to
success was to develop ‘‘global’’ or standardized products and brands.
Although we agreed it was imperative to adopt a global strategy, we said it
would be naı̈ve and simplistic to embrace universal standardization. Instead,
we suggested focusing on establishing a diverse team that could think
globally but act locally.
We addressed the issue of selecting the ‘‘right’’ international markets with
a four step theoretical model described in Selection of Global Target
Markets: A Decision Theoretic Approach (Douglas, Le Maire, & Wind,
1972). This approach formalized and integrated the intuitive decision roles
and criteria used by management into a systematic approach for evaluating
global market opportunities.
Much of my research on globalization tested and extended concepts and
methods we first employed in the United States. These efforts were based on
my continuous beliefs that:
Every company should consider the world as the arena for their operations.
[A decision to stay local is fine only if reached after considering other global
options.]
Countries and markets are heterogeneous.
Global strategies should reflect a balance between the idiosyncratic needs
of a local market, a global strategic view, and the potential for leveraging
initiatives across markets and countries.
Given these beliefs some examples for concepts and tools tested and
expanded globally include:
Multinational Trade Off Segmentation (Robinson & Wind, 1977).
Research for Multinational Product Policy (Wind, 1977) – international
product decisions and the associated research needs they entailed.
International Portfolio Analysis and Strategy: The Challenge of the 1980s
(Wind & Douglas, 1981) – a new approach to developing international
product portfolios by combining stochastic dominance and analytical
hierarchal process.
Developing Marketing Expert Systems: An Application to International
Negotiations (Rangaswamy, Eliashberg, Burke, & Wind 1989) –
NEGOTEXT – an expert system designed to help international marketing
specialists prepare for negotiation discussions.
Marketing Strategy in the Global Information Age (Wind, 1999) –
highlighting the need to select, hire, develop, motivate, and retain a
diverse workforce and stakeholders that represent different parts of the
world and who are sensitive to different cultures. They also need to be
able to operate capably and comfortably anywhere in the world, utilizing
available information technology tools that are rapidly changing.
With the publication of The Invisible Global Market (Mahajan, De
Morales, & Wind, 2000), we considered another aspect of marketing – the
largely untapped demand for products and services among developing-
nation consumers that make up about 86 percent of the global market. The
challenge, as we pointed out, is for a company to rethink its entire marketing
and business strategy, custom tailoring it for the individual marketplace.
The need to focus on untapped market opportunities was also discussed in
Capturing the Ricochet Economy (Mahajan & Wind, 2006).
I continued to address the challenges of operating in a global marketplace
with Network Orchestration for a Flat World: Preparing for a Future of
‘‘Defining Moments’’ at Li & Fung (Wind, 2008a), the story of one of the
oldest trading companies in Hong Kong. Li & Fung has a network of over
12,000 factories in over 40 countries. Without owning any of them, it is able

to orchestrate optimal supply chains that deliver the best product at the best
price at the right time for its global customers. Anchoring it all is Li &
Fung’s commitment to renewing itself as it responds to critical changes in
market conditions.
My own views on globalization have evolved. In the 1960s and 1970s the
study of international marketing [as was the study of industrial/organiza-
tional marketing management] was viewed as secondary to marketing
consumer goods in a domestic environment; The Step Children of Market-
ing: Organizational and International Customers (Wind, 1972) reflect this
situation. As a result of this, I championed the development of a separate
systematic approach to international marketing [and organizational buying]
and the identification of appropriate international market segments as a way
to improve a firm’s marketing effectiveness and efficiency.
My international research activities were linked to the establishment in
1980 of the Wharton Center for International Management Studies, which
was designed to stimulate international research. This was followed by the
establishment in 1983 of the Joseph H. Lauder Institute of Management and
International Studies which offered an innovative dual degree program
(MBA and MA in International Studies) dedicated to the preparation of
business leaders who are comfortable and effective in leading organizations
around the world (http://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/).
Since that time, and with the increased globalization of business and
enormous advances in communication and information technologies and
transportation systems, I am no longer focusing on the global market as a
separate topic. Instead I have integrated the international dimension in each
of the topics studied.
Thus, while the selection of a global portfolio of markets is still an
important business decision, all decisions should be made with a global
perspective. The world, despite all the effort for local protectionism and
bilateral agreement is moving toward a flat world (Friedman, 2005) and the
need to Compete in a Flat World (Fung, Fung, & Wind, 2007).
MARKETING RESEARCH AND MODELING

Marketing research and modeling have been the core tools of my research,
teaching, and consulting. I have been fortunate enough to work with some
of the brightest and most innovative researchers who as mentors, colleagues,
and students shared my desire to continuously improve the current research
and modeling approaches and assure their relevance to the solution of

important management challenges.
In this continuous search for Rigor and Relevance, we focused on
innovating and applying new concept-testing designs, experimentation,
methods for preference measurement, analyzing free response data, and
building models.
In Marketing by Experiment (2007), I put forth my long-held belief
(which has been at the core of my MBA Marketing Strategy course) that
instead of implementing a single strategy, management needs to engage in
adaptive experimentation, a philosophy that integrates research and action
experiments of diverse strategies. Such an approach is critical in today’s fast-
changing business environment, where no optimal strategy is likely to exist.
Only adaptive experimentation that encourages experimentations with
alternative (and ideally innovative) strategies provides the following
benefits:
Assures ability to learn and improve decisions over time.
Encourages the design of innovative strategies.
Forces the discipline to measure the outcomes.
Creates a culture of creativity and innovation by making it okay to fail
(since not all experimental treatments are going to succeed).
Provides a competitive advantage since the competitors do not have
access to the experimental design.
With the publication of Experimentation as a Tool for the Retailer (Wind,
Douglas, & Ascoli, 1971) we took on the presumption that the analysis of
applying modern U.S. marketing retail management techniques to non-U.S.
retailing would not be efficiently accomplished because of the cost,
administrative effort, and time required. A study conducted in multiple
locations of an Israeli discount store demonstrated, however, that such
experiments could be conducted with minimal expenditures, that it could be
administered in a simple manner, and the results analyzed with nothing
more complicated than a hand calculator – remember this was 1971 (Wind,
Douglas, & Ascoli, 1971). This led us to advocate for greater and more
widespread use of experiments as a means to improved management
decisions.
In Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Research on the Effectiveness of TV
Commercials (Wind & Denny, 1974) we focused on the need for measuring
advertising effectiveness on a number of relevant criteria, showing how
multivariate analysis of variance and covariance could be a useful approach
in marketing and advertising experiments.
Although my research and modeling activities have encompassed a wide

range of topics, a major stream of research has focused on assessing
consumer preferences using conjoint analysis. Probably the best known of
these papers is the HBR paper New Way to Measure Consumers’ Judgments
(Green & Wind, 1975).
Yet this chapter was preceded by a number of papers developing the
conjoint analysis methods and widening its application. These papers
included:
Preference Measurement of Item Collections (Green et al., 1972), where we
showed how these collections could be analyzed with conjoint measure-
ment techniques.
Consumer Menu Preference: An Application of Additive Conjoint
Measurement (Green et al., 1972)
Benefit Bundle Analysis (Green et al., 1972)
Subjective Evaluation Models and Conjoint Measurement (Green,
Carmone, & Wind, 1972)
Following these and other related initial articles and our book, Multi-
Attribute Decisions in Marketing: A Measurement Approach (Green, Wind, &
Carroll, 1973), we conducted hundreds of commercial applications of
conjoint analysis to a wide range of consumer and industrial products in
areas that included:
Consumer Nondurables, where products ranged from bar soaps to facial
tissues, and from shampoos to gasoline pricing.
Financial Services, which encompassed bank services, auto insurance
policies, travel and entertainment packages, and financial planning.
Consumer Durables, where we considered subjects like automotive
styling, pickup truck design, apartment design, and commercial lawn
mowing.
Health Care/Pharmaceuticals, that included numerous ethical drugs,
diagnostic equipment, and health maintenance organizations.
Industrial Goods, where we examined copying machines, printing
equipment, facsimile, and data transmission.
Other Services that included hotel (Courtyard by Marriott), car rental
agencies, telephone services and pricing, and employee benefits packages.
Transportation, which encompassed domestic and transcontinental air-
lines, passenger, and freight train operations.
In these applications, conjoint analysis was used in diverse areas such as
product and service design, brand equity, quality function deployment, and
customer satisfaction/referenceability. Our research also encompassed legal

matters, where it included noteworthy cases like AA Screen Position;
Chrysler – Windshield Wiper; P&G not made from concentrate orange
juice; and Italian Trade Commission pasta’s country of origin case.
These and other conjoint analysis applications encompassed almost
all marketing decisions, including: Market Segmentation as a basis for
segmentation (‘‘benefit’’ segmentation), as a descriptor of segments; and in
novel application of flexible segmentation; componential segmentation, and
models such as SIMOPT.
We also considered conjoint analysis as it relates to product decisions in
areas like positioning, concept evaluation, product development guidelines,
and quality function development. Our studies also focused on pricing
decisions relating to areas like price sensitivity, and the value of different
models of pricing.
Our research into market applications of conjoint analysis also extended to
promotional decisions (where we considered semantic equivalents), distribu-
tion decisions (which included the value of different outlets and design
of a product/service mix for distribution outlets), management (decision
criteria, which encompassed product portfolio, new product evaluation,
allocation of resources, business strategy, and brand equity), and consumer
behavior (where our studies included consumer choice of items and item
collections, allocation of time and money among activities, and satisfaction/
referenceability).
Conjoint analysis studies have often been integrated with simulations, as
illustrated in many of the applied studies such as Courtyard by Marriott:
Designing a Hotel Facility with Consumer-Based Marketing Models (Wind
et al., 1989) and Buyer Choice Simulators, Optimizers, and Dynamic Models
(Green, Wind, & Krieger, 2003).
In 2001, Paul Green, Abba Krieger, and I assessed the state of progress in
this area in the paper Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflection and
Prospects and followed it with an e-book: Adventures in Conjoint Analysis: A
Practitioner’s Guide to Trade-Off Modeling and Applications (Wind,
Krieger, & Green, 2004).
In addition to conjoint analysis, my research and modeling publications
included a wide range of tools including:
Concept testing
– A New Procedure for Concept Evaluation (Wind, 1973)
– Concept Testing as Input to Strategic Market Simulations (Wind, Jolly, &
O’Connor, 1975)
New Product Diffusion Models

– Industrial Product Diffusion by Market Segment (Wind, Robertson, &
Fraser, 1982)
– An Approach to Repeat-Purchase Diffusion Analysis (Mahajan, Wind, &
Sharma, 1983)
– New Products Diffusion Models with Stochastic Parameters (Eliash-
berg, Tapiero, & Wind, 1985)
– Innovation Diffusion Models of New Product Acceptance: A Reexami-
nation (Mahajan & Wind, 1986)
– New Product Diffusion Models: From Theory to Practice (Mahajan
et al., 2000)
New Product Forecasting Models
– A Reexamination of New Product Forecasting Models (Wind &
Mahajan, 1981)
– New Product Forecasting Models: Directions for Research and
Implementation (Mahajan & Wind, 1988)
Market Response Model
– A Customized Market Response Model: Development, Estimation, and
Empirical Testing (Rao, Wind, & DeSarbo, 1988)
Resource Allocation
– Determination of the Size and Allocation of Marketing Research
Budgets (Wind & Gross, 1978)
Market Segmentation Research
– Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research (Wind, 1978)
Product Positioning Research
– Positioning Analysis and Strategy (Wind, 1990)
Advertising Research
– Advertising Measurement and Decision Making (Wind, Dalby, & Gross,
1968)
– Risk Behaviour and Optimum Advertising with a Stochastic Dynamic
Sales Response (Tapiero, Eliashberg, & Wind, 1987)
Legal Cases
– Parameter Estimation in Marketing Models in the Presence of Influential
Response Data: Robust Regression and Applications (Mahajan,
Sharma, & Wind, 1984)
– Combining Multiple Estimates: An Application to Damage Assessment
Litigation (Schmittlein & Wind, 1991)
– Marketing Research in the Courtroom: A Case Study Shows How
Analytical Methods Can Be Applied to the Law (Green, Krieger, &
Wind, 2002)
– Survey Methods Help to Clear Up Legal Questions (Green, Krieger, &

Wind, 2002)
– Dual Considerations (Krieger, Green, & Wind, 2003)
Pricing Research
– A Friction Model for Describing and Forecasting Price Changes
(DeSarbo, Rao, Steckel, Wind, & Colombo, 1987)
Social Networks
– Marketing and Social Networks (Arabie & Wind, 1994)
Expert Systems
– A Knowledge-Based System for Advertising Design (Burke, Rangas-
wamy, Wind, & Eliashberg, 1990)
Advances in Multivariate Approaches including:
– Higher Order Factor Analysis in the Classification of Psychographic
Variables (Wind, Green, & Jain, 1973)
– Overlapping Clustering: A New Method for Product Positioning
(Arabie, Carroll, DeSarbo, Wind, 1981)
– Diffusion of New Products in Heterogeneous Populations: Incorporating
Stochastic Coefficients (Eliashberg, Tapiero, & Wind, 1983)
– Why and When to Use Tobit Analysis (Fraser & Wind, 1986)
– Applying Qualitative Data (Green, Wind, Krieger, & Saatsoglou, 2000)
– Who Competes with Whom? A Demand-Based Perspective for Identify-
ing and Representing Asymmetric Competition (DeSarbo, Grewal, &
Wind, 2006)
In addition, over the years, I have written a number of papers and given
various presentations on the state of the art of marketing research and
modeling focusing on current problems and proposed remedies. In Rx for
Marketing Research: A Diagnosis of and Prescriptions for the Recovery of an
Ailing Discipline in the Business World (Mahajan & Wind, 1999), among the
remedies we suggested are the bringing together of:
1. qualitative and quantitative;
2. marketing research and modeling;
3. marketing research and decision support systems;
4. marketing research and adaptive experimentation;
5. market research and databases; and
6. marketing research and other information sources.
These suggestions are still as relevant today and in fact, given the
increased availability of huge amounts of data and the advances in data
analysis, the urgency in moving in these directions and in continuing to
innovate is greater than ever. This is illustrated for example by some of my

current research initiatives, such as development of games as a way to obtain
the needed marketing research information, or the incorporation of the
results of text mining of consumer natural conversations in the marketing
insight process and dashboard.
FUTURE OF MARKETING
Marketing had its ideological roots as a business philosophy that focused on

the customer (and was often referred to as the ‘‘marketing concept’’ or
‘‘marketing orientation’’). Unfortunately, this shifted toward the operations
of a marketing function.
In The Marketing Concept Revisited: A Decade Recap of Its Development
and Meaning (Schutte & Wind, 1968), we described a new model that would
account for all the elements of the marketing system: the customers, the
retail, wholesale, and other intermediate marketing organizations, the firm’s
intra-organizational constrains, and the overall environment.
In Marketing and the Other Business Functions (1981) I noted that then-
contemporary marketing literature neglected to consider the theoretical and
research implications of the interrelationship between marketing and other
business functions. The dependency of many marketing decisions on
considerations involving other business functions, although widely recog-
nized by marketing practitioners, had been widely ignored in the academic
marketing literature, and research was primarily left to the business strategy
literature. Yet, the efficient and effective marketing decisions require the
incorporation of the considerations of other, nonmarketing, business
functions in the design and implementation of marketing research, marketing
models and planning and control systems, management information systems,
marketing strategies, and marketing organization. Greater interface between
marketing and other disciplines would not only enrich our discipline, but
could also lead to greater relevance of the results of research in marketing.
In my acceptance address of the Charles Coolidge Parlin Award – The
Marketing Challenge (1985) – I tried to break down the artificial barriers
between marketing and society and the need to utilize market knowledge
and tools to help solve not only management challenges but the problems
that face society. Today, this point is more critical than ever given the
numerous challenges facing society – unemployment, poverty, healthcare,
education, terrorism, and other factors contributing to our complex and
uncertain reality.
Although the consumer remains the major focus of marketing, any

marketing strategy should also focus on other players, including the entire
company and its employees, current and potential customers and competi-
tors, cooperative arrangements with businesses and other organizations,
channel members, and other stakeholders.
Such a strategy would feature a market-driven integration of creativity,
analytical skills, and practical business considerations and, if accompanied
by a view of marketing as a risk taking, opportunity creating function and
philosophy, could enable practitioners and researchers to enjoy the process
while successfully meeting the marketing challenges facing us all.
In The Challenge of Digital Marketing (Wind & Mahajan, 2002), we noted
that the digital revolution had shaken marketing to its core, presenting
companies with the need to reexamine the unique benefits and character-
istics of their products and services. At the same time, with customers
having many options to choose from and fewer personal relationships
online, we argued that they would turn to trusted and trustworthy brands
that represent more intangible qualities. But to earn this trust, we added,
companies would have to set up creative mass customization platforms that
allow consumers to design their own products, services, and pricing.
The challenge is that as the digital revolution advances, companies have
tended to look at the technology, and paid less attention to the implications
for marketing. But by understanding the new global digital reality and
focusing on the new and evolving ‘‘rules’’ of marketing, marketing
academics could begin to reclaim some of their lost relevance and corporate
executives could increase their likelihood of success.
I returned to the theme of marketing’s unnecessary and self-imposed
limitations with Marketing as an Engine of Business Growth: A Cross-
Functional Perspective (Wind, 2005a).
Although increased rigor of management publications has created deep
insights, frameworks, and powerful tools, this disciplinary focus has also
created blinders that limit creativity in developing holistic and relevant
solutions to business challenges.
The silos are not only between the marketing academics and the
practitioners but also within these camps. Organizations tend to be siloed,
yet they can build linking processes among the different functional areas.
Building bridges across the current departmental structure, though, may be
an interim solution. Although the ideal approach might be to form more of
a network structure that involves researchers from different backgrounds in
solving common problems, these types of structural and cultural changes
take a long time and a lot of effort to implement. As a first step, building
bridges to create a more networked organization can achieve a cross-

functional perspective without having to change the underlying architecture.
The silos are also prevalent in academia and we are unfortunately seeing
growing separations between the quantitative, the behavioral, and the
strategy domains of marketing, not to speak about the disciplinary silos
between marketing and operations. To bridge the various silos and move
forward to greater relevance and rigor of marketing will require challenging
the prevailing mental models of marketing.
During the last decade, much of my research and teaching centered on
mental models. Our initial work was published as The Power of Impossible
Thinking (Wind & Crook, 2004) and was influenced by work in neuroscience
and our finding from our Wharton Fellows program that the major obstacle
to successful business transformation are the mental models of the
executives and managers involved.
In the context of marketing, I addressed this issue in Challenging the
Mental Models of Marketing (Wind, 2005b). In this chapter, we encour-
aged marketing scholars and practitioners to challenge their current
mental models and activities and reexamine them to better fit the changing
world.
There have been enormous advances in marketing research and modeling,
and by moving in the right direction we can broaden the usefulness,
relevance, and impact of marketing.
In A Plan to Invent the Marketing We Need Today (Wind, 2008b), I
suggested that the discipline of marketing has not kept up with the rapid
changes facing 21st century businesses. New scholarship does not have
enough management relevance, and practicing marketers are too often
forsaking rigor.
As difficult as the relevance challenge may be, we have no choice but to
rethink marketing if we are to be relevant to the challenges of this
transformed world and produce rigorous and relevant solutions to address
these challenges.
The overriding theme of the need for change in reshaping the future of
marketing is also reflected in many of my other writings and articles
including:
Management Education
– Educating for International Management: The Joseph H. Lauder
Institute (Gaudiani & Wind, 1987)
– The Globalization of Management Education: Options, Trade Offs, and
an Agenda for Implementation (Wind & Thomas, 1989)
– The Restructured Wharton MBA: Inventing a New Paradigm (Wind,

1991)
– Reinventing the Business School for the Global Information Age (Wind,
2000)
– Reinventing Training for the Global information Age (Wind & Reibstein,
2000)
– The Integrative Thinking Challenge for Management Education and
Research (Wind, 2002)
Reinventing the corporation
– Reinventing the Corporation (Wind & West, 1991)
– Pace-Setting 21st Century Enterprises: A Glimpse of What Might
Emerge (Wind, Holland, West, & Gunther, 1993)
The shift to network strategies
– Network Orchestration for a Flat World: Preparing for a Future of
‘‘Defining Moments’’ at Li & Fung (Wind, 2008a)
– The Network Imperative: Community or Contagion? (Introductory
chapter in The Network Challenge: Strategy, Profit and Risk in an
Interlinked World, eds. Kleindorfer & Wind, 2009)
Moving forward to address the management challenges of a more

uncertain, more volatile, more complex, structurally different world (IBM,
2010), we need to undertake three key initiatives:
(1) Take stock of what we know and do not know, what works and does not
work. This requires increased focus on empirical generalizations.
Consider for example, the special Marketing Science issue that Frank
Bass and I edited in 1995 on Empirical Generalizations in Marketing and
recently, the 2009 special issue of Journal of Advertising Research – What
We Know about Advertising – that Byron Sharp and I edited.
(2) Re-examine and challenge the mental models of marketing. As
articulated, for example, in the Journal of Marketing guest editorial
Dave Reibstein, George Day and I recently wrote, Is Marketing
Academia Losing its Way (Reibstein, Day, & Wind, 2009).
(3) Undertake bold experiments and initiatives to tackle the critical
challenges facing management and society. In doing so, let’s accept the
value of open innovation, enlisting the wisdom of diverse and relevant
crowds and in seeking not only the maximization of long-term
shareholder value but concurrently also the solution to society’s ills –
the long awaited need to move toward socially responsible capitalism.
CONCLUSIONS
Writing this chapter offers me an unusual opportunity to reflect on almost

five decades of marketing and the role I have played in it, as well as to briefly
outline my wish list for our discipline and my own activities in the next few
years.
REFLECTIONS
My first exposure to marketing was 50 years ago, in 1961, as a master

student of the business administration program at the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem. It continued as a research assistant in a new product develop-
ment course and got its first full exposure in 1963–1964 in a unique Ford
Foundation sponsored program at Stanford’s International Center for the
Advancement of Management Education. These first years saw the shift of
the field to a more managerial and analytical approach. My doctoral years
at Stanford (1964–1966) expanded significantly my views of the field
working with Bill Massy, Ron Frank, Henry Claycamp, and Bob Davis and
expanding my exposure to the behavioral sciences, operations research,
and the challenges facing real corporations – especially Motorola and
Varian Associates – the two companies I studied for my dissertation.
Although my research in these early years centered on the evolving area of
organizational buying behavior, with the move to Wharton in December
1966 and the opportunity to continue working with Ron Frank, starting a
lifelong collaboration with Paul Green, my mentor and friend, and working
with numerous marvelous coauthors from academia and industry, my
research interests expanded to other areas of marketing as briefly discussed
in this chapter with a focus on the three themes identified in Fig. 1.
Reflecting on the past five decades, marketing has matured in many ways.
The fledgling area of consumer behavior that was at its infancy in the
early 1960s has developed to a full fledge discipline. Marketing research
and modeling has emerged as marketing science with a first-rate journal and
professional association that assures the continued development of advanced
models for this age of data proliferation and increased needs for analytics,
insights, and foresights. There are numerous marketing journals and the
number of marketing scholars and practitioners has expanded around the
globe. Marketing strategy is increasing in its importance for every profit and
nonprofit organization. Marketing expenditures are in the billions with
increased demand for accurate measures. The marketing research industry is
changing with numerous companies dedicated to data collection and

measurement. Marketing courses are proliferating and are an integral part
of every management program and the number of doctoral programs in
marketing is expanding around the world. The Marketing Science Institute
(MSI) that was founded in affiliation with Wharton is celebrating this year its
50th anniversary.
Our discipline has also established a significant number of ‘‘marketing
truths’’ – concepts, findings, and methods that met the test of time. These
include, for example:
The importance of the marketing concept as a business philosophy.

The fact that all markets are heterogeneous and require careful
segmentation.
The centrality of the consumer and the importance of understanding not
only their current but also evolving needs.
The importance of creativity and innovation. Creative advertising is more
effective and innovative companies do succeed.
Numerous empirical generalizations (Bass & Wind, 1995; Wind & Sharp,
2009; Hanssens, 2009), yet while many of them still hold, the dramatic
changes of the business environment require constant examination of the
continued relevance of these findings.
Marketing science has the tools that can help management make better
decisions.
I hope that I have been able to contribute to what we know about

marketing, to the development of the discipline and to the practice of
marketing and marketing science through my writings, mentoring, collabor-
ating with generations of marketing professionals and scholars, my consulting
to numerous firms, my pro bono activities with nonprofit organizations, and
through my continuous work on reinventing marketing and management
education.
Yet, with all these developments and enormous progress, marketing, as a
discipline, is at a crossroads. Our customers – business and organizational
leaders – rarely look for academic marketing publications. Marketing, with
few notable exceptions, rarely has a seat at the corporate strategy table, and
many of our publications do not address the key challenges facing business
and society.
This situation is getting worse given the continuous and intensified
changes such as:
Increased importance of the empowered and skeptical consumer (with the

corresponding shift in power and control from the firm to the consumer).
The continuous advances in technology with associated proliferation and
advances in media, channels, and consumer touch points.
The changing business environment with the wake-up call of the financial
crisis of 2008.
The pressure for accountability and return on marketing investments.
The changing geopolitical and economic landscape with the emergence of
the BRIC and other emerging countries as the new economic centers.
The changing business and revenue models, including the shift from a
firm-centric view to a network orchestration (Kleindorfer & Wind, 2009).
The increased challenges facing society in all domains of our life –
education, health, unemployment, poverty, digital and economic divide,
terrorism, government deficits, and deteriorating infrastructure.
These interrelated forces of change are challenging the traditional

mental models of marketing and require, more than ever, rethinking of
the traditional theories and concepts, findings, methods, and the organiza-
tion of the discipline.
If as a discipline we will not be responsive to the changing needs of our
customers, management of profit, new profits, and government organiza-
tions, we are likely to repeat our loss of important management domains
such as quality and customer satisfaction which were lost to operations, data
mining which was lost to computer science, customer insights which we now
share with behavioral economics and marketing-driven business strategy
which we are at a risk of losing to the business strategy area.
A WISH LIST FOR THE ‘‘NEW MARKETING’’
Although we marvel at the changes we have been experiencing in the past

decade – the impact of the iPad, iPhone, and Google, the digitization of
everything; and other dramatic changes – we cannot even imagine what the
world will look like in 2020. My deep concern is that marketing (and the
business disciplines and management education in general) is too slow to
react and change, let alone anticipate and lead these changes.
Finance has not changed its traditional theories and teaching despite
the evidence during the last financial crisis that the key assumptions of the
discipline do not hold. Similarly marketing is very slow in addressing the
impact of the empowered consumers and the shift in control from the firm to
the consumer.
Thus, my wish for the discipline is that our thought leaders, and especially
the young scholars and practitioners, will devote some quality time (and
ideally effort) to ask themselves questions such as:
What is the impact of the changing business environment on our current
theories, concepts, and methods? – What do we have to change when the
power and control shifts from the firm to the consumer?
What is the world going to look like in 5–10 years, and what are the
implications of these expected scenarios on our marketing theories
concepts methods and modes of operations?
How can we bridge the artificial and damaging divide among the three
silos of the marketing discipline – the behavioral, the quantitative, and
strategy?
How can we bridge the current artificial divide between marketing and the
other business functions which prevent us from developing meaningful
solutions to the challenges facing business and society?
How can we bridge the divide between marketing academics and
practitioners?
Only when we, as individuals and as a discipline, effectively address these
questions will we increase the relevance and rigor of our discipline. It is only
than that the collective contribution of the ‘‘legends’’ presented in this
volume will provide the needed foundation for changing the mental models
of marketing and move us to the next phase of marketing as a central node
in the networks of disciplines and players. We can make the needed
difference but we must have the courage to challenge, and as needed change,
our mental models of marketing.
NOTE
1. This conclusion was first presented in Frank, Massy, and Wind (1972).
REFERENCES
Note: This list includes a few illustrative references for each of the sections of the
chapter. In addition, all the articles and books referred to in the chapter are available
in full on my website: http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/people/faculty/wind.cfm
A. Organizational Buying Behavior
Webster, FE., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972). A general model for understanding organizational buying
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36(April), 12–19.
Wind, Y. (1970). Industrial source loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 7(November), 450–457.
Wind, Y., & Thomas, R. J. (1991). Strategy-driven industrial marketing research. In:
V. Zeithaml (Ed.), Annual review of marketing (pp. 411–454). Chicago: American
Wind, Y. J. (2007). Blurring the lines: Is there a need to rethink industrial marketing? Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 21.7, 474–481.
B. Consumer Behavior
Green, P. E., Wind, Y., & Jain, A. K. (1972). Preference measurement of item collections.
Journal of Marketing Research, 9(November), 371–377.
Nicosia, FM., & Wind, Y. (1978). Sociology of consumption and trade-off models in consumer
public policy. In: W. M. Denney & R. T. Lund (Eds), Research for consumer policy (Vol.
24, pp. 141–184). Cambridge, MA: Center for Policy Alternatives, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Villani, K. E. A., & Wind, Y. (1975). On the usage of ‘modified’ personality trait measures in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(December), 223–228.
Wind, Y. (1976). Preference of relevant others and individual choice models. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 3(June), 50–57.
Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (2002). Convergence marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
16.2(Spring), 64–79.
C. New Product Management
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Wind, Y. (2000). New product diffusion models: From theory
to practice. In: V. Mahajan, E. Muller & Y. Wind (Eds), New-product diffusion models
(pp. 3–24). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mahajan, V., & Wind, Y. J. (2002). Got emotional product positioning? There’s more
to positioning than just features and benefits. Marketing Management, 11.3(May/June),
36–41.
Wind, J., & Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and opportunities in new product development: An
introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(February), 1–12.
Wind, Y. Product policy: Concepts, methods and strategies (Addison-Wesley Marketing
Series). Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1982. Reviewed in the Journal of Marketing, Summer
1981.
Wind, Y., & Mahajan, V. (1981). Designing product and business portfolios. Harvard Business
Review, 59.1(January–February), 155–165.
Wind, Y., Mahajan, V., & Swire, D. J. (1983). An empirical comparison of standardized
portfolio models. Journal of Marketing, 47(Spring), 89–99.
D. Marketing Strategy
Wind, J. (2009). Rethinking marketing: Peter Drucker’s challenge. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 37, 28–34.
Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: The next revolution in mass
customization. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 11.1(Winter), 13–32.
Wind, Y. (1986). Models for marketing planning and decision making. In: V. P. Buell (Ed.),
Handbook of modern marketing (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill49-1–49-12.
Wind, Y., & Gardner, C. (2011). Rethinking advertising. Wharton School Working Paper.
Wind, Y., & Robertson, T. S. (1983). Marketing strategy: New directions for theory and
research. Journal of Marketing, 47(Spring), 12–25.
Wind, Y. J. (2005). Marketing as an engine of business growth: A cross-functional perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 863–873.
Wind, Y. J. (2008b). A plan to invent the marketing we need today. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 49(4), 21–29.
E. Segmentation
Frank, R. E., Massy, W. F., & Wind, Y., (1972) Market segmentation (international series in
management). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Reviewed JMR, November 1972; August
1974.
Wind, J., & Bell, D. (2007). Market segmentation. The marketing book (6th ed.). Burlington,
MA: Butterworth Heinemann, November.
Wind, Y. (1978). Issues and advances in segmentation research. Journal of Marketing Research,
15(August), 317–337.
Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing Applications of the analytic hierarchy process.
Management Science, 26.7(July), 641–658.
F. Globalization
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (Print).
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Rangaswamy, A., Eliashberg, J., Burke, R. R., & Wind, J. (1989). Developing marketing
expert systems: An application to international negotiations. Journal of Marketing,
53.4(October), 24–39.
Wind, Y. (1977). Research for multinational product policy. In: W. J. Keegan & C. S. Mayer
(Eds), Multinational product management (pp. 165–184). Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Wind, Y. (2008a). Network orchestration for a flat world: Preparing for a future of ‘‘Defining
moments’’ at Li & Fung. Effective Executive (February), 14–18.
Wind, Y., & Douglas, S. (1971). On the meaning of comparison: A methodology for cross-
cultural studies. Quarterly Journal of Management Development, 2.4.1(June), 105–121.
Wind, Y., & Douglas, S. (1981). International portfolio analysis and strategy: The challenge of
the 80s. Journal of International Business Studies, 12(Fall), 69–82.
Wind, Y., Douglas, S. P., & Perlmutter, H. V. (1973). Guidelines for developing international
marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 37(April), 14–23.
G. Marketing Research and Modeling
Arabie, P., Carroll, J. D., DeSarbo, W., & Wind, J. (1981). Overlapping clustering: A new
method for product positioning. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 310–317.
Burke, R. R., Rangaswamy, A., Wind, J., & Eliashberg, J. (1990). A knowledge-based system
for advertising design. Marketing Science, 9.3(Summer), 212–229. [B] Earlier version
published as ‘‘Expert Systems for Marketing.’’ Marketing Science Institute Report
87–107, November 1987.
Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2002). Marketing research in the courtroom: A case
study shows how analytical methods can be applied to the law. Marketing Research,
14.1(Spring), 28–33.
Green, P. E., & Wind, Y. (1975). New way to measure consumers’ judgments. Harvard Business
Review, 53(July–August), 107–117.
Mahajan, V., & Wind, J. (1999). Rx for marketing research: A diagnosis of and prescriptions
for the recovery of an ailing discipline in the business world. Marketing Research,
11.3(Fall), 7–13.
Mahajan, V., & Wind, Y. (1988). New product forecasting models: Directions for research and
implementation. International Journal of Forecasting, 4, 341–358.
Wind, J. (2007). Marketing by experiment. Marketing Research, 19(1), 10–16.
Wind, J., Green, P. E., Shifflet, D., & Scarbrough, M. (1989). Courtyard by Marriott: Designing
a hotel facility with consumer-based marketing models. Interfaces, 19.1(January–
February), 25–47.
Wind, Y. (1973). A new procedure for concept evaluation. Journal of Marketing, 37(October),
2–11. [B] Translated and reprinted in French as ‘‘Une nouvelle procedure d’évaluation
des idées de nouveaux produits. La Revue franc- aise du Marketing. 1974: 1–12.
Wind, Y., Dalby, H., & Gross, I. (1968). Advertising measurement and decision making. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Wind, Y., & Denny, J. (1974). Multivariate analysis of variance in research on the effectiveness
of TV commercials. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(May), 136–142.
H. Future of Marketing
Bass, F. M., & Wind, J. (1995). Introduction to the special issue: Empirical generalizations in
marketing. Marketing Science, 14.3.2, G1–G5.
Reibstein, D., George, D., & Wind, J. (2009). Is marketing academic losing its way? Journal of
Marketing, 73.4(July), 1–3.
Wind, J. (1985). The marketing challenge. Charles Coolidge Parlin award acceptance speech.
Philadelphia [B] Wharton school working paper, 1985. [C] Excerpts appeared in The
Marketing News August 1985.
Wind, Y. (1981). Marketing and the other business functions. Research in Marketing, 5,
237–264.
Wind, Y. J. (2002). The integrative thinking challenge for management education and research.
Rotman Magazine, Fall, 18–19. [B] Reprinted in A New Way to Think: The Best of
Rotman Magazine, Winter 2005.
Wind, Y. J. (2005). Challenging the mental models of marketing. In: J. N. Sheth & R. S. Sisodia
(Eds), Does marketing need reform? Fresh perspectives on the future (pp. 91–104).
Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
LESSONS LEARNED DURING
A CAREER
Gerald Zaltman
ABSTRACT
This article describes several lessons learned during my career. Some
describe ways of approaching intellectual issues and others express
values and attitudes underlying these approaches. Although the lessons
have evolved in a largely academic context, they seem equally
appropriate in the world of practice. The personal rules of thumb and
ideas inherent in these lessons are typically developed and practiced
implicitly. However, readers should find these explicit statements
relevant in different ways. Some lessons might be candidates for
adoption outright. Others might be constructive points of departure for
evolving a related lesson better suited to one’s own working style. All
lessons, whether or not they are agreeable or appropriate, can serve as
thought starters by challenging readers to surface their own implicit
career lessons for comparison.

ISSN: 1548-6435/doi:10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008013
317
318 GERALD ZALTMAN
INTRODUCTION
As might be expected in a career approaching 50 years – and still counting

– there have been many influential individuals, events, intellectual
excursions, and institutional environments that have contributed to an
enjoyable, absorbing, and learning-filled journey. This journey, while
reasonably planned, is characterized by a heavy dollop of serendipity. This
article focuses on a few of the more salient of these influences. A treatment
of what I and others consider my major substantive contributions to
marketing will be left to the volume editors in the Sage Legends in
Marketing Series.
Because of their sheer numbers, many people and situations very
important to me professionally and personally will necessarily be omitted
in the discussion. The few examples I highlight are those that most readily
express certain lessons I have learned in the course of my career. These
lessons involve habits of mind and associated values and attitudes that
transcend specific research topics. They may not be relevant to everyone.
My hope, however, is that younger readers will find them helpful in
developing their own journeys and that more seasoned readers will find
them interesting points of reference for reflecting on their own professional
paths.
First, a few initial observations. The lessons I have learned are more
evident when viewed in hindsight. The process of actually learning them is a
bit opaque; it occurs largely below awareness. These lessons are not
acquired in the way one might learn algebra or a second language in a
classroom. They are implicit orientations gradually developed rather than
explicit attitudes and values consciously evaluated and adopted. Moreover,
these lessons are acquired through trial and error. Additionally, while it will
be evident that I have been very fortunate in working with so many kind and
gifted teachers, students, and other colleagues, I will not pretend there have
not been others I would rather not have met. But one learns from those
experiences as well. Finally, although the lessons are obvious when stated
explicitly, they are not always easy to follow; in the everyday rush of work, I
have on occasion overlooked or forgotten what I learned, usually to my
regret.
I fully appreciate the reconstructive nature of memory, especially
autobiographical memory. However, I am quite confident that others who
have worked with the same scholars and in the same or similar institutional
settings will nod their heads in agreement regarding the lessons provided by
the particular people and circumstances I mention. I will proceed
Lessons Learned During A Career 319
chronologically, partly because the basics of most lessons were learned early
in my career while later experiences provided important refinements and
constructive twists.
BATES COLLEGE (1956–1960) AND THE

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (1960–1962)
At Bates College, where I did my undergraduate work, I majored in political

science with an economics minor. Possibly, the most significant influence on
me there was a two-year course required of all juniors and seniors called
‘‘Cultural Heritage.’’ This course built upon the required courses typically
found in the first two years of a liberal arts program. It stressed the
interconnectedness, over time, of intellectual developments in diverse areas
of human endeavor. It led to an appreciation of how developments in
different fields such as religion, philosophy, literature, science, government,
the arts, and so on sometimes led and sometimes lagged behind
developments in other fields in the expression of cultural themes. These
lead/lag relationships could involve decades or centuries and also described
how ideas ‘‘creep’’ across diverse geographies. This understanding set the
foundation for an important lesson learned more fully later in my career:
ideas in one domain often shape ideas in seemingly distant or unrelated
domains, although this shaping process may span not only decades but even
centuries.
I entered the MBA program at the University of Chicago and
concentrated in marketing, a field I discovered while reviewing graduate
school catalogues. I had not realized a full-fledged area of study called
marketing existed and whose dynamics were so shaped by human behavior.
I had the good fortune to become a research assistant to Franklin B. Evans
and was later sharecropped with Hans Thorelli. Both men had a playful,
even mischievous posture toward their work. Their playful attitude seemed
to foster a healthy perspective on their own thinking. Frank Evans in
particular stimulated my interest in the behavioral science/marketing
interface and encouraged me to take a graduate sociology course on the
diffusion of innovations with Elihu Katz, an eminent sociologist. That
experience triggered a lifelong interest in innovation. Frank Evans was also
a student of James S. Coleman, about whom I will say more later. Both
Evans and Thorelli and later Coleman taught me the importance of having
the courage of your convictions when after careful examination of available
320 GERALD ZALTMAN
data you happen to see things differently. They were iconoclasts, not for the
sake of being different, but because they understood issues in ways that were
often outside the comfort zones of others working on the same issues.
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA (1962–1964)
All three faculty at the University of Chicago – Evans, Thorelli, and Katz –
encouraged me to consider an academic career. This led to a decision to try
teaching for two years. My opportunities were limited, of course, as I had
only an MBA degree and no work experience. I applied for teaching
positions anywhere I thought might accept a total novice. The University of
Alaska, in College, Alaska, came through with an offer and I became an
instructor there for two years before returning to graduate school. That I
qualified for a job there belies the fact that the University of Alaska was
then, as it is now, an intellectually stimulating place populated by dedicated
scholars.
The highlight of my experience at the University of Alaska was authoring
my first book, Marketing: Contributions from the Behavioral Sciences (1965),
which was published in my first year in the Sociology PhD program at The
Johns Hopkins University (Zaltman, 1965). The process of writing the book
helped establish a career-long belief that marketing was at once an applied
behavioral science as well as a context for developing and testing behavioral
science theory. The book’s basic approach was to pose a marketing
problem; introduce a behavioral science concept, theory, or research finding;
and then show how those behavioral science insights could inform thinking
about the marketing problem and provide the seeds for a solution.
Frank Evans was almost alone in encouraging this effort. Countless
editors and reviewers of the book’s prospectus pointed out, often in
indelicate ways, that I was, in effect, exceeding my station in life. No one,
they said, could be more obscure and thus more unlikely to be taken
seriously. After all, I had no PhD, no business experience, no affiliation with
a notable university, no publishing track record, and so on. Of course, they
were exactly right concerning my obscurity. Fortunately, I was naı̈ve enough
to not know better and so ignored these expressions of conventional wisdom
about what is needed to bring out a book that would be taken seriously.
Another kiss of death for many publishers and their reviewers was the
belief that bringing together marketing and the behavioral sciences, while a
fine idea, was too far ahead of its time. This criticism might be hard to
fathom today, but in 1963, it was a well-entrenched position. The lone
exception was Harcourt Brace and World and their Stanford University
academic advisor, William Massy. William Massy believed the topic was
timely and predicted that my obscure status would change upon the book’s
publication. He looked ahead to what the book’s publication might bring
rather than allowing my current status to prevent its publication.
The lesson contained here – look ahead to what someone could become
rather than allowing their present status be a barrier to realizing that
possibility – is one that I have tried to apply in my work with doctoral
students and junior faculty. I have always tried to ask what a particular
young scholar could become rather than focus only on their current
achievements. This means looking well beyond the usual performance
criteria as reflected in standardized tests, grades, recommendations, and
responses to conventional interview questions. These reveal little about a
person’s imaginative capacities and other qualities necessary to be a leading
scholar.
Two more observations about this first book will be helpful. First, the
idea of bringing the behavioral sciences into marketing was not mainstream,
but it was not entirely new either. For example, the Ford Foundation had
called for such an initiative. And as I discovered later, Northwestern
University had two psychologists on its marketing faculty: Sidney Levy and
Stuart Henderson Britt. As mentioned, the primary strategy in the book was
to find a marketing problem, locate relevant behavioral science thinking,
and then discuss its implications for addressing the problem. However, often
I would encounter interesting social science research and theory that
intuitively seemed very important and then sought a likely marketing
problem to fit it. Although I did not realize it then, I was staking out a
position to the effect that theory and practice need not and in fact ought not
to be separate and that one could begin from either location. That lay the
seeds for another important lesson: inherent in every healthy theory is a
practical implication and inherent in every practical action is a theoretical
idea.
Second, it turned out that I was the entire Marketing Department at the
University of Alaska. This required my teaching courses like salesmanship
and retail management that I had never taken as an MBA student and might
have avoided where they offered as courses. It quickly became evident to me
that I did not know a lot about marketing. Fortunately, the business library
was quite good. Additionally, there was a far larger challenge I had not
anticipated. Students in any one class might range from academically
accomplished military officers to high school graduates with questionable
college preparation. In attempting to respond to the challenge of teaching
322 GERALD ZALTMAN
students with very different learning styles and cultural frames, I began to
understand the importance of mental frames. I learned not to confuse an
inappropriate cultural frame with an absence of intellectual capacity.
The experiences described so far lay the foundation for learning a number
of lessons. It will be helpful to identify some of these early lessons as they
will resurface in subsequent parts of this article.
1. Listen to the advice of others, but be very selective in whose advice you
seek and when to pay attention to it. And do not let even a strong
consensus among experts that something is not possible deter you if your
vision indicates otherwise.
2. Being naı̈ve is not always a liability. Sometimes it pays not to know
better. This posture, however, requires a deep conviction about what you
are doing and a healthy dose of stubbornness in pursuing it. Act on the
strength of your convictions, not those of others.
3. The substantive guidance offered by people like Frank Evans, Hans
Thorelli, Elihu Katz, and so many others who have influenced me is
always important. However, a mentor’s primary gift is in sharing his or
her implicit values and ways of thinking. These habits of mind or
thinking styles are generally found by reading between the lines of their
substantive advice. So do a lot of reading there.
4. Practice responsible ignorance. Do not be afraid to tackle what you do
not know. Knowledge, after all, grows from ignorance. It cannot come
from anywhere else. I have always found that teaching and writing books
is a good way to grow knowledge from ignorance. It needs to be done
responsibly, of course. This means being exhaustive in learning from
other fields and disciplined in knitting them together.
5. While theory and practice can be treated as separate domains what really
separates them is the absence of imagination. Theories can reside in
practice and practice can reside in theories. But imagination is required to
see this. Their overlap does not just walk up and introduce itself.
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY (1964–1968)
As I finished work on my first book and teaching and learning about

marketing, I decided to obtain a degree in a basic behavioral science. In
1964, after finishing two years at the University of Alaska, I entered the
Department of Social Relations (now the Sociology Department) at the
Johns Hopkins University. Among the people I was fortunate to work with
there was my primary advisor and thesis cochair, the late James S. Coleman.
Jim Coleman had also been on the doctoral dissertation committee of my
primary mentor at the University of Chicago, Franklin B. Evans, and was a
collaborator with Elihu Katz, from whom I took my first sociology course.
Two of many lessons learned from Jim Coleman stand out to me now.
1. If your work happens to challenge accepted wisdom, you need to be
meticulous in establishing its conceptual and empirical foundations as it
will receive far close scrutiny than a mainstream idea.
2. It is necessary to respect and understand the social and psychological
dynamics of the resistance you will certainly encounter when your work
pushes others people’s comfort zones. Many seemingly scientific-based
criticisms are often false cover for objections whose real roots are
elsewhere. For example, no one likes to be confronted with the possibility
that their work might be in error, especially if they may have to change
their thinking. The scientific objections to your work are more readily
addressed when these more silent but more powerful objections are also
considered.
While at Johns Hopkins, I also had the good fortune of meeting Nan Lin,
a sociologist, and William Garvey, a psychologist, who was the director of
The Center for the Study of Scientific Communication. Nan Lin’s principle
appointment was in the Center, but he also had a joint appointment in the
Department of Social Relations. Nan (about whom I will say more later on)
and Jim Coleman were my thesis cochairs. Bill Garvey was responsible for
interesting me in the sociology of science. He was instrumental in securing a
temporary position for me as a research associate at the American Institute
of Physics where I worked on an Atomic Energy Commission project
dealing with the formal and informal communication system among
theoretical high-energy physicists. This project provided the data for my
doctoral thesis on professional recognition and communication among
theoretical high-energy physicists.
A brief comment is in order on my experience at the American Institute of
Physics. At that time (circa 1966), theoretical high-energy physicists were
considered the crème de la crème of physicists. They were also highly
competent mathematicians. My work there required that I learn, as best a
non-physicist could, what theoretical high-energy physicists did and how
they thought. It was a struggle. However, during this crash course and in my
many personal interviews with the field’s leaders, I came to appreciate the
importance of a scientist’s imaginative capacities. Math skills and physics
expertise, as essential as they were, did not distinguish the great from the
324 GERALD ZALTMAN
good. I came up with an analogy (helpful to me, acceptable to them) that

compared the work of a theoretical high-energy physicist to the task
of looking at footprints in sand, imagining the kind of creature that might
have created those footprints, and then making fairly precise predictions
about the creature’s physiology. These predictions were then explored by
experimentalists. This analogy hardly does justice to their thought processes.
It does, however, highlight the fact that the most successful theoretical high-
energy physicists were skilled in visualizing what their equally informed and
well-trained peers could not or would not see. I began to appreciate that for
all their technical competencies, what distinguished great theoretical high-
energy physicists from others was an ability to see differently from the norm.
Thus, another important lesson was that being ‘‘smart’’ required much more
than being well informed. It required a turn of mind that could see or imagine
what other equally informed scientists could not.
The learning environment in the Department of Social Relations at Johns
Hopkins was stimulating. The faculty and students were varied, the
atmosphere cooperative, and there was an excitement that revolved around
working with James S. Coleman. I was one of his research assistants working
on a simulations and games project intended to teach social studies to a
spectrum of elementary and high school students by leveraging the motivating
power of competition found in games. I developed a particular game called
‘‘Consumer,’’ which taught students about the pros and cons of using credit.
I also became increasingly involved with Nan Lin, who had arrived from
Michigan State University and was a student of Everett M. Rogers, the
foremost scholar on the diffusion of innovations. Rogers’ pioneering book,
The Diffusion of Innovations (1962) had, along with Elihu Katz, a profound
and lasting impact on my academic interests, as evidenced in my first book
and many that followed. Nan’s interest in planned social change rubbed off
on me. He was instrumental in involving me in health education projects in
Central America. These experiences, begun during my last couple of years as
a doctoral student and continuing when I joined the faculty at North-
western, were to have a central role in the work I did on social marketing
with Philip Kotler. Nan’s enthusiasm for health education was infectious.
Moreover, he had an intuitive grasp of how theory and practice are simply
two sides of the same coin. My recollection now is that he was the first
person to make really clear the impossibility of having a one-sided coin.
Most people at that time insisted on gazing only at one side or the other as if
there could be a one-sided coin. This, of course, did not make it so.
Nan introduced me to his mentor, Everett Rogers, with whom I was
fortunate to develop a close friendship as well as professional bond. I sought
Everett’s counsel on a job search decision I was facing: whether to enter a

sociology department or a marketing department. He had two observations
that I believe are still valid today. The first was that marketing departments
and business schools in general would likely be more tolerant of my
sociological interests than sociology departments would be tolerant of my
marketing interests.
The second and more helpful observation was that, ‘‘if you want to bridge
different fields you should expect to be walked on.’’ This caution may be a bit
less merited today than in the late 1960s, yet disciplinary silos remain strong.
To elaborate, a bridge is only partially anchored in one domain; it is never seen
as fully rooted in any one setting. Those in one field will tend to see you as
belonging to the other field. (This is not true of everyone; in my experience, the
most accomplished scholars grasp the fact that the world is not organized the
way universities are.) Life happens in multidisciplinary or even transdisci-
plinary ways even if those who study it retain a single discipline focus. As will
be more evident shortly, being interdisciplinary is very important to me. I was
gradually learning another lesson: life is lived as a symphony, not as a collection
of single instruments taking turns playing solos.
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY (1968–1975)
I decided to return to marketing for the reasons suggested by Everett Rogers

and joined the business school (now the Kellogg Graduate School of
Management) at Northwestern University. I am sure other open-minded
marketing departments existed, but I doubt any exceeded this department’s
broad approach to marketing issues. This was reflected in part by the varied
disciplinary backgrounds and orientations of its faculty. More importantly,
there was an intellectual climate that invited diversity in thinking. No one
was so ‘‘stuck’’ in their primary marketing specialty as to not be genuinely
inquisitive about and supportive of what their colleagues were doing, even if
very distant from their own interests.
How that atmosphere originally developed is unclear as it preceded me. It
certainly could not have occurred without the presence of people having
great personal and professional integrity. More than a mere tolerance of
diversity and risk taking, it was actively valued and encouraged. To a brand
new assistant professor, who admittedly felt very insecure, the senior faculty
was an unusually nurturing group of wise men. Another lesson started to
emerge: the immediate work environment and especially the intellectual ethic it
fosters have an impact on scholarly imagination that rivals and perhaps
326 GERALD ZALTMAN
exceeds the importance of the individual minds involved. Exactly how the
mind/brain becomes liberated (or in many sad instances imprisoned) by its
environment is an issue I will touch on later.
While at Northwestern, I authored a number of articles and books. The
books include:
Marketing, Society, and Conflict (1975) by Levy and Zaltman
Marketing Research: Fundamentals and Dynamics (1975) by Zaltman and
Burger
Metatheory in Consumer Research (1973) by Zaltman, Pinson, and
Angelmar
Innovations and Organizations (1973) by Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek
Cases in Marketing Research (1975) by Schultz, Burger, and Zaltman
Broadening the Concept of Consumer Behavior (1975) by Zaltman and
Sternthal
Processes and Phenomena of Social Change (1973) by Zaltman
Creating Social Change (1972) by Zaltman, Kotler, and Kaufman.
Let me comment on a feature of abovementioned book list and those
noted subsequently. Many are coauthored or coedited. The same pattern of
coauthorship describes many, perhaps most, of my numerous journal
articles and invited chapters. The right coauthors who (with only rare
exceptions) I have always been fortunate to have as collaborators are those
people who are both similar to and yet different from me. They are similar in
the sense of having the same curiosity about and passion for exploring an
idea. They are different in that they bring to a shared interest different ways
of seeing and access to different domains of knowledge. This does not
always produce smooth sailing; it is often rocky. However, when different
perspectives and styles of thinking come together with a common purpose,
important ideas will arise that would not otherwise see the light of day. The
ideas emerge from a blending of different frameworks, and the resulting
ideas are likely to be novel and important. Thus, one other lesson I have
learned is having the right coauthors or collaborators is a way of opening up
new possibilities through a sharing of largely complementary yet different
frameworks and expertise. It is an important avenue for pursuing one’s own
intellectual growth. Not only is the work I have done with others different
from what would have been the case had I worked alone, it is better.
At Northwestern, I was also co-director of The Center for the
Interdisciplinary Study of Science and Technology, which was originally
in the History Department, and then moved to the Organizational Behavior
Department at the business school. Additionally, I had an appointment in
the Graduate School of Education and taught a course in the Department of

Sociology. Along the way, I was awarded an endowed chair, the A.
Montgomery Ward Professorship in Marketing.
A notable development while at Northwestern was my work on social
marketing with Philip Kotler for which we earned the Alpha Kappa Psi
Award for the outstanding journal article of the year (see my commentary in
Wilkie, 2011). The idea that marketing concepts and principles could be
used to further noncommercial social ideas and causes arose partly within
the confluence of my work on planned social change in Central America
(recall that Nan Lin played a role in getting that ball rolling) and Phil Kotler
and Sidney Levy’s pioneering work on broadening the concept of market-
ing. (For a further elaboration of the development of the social marketing
concept, see the Sage Publications Legends in Marketing Series.] There were
heated responses to our paper. Not everyone liked the idea of extending
marketing into the world of social causes. For instance, it was argued that
marketing professionals should focus on much needed improvements within
their own field and not be sidetracked by efforts to improve activities
elsewhere.
At this time, partly due to the wisdom of Philip Kotler and Sidney Levy, I
began to see again the importance of respecting resistance to one’s ideas and
being open to it while maintaining the courage of your own convictions. James
Coleman and others had already sensitized me to this attitude. And I
became more mindful of Everett Rogers’ advice that if one wants to bridge
fields, you need to expect to be walked on. Objections to an idea can and
often do contain the seeds for improving it. This is true even when the goal
of those objections is to dismiss the idea altogether. Moreover, resistance is
typically rooted in a world view or frame that serves an important purpose
for those involved. The values, attitudes, and actions within competing and
even hostile frames need to be understood and respected as authentic. This,
in turn, makes for more productive discussions of one’s own and new ideas.
It focuses attention on the underlying issue about which opposite positions may
be taken. Usually, the underlying issue involves an even more core value that
parties in conflict can agree is important. The importance of identifying the
common denominator or critical value around which people take different
positions greatly influenced my thinking about deep metaphors – a point
which I will address later.
In many ways, I grew up professionally during my seven years at
Northwestern. I matured as a scholar, broadened my interests and skills,
grew to appreciate the ways in which collegial culture infiltrates the mind,
and discovered the rewards of working with bright and motivated doctoral
328 GERALD ZALTMAN
students. However, at a restless moment in my life, a special opportunity

presented itself for me to join the University of Pittsburgh and help
reestablish a marketing department and doctoral program there. I
responded favorably to this opportunity and joined Pitt as the Albert
Wesley Frey Distinguished Professor of Marketing.
THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH (1975–1991)
My 16 years at the University of Pittsburgh taught me that one never really

grows up, or at least that one never needs to cease growing. Over the course of
my time at Pitt, I broadened my interdisciplinary bases. For example, while
based in what was to become the Katz Graduate School of Business, I
eventually held appointments in the Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs, the Department of Sociology, The Graduate School
of Public Health, and the Learning Research and Development Center. I
was a faculty associate of the Latin American Studies Program, director of
the Pittsburgh Research Institute for Studies in Marketing, and co-director
of the University Center for the Study of Knowledge Use.
The people I worked with at the Katz School and elsewhere in the
University taught me the importance of actively opening doors into other
intellectual domains and not being afraid to open yet other doors found
within those domains. The foundations for this lesson, of course, had
already been laid in my undergraduate and graduate training and my
experiences at Northwestern. As I will note later, this lesson was greatly
augmented when I joined Harvard University. I began to appreciate even
more fully that life in the world is not organized the way universities are and
no single academic discipline owns explanations of human activity.
My publishing productivity continued with the appearance of a number
of articles and books. The books include:
Hearing the Voice of the Market (1991) by Barabba and Zaltman

Marketing Management (1987) by Park and Zaltman
Consumer Behavior: Basic Findings and Management Implications (1983) by
Zaltman and Wallendorf
Readings in Consumer Behavior: Individuals, Groups, and Organizations
(1984) by Wallendorf and Zaltman
Theory Construction in Marketing (1982) by Zaltman, LeMasters, and
Heffring
Psychology for Managers (1981) by Bonoma and Zaltman
Management Principles for Nonprofit Organizations (1979) by Zaltman

Marketing Scientific and Technical Information (1979) by King and Zaltman
Review of Marketing (1978a) by Bonoma and Zaltman
Organizational Buying Behavior (1978b) by Bonoma and Zaltman
Dynamic Educational Change (1977) by Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski
Strategies for Planned Change (1977) by Zaltman and Duncan.
My scholarly work at Pitt was important and certainly enjoyable,

particularly the work on knowledge use with Rohit Deshpande and Chris
Moorman, the work on consumer behavior with Melanie Wallendorf, and
the initial thinking that led to the Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Technique
(ZMET) (see later). However, some of the warmest feelings about that
period, like those at Northwestern, are rooted in its social and intellectual
climate. I had two mandates from then Dean Jerry Zoffer. One was to
rebuild the marketing unit, with the help of Alan Shocker, and the other was
to rebuild the doctoral program in marketing and later the school’s overall
doctoral program. We were able to attract as young faculty and doctoral
candidates people who went on to become major leaders in the field. Many
observers outside of Pitt have suggested that no institution has ever
produced as many influential marketing scholars in so short a period.
I have been asked from time to time to comment on our approach to
nurturing and otherwise developing doctoral students and junior faculty
colleagues. This is a difficult request to address. The general abilities,
existing habits of mind, and motivations of potential mentees do matter.
That is why people use standardized test scores, essays, recommendations,
and publications as selection criteria. But these are only helpful up to a
point. They do not foretell whether someone will become an outstanding
scholar; that is, someone who will develop innovative ideas having
substantial impact on the thinking of many other scholars. My guess is
that early in their careers, the truly outstanding theoretical high-energy
physicists I studied could not be distinguished from the merely good ones
using conventional measures of potential. The same is true in marketing.
One important lesson I have learned is that mentoring matters and it
matters a great deal. Mentoring comes in a variety of flavors and not all of
them suit my tastes. One of my convictions, which I believe is increasingly
supported by cognitive neuroscience, is that almost everyone has an innately
innovative, imaginative mind conducive to play. This does not mean that
everyone is equal in their imaginative abilities. It simply means that our
minds have evolved to be creative. One of the qualities I always look for in
prospective doctoral students and new faculty is their penchant for creative
330 GERALD ZALTMAN
play and a willingness to challenge their own basic assumptions and those of
others. Just how inclined are they to draw outside the standard intellectual
lines? This is not the place to discuss the indicators of this capacity or
propensity except to say they do not include GPAs, standardized test scores,
or verbal fluency.
So what does matter? What enables a mind with imaginative capacity to
flourish or causes it to be mired in ordinary thinking? A lesson learned at
Northwestern and reinforced by the success of our efforts at the University
of Pittsburgh is that young scholars need an environment in which they feel
free to make mistakes, to pursue novel ideas of their own invention, and feel
comfortable developing those ideas without using up social resources or credit
when they go bust. The challenge is to encourage this mindset while also
providing appropriate, disciplined, development feedback. Early in their
careers, scholars need to be given a lot of rope with no noose attached. This
was my experience as a doctoral student and assistant professor.
It is also my belief that if scholars do not learn to be venturesome in their
thinking early in their careers, they are very unlikely to do so later on.
Counterproductive to this lesson is the practice of teaching students to be
very critical of published work, something that is developed to a fine art in
doctoral seminars. I am not against the development of such skills so long as
they go hand in hand with an equal or greater emphasis on thinking boldly
on one’s own. Skewing training heavily toward fault finding does little to
encourage creativity. It produces a kind of creative paralysis: students think,
in effect, that if the work of accomplished scholars can be criticized so
readily, anything venturesome they might develop could not possibly have
merit, so why take risks?
Another important element in helping students and young faculty develop
is to encourage wide cognitive peripheral vision, that is, to seek insights from
fields that are beyond the immediate domain of the topic of interest. Why
would a Beethoven scholar, an endocrinologist, an ethnomusicologist, a
neuroscientist, sociologist, or physical therapist find research on package
design, shelf placement, humor in advertising, or brand positioning
interesting? By asking this question, one is forced to think about the
fundamental or generic issue being addressed. Once this issue is identified,
entire worlds of relevant knowledge can be opened up and used to improve
the core idea. This, in turn, provides deeper insights about an issue and
enhances an idea’s impact and relevance.
I should mention here that, while at Pitt, I began to deepen my interests in
the practical world of the manager. A colleague, Ian Mitroff, introduced me
to Mr. Vincent P. Barabba, then at Xerox, and later at the Kodak Company
and the U.S. Census Bureau. But it was while Vince was at General Motors
that I became more actively involved with him. Many of the ideas we
developed together can be found in our book Hearing the Voice of the
Market: Competitive Advantage through Creative Use of Market Information
(1991). I learned a great deal from Vince, including the value of identifying
assumptions, understanding frameworks, and how to understand the
mechanisms that put good ideas into practice. He would often ask, ‘‘Are
you doing the right thing and are you doing it the right way?’’ He also
sensitized me to how organizational dynamics can determine whether the
right question is being asked or avoided and whether data is being
interpreted robustly or from narrow, highly biased views.
While at the University of Pittsburgh, I also became involved in various
capacities with the Marketing Science Institute (MSI). One of MSI’s
primary goals is to bridge academic and practitioner worlds by encouraging
scholarly research that is relevant to practical business concerns. A lesson
that resurfaced and was reaffirmed with this involvement is one that echoes
my association with Nan Lin: theory and practice are two sides of the same
coin. Theoretical, scholarly-oriented work can be greatly improved by being
attentive to how practicing managers engage the same phenomena;
conversely, marketing practice can be improved by being attentive to
scholarly research. This was also Vince Barabba’s working philosophy, one
which he skillfully displayed in his political work, his work at Xerox,
Eastman Kodak, and General Motors and as director of the U.S. Census
Bureau (twice!). Not coincidentally, Vince was also deeply involved in MSI.
I might add that the late Alden Clayton, President of MSI for many years,
kept my toes to the fire regarding the practical implications of my work. It
was not that he expected each idea to have an immediate application; rather,
his questioning forced me to think about how an idea might at least open a
gate into other work that could have practical applications.
THE HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL (1991–2003)
During another restless period in my life, I received and accepted an

invitation to join the faculty of the Harvard Business School as the Joseph
C. Wilson Professor of Business Administration. This involved a major
adjustment. For example, I thought I knew how to teach, but soon realized
how little I knew about treating the mind of the MBA student as a rich
reservoir of ideas and perspectives by employing the case-based discussion
leadership teaching method practiced at Harvard. At first glance, it looked
332 GERALD ZALTMAN
easy enough. Most things do when a highly skilled person is performing a

task. Initially, I think I taxed the patience of some of my colleagues while I
learned the ropes.
I eventually figured out how to do it well in my own way. It is a wonderful
experience when a class goes well: subtle and complex points are surfaced
and students leave class thinking differently than when they walked in that
day. It should be mentioned that I know of no other institution that invests
more effort in so many ways in developing faculty teaching skills and
supporting classroom activities. HBS recognizes diversity in faculty teaching
styles as much as diversity in student learning styles. Much of this support is
faculty to faculty. For instance, the eight or nine faculty teaching a section
of the introductory marketing course meet for about four hours each week
to discuss that week’s cases. Additional support is provided on class days
about particular issues. For instance, faculty who teach earlier in the day let
those teaching later know what did and did not work well and what
surprises might be in store and how to handle them. Mentoring took place
among senior faculty, not just between senior and junior faculty.
While at Harvard I authored two important books:
How Customers Think (2003) by Zaltman

Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal about the Minds
of Consumers (2008) by G. Zaltman and L. H. Zaltman.
ZMET: THE ZALTMAN METAPHOR

ELICITATION TECHNIQUE
One of my major accomplishments has been the development of a patented
market research tool called ZMET that is now in use around the world. This
technique did not initially emerge from a desire to find a way to make a
major improvement in how consumers and others are understood. Its
development does reflect the importance of allowing seemingly independent,
unconnected interests and pockets of knowledge to engage or talk to one
another. Once previously segregated bodies of thought and experience are
allowed to socialize, one’s thinking is greatly enriched with ideas that would
otherwise never be born. We will see later how a personal interest in
photography, a professional interest in visual anthropology and sociology,
an encounter with a furniture salesman, work on the use of advertising
research, a fascination with Nepal, experience with qualitative techniques
and an appreciation of the limits of survey methods (in which I was trained
as a sociologist) for exploratory research purposes, and a coincidence of
interests with Eastman Kodak, along with certain colleagues like Robin
Coulter now at the University of Connecticut all converged to help create a
multistep research method.
About 1989–1990, I became quite interested in photography and took my
first formal class at the Maine Photographic Workshop. One lesson the
instructor imparted was that every photograph is autobiographical; it
revealed something about the person behind the camera. Another class
emphasized ‘‘stalking’’ for close-ups or following people and taking close-
ups of them engaged in some meaningful activity without their awareness
and without the benefit of a telephoto lens. This was a major challenge.
Invading someone else’s space just did not feel right and the idea that each
photograph I took revealed something about me – exactly what I did not
know – only added to my discomfort.
Also at this time, I became interested in visual anthropology and visual
sociology, which were both becoming established fields of study. Of course,
I was well aware of the work consumer behavior researchers like Melanie
Wallendorf (a former student), Elizabeth Hirschman (a former Pitt junior
colleague), Russ Belk, and many others were doing as part of the consumer
odyssey project.
One thing that struck me about the work appearing in the sociological,
anthropological, and consumer behavior literatures was that the visual
evidence, such as photographs and video, were shot by the researcher. Thus,
these ‘‘data’’ reflected their assumptions and ways of seeing the world. This
was not wrong, but I did wonder whether something different would be
uncovered if the people being studied had the freedom and responsibility of
taking their own pictures about the same aspect of their life. Would they
make different observations and tell a different story?
My interests in photography and plans for pursuing them at this time
were also becoming rather expensive. It promised to become more expensive
as I was planning a second trip to Nepal where I intended to do a lot of
photography. I approached contacts at Eastman Kodak for assistance. They
were interested in how people who have never used a camera (most of the
world population at that time and quite possibly still) took pictures. With
this in mind, Eastman Kodak agreed to provide about 25 easy-to-use plastic
cameras and over 600 rolls of film. These were sent to me while I was a
visiting professor at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France, from where my
wife Ann, an intensive care nurse specialist, and I were to depart for about a
month in Nepal and a short stay in India. I will spare the reader the travails
334 GERALD ZALTMAN
of shepherding all this equipment through several immigration and customs

checkpoints where all the film had to be hand checked rather than through
the X-ray systems in place at the time. I might add that the bureaucracies in
Nepal and India were very attentive to our leaving with the same number of
cameras, and we had to be accountable for the rolls of film with which we
had entered. Joining us in this Nepal adventure were Professor Rajiv Kohli,
formerly a junior colleague at Pitt, and now at Columbia, and his wife
Urvashi, a PhD in anthropology. They added immensely to the experience.
Our trekking took us to periodic markets, exchanges usually held monthly
or sometimes bimonthly. These markets were in fairly remote communities
even by local standards, often demanding a few days trekking for
participants. Because these markets were infrequent and affected the quality
of life between market events, they were very important economically and
socially. We would select a range of people in terms of age, gender, and
occupation in each community and give them photographic assignments.
The only condition was that the person had no prior experience with a
camera. Taking photos had to be a new activity.
Many people were illiterate and most were economically poor as judged
(perhaps inappropriately) by Western standards. Some general assignments
included, ‘‘If you were to move to another village far away, what pictures
would you take to show people in your new home what life is like where you
live now?’’; ‘‘What are your favorite places/activities/things here?’’; ‘‘What
are your activities as a woman in this village?’’; ‘‘What is it like to be a
farmer/teacher/shopkeeper here?’’; and ‘‘If you wanted someone from
another country to understand what happens in this market, what photos
would you take?’’, and if a wedding or some other ceremony was occurring,
we would ask people to take pictures of that occasion.
Everyone was told that their pictures would be developed and we would
return to give them copies. People were often quite surprised when we
returned. We asked people to describe the meanings or stories behind the
photos. The richness of the explanations about the images was amazing.
Often, the interpretations differed considerably from those we expected to
hear. Even our Nepali interpreter (and guide) who was a former teacher
from the region was surprised at some of the explanations.
Giving people the opportunity to choose and record their thoughts was
enormously empowering to them. We were not asking them to comment
about what we felt was interesting or important in the photograph. They
selected the stimuli and provided the explanation. In effect, their
photographs served as rich metaphors for hidden as well as surface-level
thoughts and feelings. They were indeed autobiographical. This became a
central argument in my often cited article, ‘‘Rethinking market research:

Putting people back in’’ (Zaltman, 1997). By eliciting the meanings of these
images from people, that is, letting them tell their story rather than
explaining what they thought of stimuli provided by researchers, we would
learn a great deal about what people did not know they knew.
An important lesson carried over into my teaching was to empower your
research subjects and students to determine what is important to them and
allow them to explain why. I should note here that my training and much of
my research, like much research today, was to formulate what I thought was
important, cast these ideas into survey questions of one sort or another, and
then ask people to respond in standard ways. In effect, this asks respondents
to tell researchers what they think about what the researcher thinks
respondents think about. This is not wrong, but it does little to allow for
surprising or new discoveries and assumes the researcher already knows
what is important and relevant to consumers. This approach is basically
confirmatory in nature.
At about this time, and especially after returning to Pittsburgh from
Nepal, I became quite involved in the photographic darkroom. The owner
of the facility I used supported himself largely as an office furniture
salesman. He introduced me to his sales technique, which consisted of
electronically scanning into a computer photographic negatives of a client’s
office space and of his furniture and then digitally arranging the furniture in
the client’s space to help envision the experience of owning his furniture. It
immediately became clear to me that this same digital imaging technology
(still very much in its infancy at that time – about 1989) could be applied to
pictures taken by consumers to help them tell a story. That is, consumers
could merge and otherwise rearrange photographic content to tell still more
revealing stories. I should add, too, that other pieces of the ZMET process
had fallen into place. I was familiar with the Kelly Repertory Grid process
and laddering techniques and saw how these could be used together. For
example, randomly selecting three images (photographic or otherwise) that
people used to describe their thoughts and feelings about a topic and asking
them how any two were similar and yet different from the third. The
emerging construct(s) could then be understood more deeply by engaging in
a laddering process.
These ideas were emerging at the same time that I was working on issues
about the use of advertising research. I was struck by the discrepancy
between the entirely verbal and numeric market research being provided to
creative staffs and the product they were to deliver, which was primarily
visual. And the obvious question arose, ‘‘Why not provide advertising
336 GERALD ZALTMAN
agencies with consumer generated visual data that expressed their thoughts
and feelings and associated actions?’’.
The several steps in ZMET and their rationales can be found elsewhere.
Each step has roots in multiple disciplines and each is designed to engage a
different facet of thinking. Certain elements of the process, such as
storytelling, the Kelly Repertory Grid, and laddering, have a clear history.
What is unique is the way in which they are implemented and especially the
way they are orchestrated in a two-hour one-on-one interview. Robin
Coulter, now at the University of Connecticut, worked with me as a
doctoral student at Pitt on the first trial projects and my wife, Ann, joined us
when General Motors provided opportunities to test and refine the process.
In the mid-1990s, Jerry Olson, of Penn State University, and I began
having more frequent conversations about consumer research, particularly
about mapping consumer mental models. We had known each other for
many years and had been presidents of the Association for Consumer
Research in back-to-back years. We found that we shared many important
intellectual values and ideas about developing young colleagues. In 1998, we
formed Olson Zaltman Associates, with the goal of having three or four
colleagues work with us on complex issues for a few companies. Initially,
ZMET really pushed the comfort zones of most managers and many
researchers as it required not only accepting new ideas but also giving up
existing ideas. Fortunately, several forward-thinking leaders in highly
respected companies had broad comfort zones and were willing to allow us
to demonstrate the technique’s power. Today, the science underlying ZMET
is more widely accepted. While OZA has grown to 20 þ people plus several
licensees around the globe, it remains by intent a small company. Still, we
have conducted over 500 ZMET studies in nearly 40 countries, not including
projects conducted by our global licensees.
One of the hallmarks of our work is to look at the generic or critical
fundamental issues underlying client problems and bring diverse, multi-
disciplinary perspectives to the interpretation of ZMET data and their
translation into action. In many ways, OZA, and importantly its staff,
embodies the deeply held ideas I have developed throughout the course of
my career (and those of Jerry Olson during his academic career): being
interdisciplinary, formulating generic questions, creating an environment
with clients that supports what we call ‘‘workable wondering’’ or the
exercise of practical yet innovative thinking, and viewing the worlds of
theory and practice as mutual informing sides of the same coin.
A final note. Before I became aware that the metaphor elicitation
technique could be patentable, I was advised by Vincent Barabba and his
colleague Patricia Hawkins to add my name to it. (ZMET became the first
marketing research technique ever to be patented.) Their reasoning was that
this was a powerful tool that could be readily copied and easily misused or
abused. By inserting my name at the beginning and calling it the ZMET, I
would at least distinguish what I did from the knockoffs.
THE CUSTOMER BEHAVIOR LAB

ELECTIVE COURSE
I developed a very popular elective course for second-year Harvard MBAs,

called ‘‘The Customer Behavior Laboratory.’’ In this course, I used
students’ minds as cases to illustrate basic processes and phenomena that
are at the core of consumer thought and action. This did not involve
focusing on the student’s experiences as consumers. Instead, I focused on
basic mechanisms of thought as students experienced them and would then
discuss their relevance to one or another facet of consumer behavior. We
sampled widely and went deeply into insights from a number of disciplines.
For instance, students would learn firsthand about the malleable,
reconstructive nature of their memories. We would then discuss the
implications of that phenomenon for advertising, creating consumer
experiences, and so on.
I learned a great deal as well, particularly while co-teaching with Luc
Wathieu later on in the course’s evolution. I tried to create a classroom
environment in which students felt comfortable taking the risk of being
wrong and perhaps seeming foolish when thinking in bold ways that
stretched and challenged their own thinking. Many students without an
interest in consumer behavior enrolled in the course. With hindsight, I think
inserting the term ‘‘laboratory’’ into the course title earned the permission of
students, faculty, and administration to do things differently than the
standard case-based course.
THE MIND OF THE MARKET LAB

Also at this time, I established the Mind of the Market Lab (MML) with
Professor Stephen Kosslyn, then a professor in the Harvard University
Psychology Department and a leading authority on mental imagery. Steve is
now director of the Stanford University Center for Advanced Studies in the
338 GERALD ZALTMAN
Behavioral Sciences. The MML had an Advisory Board consisting of senior

executives from leading companies and a few academics, including Jerry
Olson.
As co-directors of the MML, along with the involvement of a business
advisory panel, we sought to bring ideas and research advances from several
disciplines into marketing thought. Among other things, we conducted the
first consumer brain scans in marketing research using PET and fMRIs. The
so-called field of neuromarketing is one we are credited with founding (see,
e.g., Pradeep, 2010; Zurawicki, 2010). However, the term ‘‘neuromarketing’’
is very misleading and not of our choosing. A better descriptor would be
biometrics. Steve and I were eventually to obtain a U.S. Patent on the use of
neuroimaging techniques in marketing. That patent is now owned by the
research firm NeuroFocus.
In addition to exploring the neuroscience/marketing interface with
innovative uses of brain science technologies, we explored, through many
white papers, ZMET projects, implicit association tests, and other methods,
issues such as the meaning of loyalty, what companies are like that truly
have consumers’ best interests at heart, the role of music in shaping thought,
and how children from around the world view their future.
The bridge between marketing and neuroscience was heavily trampled,
consistent with Everett Rogers’ predictions of what is likely to occur when
you try to span dissimilar fields. Although a few people saw its potential,
many more, especially in the press, saw a great opportunity to be critical
while simultaneously displaying scant interest in being well informed. Those
concerns and critiques have largely dissipated today, although the jury is
still out on exactly what role these methods will ultimately play within the
consumer research toolbox.
THE MIND, BRAIN, BEHAVIOR INITIATIVE (MBB)
Harvard University created a program in the mid-1990s called the Mind

Brain Behavior Initiative (MBB). Its goal was to bring scientists from very
different areas of Harvard University to share their insights about problems
of common concern. The assumption was that diverse scholars were
working on similar issues without knowing one another and while speaking
about these issues in different languages. If opportunities to exchange ideas
and reduce disciplinary language barriers could be reduced, there might be
greater progress in addressing these problems. I was honored with an
invitation to join MBB, which turned out to be one the most rewarding
associations in my career. I met, worked with, and learned from some of the
world’s finest minds. I grew to appreciate earlier lessons learned still more:
the value of an open mind; a willingness to acknowledge not knowing and
seeing that state as the essential starting point of learning; the importance of
maintaining curiosity and exercising imagination; that seemingly distant and
unrelated fields of inquiry could directly or indirectly inform one’s own
interests by providing parallels or analogies. MBB experiences greatly
informed my teaching, especially in the Customer Behavior Lab, activities
in the MML, and work with ZMET and OZA clients.
HAVING THOUGHTS (THE PRESENT TIME)

It is evident from the listings of books mentioned earlier that I find writing a
book an especially rich way to learn about a topic. It forces one to think
more thoroughly about a topic. More thorough thinking requires the
creation of an organizing framework, forces one to confront inconsistencies
and missing pieces, and allows one to explore different disciplines. The
added time required to produce a full-length book also permits certain ideas
to evolve or creep up, even though they may feel like they arrive in a flash.
Thinking, after all, takes time and writing a book, if nothing else, provides
that time. Nearly all of my books have been translated into multiple
languages. For instance, my two most recent books, How Customers Think
and Marketing Metaphoria, coauthored with my anthropology-trained son
Lindsay Zaltman, have been translated so far into 18 and 7 different
languages, respectively.
I have had a long-standing interest in metaphors. I use this term broadly
to include nonliteral or figurative expressions. Much of this interest is
expressed in work related to the ZMET. There is good reason to have an
interest in metaphors. They are central to having thought and to the
creation of new thoughts through a process of conceptual blending or
cocreation. That is, metaphors do more than help us communicate; they also
alter what and how we think. This is referred to as the generative power of
metaphor. New thoughts arise as a result of using nonliteral expressions.
Current work in neuroscience, cognitive semantics, and other areas is
making this an exciting time to be interested in metaphor. Thus, metaphors
or nonliteral language not only helps reveal what people think, especially
below their awareness, they are often parents to those thoughts.
Given my interest in ZMET and especially how it can be used in
conjunction with emerging biometric techniques (for which I hold another
340 GERALD ZALTMAN
U.S. Patent), it might seem that a candidate for my next book would focus
on ZMET, its underlying scientific foundations, its potential for further
development, and its widening applications. But that is not the case.
Another book, one on having innovative thought, is the more likely
candidate. A brief comment with another lesson is in order here. A friend
once described her experience growing up on a farm and getting attached to
baby chickens. She would latch onto a baby chick and carry it around
wherever she went clutching it close to her chest. Well, her handling was
never very good for the baby chick’s development and it was not good for
her to be overly attached to something she would soon be forced to give up.
Her example was a lesson in its own right: you can get too attached to ideas
or ways of approaching them and end up missing other worthwhile pursuits. At
some point, you need to stop squeezing the baby chicken no matter how
fond you are of it. I have realized that despite its richness and all that
remains to further develop ZMET, it is time for me to stop squeezing that
particular baby chicken while encouraging others to continue to do so. I
intend to continue to be involved in the further development of ZMET, but
at the same time, there are many other chicks waiting to be squeezed. I
would like to turn my attention to one of those chicks.
The beginning of this article spent considerable time on my very first
book, published in 1965. It is fitting that I conclude this article with a few
words about a topic of current interest – the nature of imaginative thinking –
that may be the basis for my next book. The topic of imagination is of
ancient interest and much is written about it. It is also a topic about which
we still have a great deal to learn. In many ways, it is the Dark Continent in
the study of thought.
This undertaking will draw on past work I have done: innovations and
organizations, how managers approach ill-structured problems, what it is
like to have an insight, the dynamics of metaphor and conceptual blending,
social change, neuroscience and cognitive science, and the sociology of
knowledge, to name just a few areas I know firsthand are relevant. I can
only imagine the number of new areas that I will be visiting as I explore this
further. I know enough about this challenge to understand it is not a new
issue and that many helpful works already exist. At the same time, there are
formidable obstacles to tackle, which is why executives feel the absence of
deep, imaginative thinking among managers is the number one challenge to
overcome in achieving growth for their firms.
Reflections on the nature of thought have a long and robust intellectual
history. We cannot help having thoughts. Every day, we encounter
expressions like the following:
I’ve an idea.
It occurs to me that y
Aha!
Now I get it
I see your point
Sorry. I was day dreaming
Moreover, thoughts are the currency in both academic and practitioner

communities. They are also gifts to be given, received, tested, improved
upon, and borrowed. We know, too, they have property rights attached and
are sometimes stolen. But as an everyday matter, we do not give the general
nature of thought much attention. For instance, when did you last wonder
about what exactly it is you have when you have a thought independently of
its content? What is involved when you experience an idea? It is far easier to
describe the content of a thought than to describe the experience of having
it. Of course, even describing the content of thought can be a major
challenge. How often in the course of a day do you say or hear, ‘‘No, what I
really mean is y ’’ or ‘‘Let me put it another way y ’’? Because thoughts
are not the same as words, although words are very important, we are
constantly dealing with the gap between what we say and what we mean.
To add complexity to all this is the fact that some thoughts are
understood to be deeper than others. The senior executives I have spent time
with claim that the major challenge they face in their firms is to overcome
significant and widespread deficits in deep thinking. This messy issue is my
new baby chick. More specifically, I want to capture some of the social,
psychological, neurological, and contextual dynamics that account for
deficits in deep thinking and offer strategies for overcoming them. I am
especially interested in deep thinking that is imaginative and produces novel
ideas with the promise to be practical.
This interest in the dynamics of imaginative thought also highlights a few
additional lessons I want to share by way of concluding remarks. First,
whoever wanders is not necessarily lost. Do not be distracted by others’
urgings to have clear, long-term goals. Whether or not one has a highly
focused career goal is a matter of personal taste, of course. In my case I have
never worried about direction or about what would be next much less how
best to get there. At the same time, when I look back, I see a fairly clear path
to any given undertaking.
Second, there are few ideas that are truly new. My current interest in deep
insights and imagination requires addressing topics in the sociology of
knowledge, cognitive neuroscience, the adoption and diffusion of
342 GERALD ZALTMAN
innovation, organizational change, and models of individual and social

learning, to name a few relevant domains. So, when something captures your
attention, cast a very wide net to trap existing relevant perspectives.
Another lesson is misleadingly simple: remember that all methods of inquiry
are compromises with reality. Using a variety of methods does more than
provide convergent validity for an insight. Diverse methods offer a range of
insights and thus reduce the compromises we make with reality. It is like
peering into a room through different windows. The room is grasped
differently depending on the window one is looking through. If the room you
need to navigate is complex, you want to have looked at it in advance through
as many different windows as possible. And because cause and effect is a unit, it
is necessary to do more than observe overt behavior or to merely identify the
substantive contents of particular neural activations. We need to understand
both as an instantiation of the same event. This requires multiple methods.
A final lesson is that while you have to be careful about squeezing your
current baby chick too much, you do have to squeeze it. In other words, it is
necessary to spend considerable time learning about particular fields of
interest. You cannot simply hold someone else’s chick and claim familial
attachment. Wandering requires an immersion in your surroundings.
CONCLUSION
I made a decision to join a business school faculty upon completing my

PhD. I have never regretted that choice. I think business schools in general
are the most interdisciplinary programs in any university. Apart from my
experiences with Olson Zaltman Associates – which is much more like a
think tank than a traditional research and consulting firm – I have never
regretted the fact that since entering kindergarten I have always been in
school and although my current status is one of an emeritus professor, I still
think of the university as home and the world of marketing as my workshop.
REFERENCES
Barabba, V., & Zaltman, G. (1991). Hearing the voice of the market. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Bonoma, T., & Zaltman, G. (Eds). (1978a). Review of marketing. Chicago: American Marketing
Association.
Bonoma, T., & Zaltman, G. (Eds). (1978b). Organizational buying behavior. Chicago: American
Bonoma, T., & Zaltman, G. (1981). Psychology for managers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc.
King, W. R., & Zaltman, G. (Eds). (1979). Marketing scientific and technical information.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Levy, S. J., & Zaltman, G. (1975). Marketing, society, and conflict. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Park, C. W., & Zaltman, G. (1987). Marketing management. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.
Pradeep, A. K. (2010). The buying brain: Secrets for selling to the subconscious mind. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Schultz, R., Burger, P., & Zaltman, G. (Eds). (1975). Cases in marketing research. Hinsdale, IL:
Dryden Press.
Wallendorf, M., & Zaltman, G. (Eds). (1984). Readings in consumer behavior: Individuals,
groups, and organizations. New York: Wiley.
Wilkie, W. (Ed.). (2011). Broadening the concept and applications of marketing. Marketing
Legend Series (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zaltman, G. (1965). Marketing: Contributions from the behavioral sciences. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Zaltman, G. (Ed.) (1973). Processes and phenomena of social change. New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Zaltman, G. (Ed.) (1979). Management principles for nonprofit organizations. New York:
American Management Association.
Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking market research: Putting people back in. Journal of Marketing
Research, 34(4), 424–437.
Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zaltman, G., & Burger, P. (1975). Marketing research: Fundamentals and dynamics. Hinsdale,
IL: Dryden Press.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: Wiley-
Interscience.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York:
Wiley-Interscience.
Zaltman, G., Florio, D., & Sikorski, L. (1977). Dynamic educational change. New York: The
Free Press.
Zaltman, G., Kotler, P., & Kaufman, I. (Eds). (1972). Creating social change. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing. New
York: Wiley.
Zaltman, G., Pinson, C. R. A., & Angelmar, R. (1973). Metatheory in consumer research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Zaltman, G., & Sternthal, B. (Eds). (1975). Broadening the concept of consumer behavior.
Cincinnati, OH: Association for Consumer Research.
Zaltman, G., & Wallendorf, M. (1983). Consumer behavior: Basic findings and management
implications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Zaltman, G., & Zaltman, L. H. (2008). Marketing metaphoria: What deep metaphors reveal
about the minds of consumers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Zurawicki, L. (2010). Neuromarketing: Exploring the brain of the consumer. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS
RMR INAUGURAL ISSUE

EDITOR NARESH K. MALHOTRA
EDITORIAL: REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH
Naresh K. Malhotra
A RE-APPRAISAL OF THE ROLE OF EMOTION IN
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: TRADITIONAL AND
CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES
Allison R. Johnson and David W. Stewart
THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: BEAUTY AS A CONCEPT
IN EVERYDAY DISCOURSE AND THE COLLECTIVE
PHOTOGRAPHIC ESSAY
Morris B. Holbrook
CONSUMER INFORMATION ACQUISITION: A REVIEW
AND AN EXTENSION
Lan Xia and Kent B. Monroe
THE RESOURCE-ADVANTAGE THEORY OF COMPETITION:
A REVIEW
Shelby D. Hunt and Robert M. Morgan
TOWARD AN INTEGRATED MODEL OF BUSINESS
PERFORMANCE
Sundar G. Bharadwaj and Rajan Varadarajan
CONSUMERS’ EVALUATIVE REFERENCE SCALES
AND SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY: A REVIEW AND
EXPLORATORY STUDY
Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch
CORRESPONDENCE ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVES, ISSUES AND APPLICATIONS
Naresh K. Malhotra, Betsy Charles Bartels, and Can Uslay
345
346 PREVIOUS VOLUME CONTENTS
REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: VOLUME 2

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: SOME REFLECTIONS
Naresh K. Malhotra
CONSUMER ACTION: AUTOMATICITY, PURPOSIVENESS,
AND SELF-REGULATION
Richard P. Bagozzi
LOOKING THROUGH THE CRYSTAL BALL: AFFECTIVE
FORECASTING AND MISFORECASTING IN CONSUMER
BEHAVIOR
Deborah J. MacInnis, Vanessa M. Patrick,
and C. Whan Park
CONSUMER USE OF THE INTERNET IN SEARCH FOR
AUTOMOBILES: LITERATURE REVIEW, A CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK, AND AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
Brian T. Ratchford, Myung-Soo Lee,
and Debabrata Talukdar
CATEGORIZATION: A REVIEW AND AN EMPIRICAL
INVESTIGATION OF THE EVALUATION FORMATION
PROCESS
Gina L. Miller, Naresh K. Malhotra, and Tracey M. King
INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DETERMINANTS OF CONSUMERS’
ADOPTION AND USAGE OF TECHNOLOGICAL
INNOVATIONS: A PROPOSITIONAL INVENTORY
Shun Yin Lam and A. Parasuraman
THE METRICS IMPERATIVE: MAKING MARKETING
MATTER
Donald R. Lehmann
MULTI-LEVEL, HIERARCHICAL LINEAR MODELS AND
MARKETING: THIS IS NOT YOUR ADVISOR’S OLS MODEL
James L. Oakley, Dawn Iacobucci, and Adam Duhachek
Previous Volume Contents 347

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: A LOOK AHEAD
Naresh K. Malhotra
MANAGING CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS
Ruth N. Bolton and Crina Tarasi
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH ON
DIFFUSION OF NEW PRODUCTS
Deepa Chandrasekaran and Gerard J. Tellis
ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CULTURAL AND
CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHES
AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY
Giana M. Eckhardt and Michael J. Houston
CONSUMER RESPONSES TO PRICE AND ITS CONTEXTUAL
INFORMATION CUES: A SYNTHESIS OF PAST RESEARCH,
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK, AND AVENUES FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
Dhruv Grewal and Larry Compeau
STORE BRANDS: FROM BACK TO THE FUTURE
Serdar Sayman and Jagmohan S. Raju
LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND CONSUMER RESEARCH
Dwight R. Merunka and Robert A. Peterson
YOU OUGHT TO BE IN PICTURES: ENVISIONING
MARKETING RESEARCH
Russell W. Belk

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: TAKING STOCK
Naresh K. Malhotra
FORMAL CHOICE MODELS OF INFORMAL CHOICES:
WHAT CHOICE MODELING RESEARCH CAN (AND CAN’T)
LEARN FROM BEHAVIORAL THEORY
Jordan J. Louviere and Robert J. Meyer
HOW MUCH TO USE? AN ACTION-GOAL APPROACH
TO UNDERSTANDING FACTORS INFLUENCING
CONSUMPTION QUANTITY
Valerie S. Folkes and Shashi Matta
INTEGRATING PURCHASE TIMING, CHOICE AND
QUANTITY DECISIONS MODELS: A REVIEW OF MODEL
SPECIFICATIONS, ESTIMATIONS AND APPLICATIONS
V. Kumar and Anita Man Luo
BRAND EXTENSION RESEARCH: A CROSS-CULTURAL
PERSPECTIVE
Michael A. Merz, Dana L. Alden, Wayne D. Hoyer,
and Kalpesh Kaushik Desai
A REVIEW OF EYE-TRACKING RESEARCH IN MARKETING
Michel Wedel and Rik Pieters
ROLE THEORY APPROACHES FOR EFFECTIVENESS
OF MARKETING-ORIENTED BOUNDARY SPANNERS:
COMPARATIVE REVIEW, CONFIGURAL EXTENSION
AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION
Jagdip Singh and Argun Saatcioglu
PRICE CONTRACT DESIGN TEMPLATES: GOVERNING
PROCUREMENT AND MARKETING OF INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
George John

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: THE FIRST FIVE
VOLUMES
Naresh K. Malhotra
CONSUMER JUDGMENT FROM A DUAL-SYSTEMS
PERSPECTIVE: RECENT EVIDENCE AND EMERGING
ISSUES
Samuel D. Bond, James R. Bettman,
and Mary Frances Luce
CAN YOU SEE THE CHASM? INNOVATION DIFFUSION
ACCORDING TO ROGERS, BASS AND MOORE
Barak Libai, Vijay Mahajan, and Eitan Muller
EXPLORING THE OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT BAZAAR
Balaji Rajagopalan and Barry L. Bayus
A NEW SPATIAL CLASSIFICATION METHODOLOGY FOR
SIMULTANEOUS SEGMENTATION, TARGETING, AND
POSITIONING (STP ANALYSIS) FOR MARKETING
RESEARCH
Wayne S. DeSarbo, Simon J. Blanchard,
and A. Selin Atalay
METHODS FOR HANDLING MASSIVE NUMBER
OF ATTRIBUTES IN CONJOINT ANALYSIS
Vithala R. Rao, Benjamin Kartono, and Meng Su
A REVIEW AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LADDERING
RESEARCH METHODS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
QUALITY METRICS
Thomas J. Reynold and Joan M. Phillips
METRICS FOR THE NEW INTERNET MARKETING
COMMUNICATIONS MIX
Randolph E. Bucklin, Oliver Rutz, and Michael Trusov

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: ACCUMULATING
KNOWLEDGE
Naresh K. Malhotra
A REVIEW OF PRIOR CLASSIFICATIONS OF PURCHASE
BEHAVIOR AND A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW TYPOLOGY
Hans Baumgartner
MEASURING CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE: MODELS
AND ANALYSIS
Siddharth S. Singh and Dipak C. Jain
LEARNING MODELS
S. Sriram and Pradeep K. Chintagunta
CUSTOMER CO-CREATION: A TYPOLOGY
AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Matthew S. O’Hern and Aric Rindfleisch
CHALLENGES IN MEASURING RETURN ON MARKETING
INVESTMENT: COMBINING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
PERSPECTIVES
Koen Pauwels and Dave Reibstein
THE SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC OF MARKETING:
A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Stephen L. Vargo, Robert F. Lusch,
Melissa Archpru Akaka, and Yi He
MARKETING IN A WORLD WITH COSTS OF PRICE
ADJUSTMENT
Shantanu Dutta, Mark E. Bergen, and Sourav Ray

REVIEW OF MARKETING RESEARCH: ANALYZING
ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE AND INFLUENCING
FUTURE RESEARCH
Naresh K. Malhotra
A BACKWARD GLANCE OF WHO AND WHAT MARKETING
SCHOLARS HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING, 1977–2002
John B. Ford, Douglas West, Vincent P. Magnini, Michael
S. LaTour, and Michael J. Polonsky
DYNAMIC STRATEGIC GOAL-SETTING: THEORY
AND INITIAL EVIDENCE
Mark B. Houston, S. Ratneshwar, Lisa Ricci,
and Alan J. Malter
INTERNET CHANNEL CONFLICT: PROBLEMS
AND SOLUTIONS
Eric Anderson, Duncan Simester, and Florian Zettelmeyer
REFERRAL EQUITY AND REFERRAL MANAGEMENT:
THE SUPPLIER FIRM’S PERSPECTIVE
Mahima Hada, Rajdeep Grewal, and Gary L. Lilien
A CRITICAL REVIEW OF QUESTION-BEHAVIOR
EFFECT RESEARCH
Utpal M. Dholakia
CONSUMER COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY AND THE
DIMENSIONALITY OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING CONFIGURATIONS
Naresh K. Malhotra, Arun K. Jain, Ashutosh Patil,
Christian Pinson, and Lan Wu
STRUCTURAL MODELING OF HETEROGENEOUS DATA
WITH PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES
Edward E. Rigdon, Christian M. Ringle,
and Marko Sarstedt

Review of Marketing Research Volume 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Review of Marketing Research Volume 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Marketing Research Volume 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW OF MARKETING

First edition 2011

Copyright r 2011 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permission service

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Emerald Group Publishing

United Kingdom – North America – Japan

Richard P. Bagozzi Stephen M. Ross School of Business,

Rick P. Bagozzi Robert F. Lusch

Russ Belk Debbie MacInnis

Jagdish N. Sheth Rajan Varadarajan

Itamar Simonson Michel Wedel

David Stewart Barton Weitz

Review of Marketing Research, now in its eighth volume, is a fairly recent

The purpose of this series is to provide current, comprehensive, state-of-the-

 Critically review the existing literature

CHAPTERS IN THIS VOLUME

This volume summarizes the contributions of all the marketing legends in

Adversity,’’ discusses how the resource-advantage theory of competition

and improved bottom-line results. Within each of these decision domains,

and choice behavior), marketing management and policy, international and

concepts relative to behavioral pricing research, reference price and

buyer behavior, and relationship marketing. We offer brief comments on his

choice simulators, optimizers, and dynamic model. Likewise, he has applied

Review of Marketing Research: Special Issue – Marketing Legends

important my wife’s mother, surviving sisters, and close friends in Michigan

FROM ATTITUDES TO ACTION

social or behavioral sciences proper or across two or more of these ﬁelds

the Sbe has the methodological disadvantage of requiring ratio-scaled

Self-Regulation and Action

in psychological-based consumer behavior research, per se. But to be clear, I

Gürhan-Canli, and Priester (2002), and Bagozzi, (2010a). The following

Fig. 1. Summary of Key Variables and Processes in Consumer Action as a

Paul Warshaw and I conceived of trying as a singular subjective state that

make contributions to the meaning and measurement of intentions (for an

Reasons for Acting

emotions and negative anticipated emotions function in forward-looking

and I modeled the inﬂuences of subjective norms and social identity on

decisions in my theoretical article, ‘‘The Self-Regulation of Attitudes,

Fig. 2. The Consumer Core. Source: Bagozzi (2006b).

2006a, 2006b). I also consider the origins or antecedents of moral and

Reﬂection on ‘‘From Attitudes to Action’’

METHODOLOGY: THE HOLISTIC CONSTRUAL

Representing Constructs: From Unidimensionality to Multidimensionality

Psychological scales are often claimed to be unidimensional, both concep-

to induce new ideas into theory construction, validation, and measurement.

Formative versus Reﬂective Indicators

Construct validity is the extent to which an operationalization measures the

Beyond measurement and validity issues, I have studied a number of aspects

Marketing,’’ which won the Maynard Award for best contribution to

Evaluation of Research that Uses Structural Equation Models

The use of structural equation models and interpretation of ﬁndings based

Reﬂections on the Holistic Construal

The holistic construal tries to transcend theory, method, and research

MARKETING AS (SOCIAL) EXCHANGE

I have always felt a responsibility to give consideration to the intellectual

Algesheimer, Utpal Dholakia, and I have illustrated these principles and

Reﬂections on Marketing as Social Exchange

I have not done much on the intellectual foundations of marketing thought,

Critically review the existing literature

Situational analysis - Goal and objectives setting - STP - 4Ps -