The War of Words over the Definition of Marketing in the 21st Century Essay Example

p. 402) since there is no widely recognized definition of what a relationship is (Harker 1999 cited in Gronroos, 2006, p. 401).

Although the terminology of the word is not clear, it is fair to say that in the definition every non-relational marketing process is being disregarded. Trying to force customers into a relationship (no matter what a relationship is being interpreted as to be) could lead to a marketing firm that is not efficient because of not targeting all potential customers (Gronroos 2006, p. 03). The word “relationship” should be removed entirely from a generic marketing definition. Another idea that should not be implemented in a marketing definition as done by the AMA (2004) is marketing being one organizational function (Gronroos, 2006, p. 405).

It is true that the marketing department has a strong influence on the customers’ value creation, however, there are many other departments that are partially involved in this process (Gronroos 2008, pp. 403-5). Marketing should be focused on as being a business process and not just one function (Webster, 2005, p. 121). Saying that marketing is one organizational function is simply not true. Furthermore, Gronroos believes that the AMA 2004 definition lacks an explanation of how marketing is actually done in an organization.

Whether or not a definition needs to elaborate on how something is done is a highly philosophical question as it depends greatly on how one defines the terminology of the word “definition” itself. In general, a definition is a delimitation that indicates the ends and limits of any object with respect to all others (Pozzi 2001, cited in Mayer 2001, p. 272). Finding out how a task is exactly performed

would be the endeavor of greater research and does not need to be elaborated on in a definition. The American Marketers Association sets standards for universities and businesses alike and finding such big loopholes in their 2004 definition of marketing could lead to more criticism by their peers. Therefore Gronroos rightly criticized the AMA’s 2004 definition of marketing. AMA needs to rewrite its definition and come up with a more generic definition that does not exclude as many aspects of marketing as the 2004 definition does.

References

1. Dann, S 2008, "Adaptation and Adoption of the American Marketing Association" (2007) Definition for Social Marketing, Social Marketing Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 92-100, viewed 17 August 2008
2. Proquest database Gronroos, C 2006, ‘On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing", Marketing Theory, vol. , no.4, pp. 395-417, viewed 28 July 2008
3. Proquest database, item: 10. 1177/1470593106069930 Harker, M. J. 1999, Relationship Marketing Defined? An Examination of Current Relationship Marketing Definitions, cited in Gronroos, C 2006 ‘On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing’, Marketing Theory, vol. 6, p.401 Pozzi, M 2001 The Terminological Definition: Conflicts between Theory and Practice, cited in Mayer, F 2001
4. "Language for Special Purposes: Perspectives for the New Millenium’, published by Gunter Narr Verlag, 2001
5. Vandermerwe, S 1996, Becoming a Customer “Owning” Company, cited in Gronroos, C 2006 ‘On defining marketing: finding a new roadmap for marketing’, Marketing theory, vol. 6, p. 399 Vargo, S & Lusch, R 2004, ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing, vol. 68, pp. 1-17, viewed 3 August 2008, Proquest database Webster, F 2005, ‘A Perspective on the Evolution of Marketing Management,
   

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 121-126, viewed 17 August 2008