Steven M. Shugan

For better or worse, we are an applied discipline with economic origins focusing on decision variables beyond product prices. We must look forward to future applications of our developments, findings and analyses. Hence, we must seek a potential audience for applying our research.

Past research in Marketing Science has included substantive empirical findings, methods of analyzing data and theoretical models (both descriptive and normative).

Producing mathematics, per se, is not a goal of Marketing Science. Mathematics is a language, i.e., the language of science. It provides the ability to precisely communicate a contribution. It is NOT the contribution. The primary goal is to answer research questions in marketing by exploiting the capabilities of quantitative methods.

Producing complexity, per se, is also not a goal of Marketing Science. We need to move away from complexity as a goal. The goal of modeling is simplicity (we already have the complexity of the real world). We model to remove complex distractions that are not central to the phenomena under study.

Our goal must be to reach a wide audience. We should broaden our net to capture more high-impact research. We should be synergistic with research published in other marketing journals. 

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, it seemed that marketing was more of a “melting pot” where researchers with very different training and viewpoints coalesced to work on shared marketing problems. These problems, for example, included how to help marketing mangers make better decisions and the proper role of marketing in an organization. Unlike finance and management science that are coalescing around problems such as trading in financial markets and building management information systems, to some extent, our field is fragmenting. There is often more emphasis on the approach taken over the contribution to marketing knowledge. Of course, some of this trend is inevitable as knowledge advances. My own research argues that advances in knowledge require a more specialized economy (Shugan 1994). Never the less, combined efforts often lead to synergistic impact.

We need to focus on common marketing problems while using different approaches, methods, data, viewpoints and ideas. As long as we share the problems, we can combine forces to create spectacular advancements in our knowledge of markets and marketing. Marketing Science should provide a vehicle to do that.

There are many important marketing problems. Moreover, we should broaden our view of marketing problems to include substantive normative problems with only a marketing component.

It is important that each paper focuses on only one or a small set of problems. That means limiting the scope of the analysis. Although each of us thinks that particular factors are important (e.g., channels, pricing, advertising, service, competition, product lines, category growth, network externalities, heterogeneity, and so on), no paper can or should include all factors. Although each of us thinks that different assumptions are appropriate (e.g., an equilibrium, linearity, optimal behavior, distributional assumptions, and so on), different paradigms adopt different assumptions. Although each of us thinks that particular objectives are important (e.g., creating better methods for data analysis, examining the social welfare implications of firm practices, solving specific managerial problems), every paper should have only a few, if not one, objective.

It is our task to evaluate each paper within its own paradigm and objectives. Reviewers should avoid imposing their paradigm, assumptions or objectives on others. The superiority of a paradigm should be evident by what it produces. Every article in Marketing Science need only solve an important marketing problem for a well-defined audience.

On another topic, truly revolutionary papers may be orthogonal to existing thought. However, few articles will open completely new areas of research. If an article provides a significant contribution, but not a revolutionary one, it has more synergy with the marketing literature if it builds on the extant marketing literature. Sometimes, we have a reverse case of the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome and we focus on arbitraging ideas from elsewhere. Scoop papers are a better and encouraged vehicle over full-length articles. This preference is only a preference and not a requirement. However, the assessment of contribution must consider the interest to a marketing audience.

Traditionally, the economics literature has targeted public policy makers and regulators. The impact of that literature is monumental. One small example is the shift from regulating specific firm decisions to providing consumers with better information. The finance literature has targeted financial markets. The impact of that literature is monumental. One small example is the impact on the invention and pricing of options and futures instruments. Moreover, in both of these literatures, empirical and theoretical findings have had considerable synergy. Similar arguments are possible for many other literatures.

The marketing literature has also had considerable impact, for example, on how firm’s do market research and develop new products. However, in many domains, we must wonder whether we have been as successful. We must also wonder how we can have more impact. A rigorous focus on important marketing problems and practical solutions would help.

We should do research not only to publish it, but also to have it read and, hopefully, used.

References

1. Shugan, Steven M. 1994. "Explanations for Service Growth", in Service Quality, Richard Oliver and Roland Rust,
         Ed., Sage Publications, 1994, pp. 223-240.

©2003 University of Florida