Strategic marketing and the resource advantage theory of competition

Competitive behaviour and competition for resources: unification of theories from different disciplines

Similarities in competition for resources between plants and between firms

Supply pre-emption theory and hypotheses in plant sciences and business sciences

Competitive behaviour of trees: root proliferation strategy

Observation

Question

Theory (explanation)

Elaboration

Competitive behaviour of firms: product line proliferation strategy

Observation

Question

Theory (explanation)

Elaboration

Marketing phenomena focused theory development in marketing versus disciplines transcending theory development

References

A discipline of empiricists and mathematicians sans visionary theorists is a zero sum game. It is science by the rearview mirror. Reading the classic works of legendary contributors to the evolution of marketing thought is an invaluable lesson in looking ahead. It makes salient what we were, where we have come, and what it took to get here. The pressures of the moment fade in comparison to the weight of history and the future it points to. I am reminded of the Japanese proverb: “Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare.” Marketing sans its Phil Kotlers may still be struggling as a profession of “drummers”. (Achrol, 2012, p. lxi) Hunt (2017) provides a synthesis and critical review of the evolution of the marketing discipline spanning over 100 years, organised into four eras, and his prognosis of the outlook for Era V. His review of the seminal contributions of marketing luminaries that provided the foundation for, and fostered the evolution and growth of the marketing discipline is insightful, instructive and inspiring. The writings by Butler, DeBower, and Jones (1918) on marketing methods, White (1927) on scientific marketing management, Alderson (1937) on a marketing view of competition, Alderson (1957) on competition for differential advantage, Howard (1957) on the essence of marketing management, Levitt (1960) on marketing myopia, Borden (1964) on the marketing mix, and the conceptualisations of market strategy by Oxenfeldt (1958) and marketing strategy by McCarthy (1960) are among the marketing classics that Hunt reviews in his article. One can envision Hunt’s article being on the readings list of doctoral seminars in marketing (e.g. Doctoral Seminar on the History of Marketing and Marketing Thought; Doctoral Seminar on Marketing Theory; Doctoral Seminar on Strategic Marketing) at a number of universities worldwide, and the doctoral students greatly benefiting from reading, reflecting and discussing the article in a doctoral seminar setting. Hopefully, some may be inspired to make similar contributions to the marketing literature. Intrigued and inspired by the word ‘beyond’ in the title of Hunt’s (2017) article, ‘Advancing marketing strategy in the marketing discipline and beyond: from promise, to neglect, to prominence, to fragment (to promise?),’ this commentary focuses on the promise of theory for advancing strategic marketing, and thereby, the marketing discipline and beyond. All else being equal, compared to a discipline’s research paradigm, its research tools and techniques, and empirical research findings (e.g. empirical generalisations), the theories developed in a discipline have a greater potential to influence scholarly discourse in other disciplines.