In a follow-up to the fall 2007 special section of Journal of Public Policy & Marketing that examined implications of the American Marketing Association's (AMA's) 2004 definition of marketing, the authors examine the AMA's revision of its definition—the new 2007 definition of marketing. The article first describes the concerns about the 2004 offering and then traces the process taken by the AMA to consider these issues and revise the definition. The authors conclude that the new definition addresses many of the major issues with the 2004 definition that had been identified by scholars contributing to the special section. They highlight several positive qualities of the new definition and describe how these attributes have the capacity to enhance marketing scholarship and practice into the future.
GroveStephen J., JohnJoby, and FiskRaymond P. (2006), “Back to the Future: Putting People Back in Marketing,” in Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future, ShethJagdish N., and SisodiaRajendra S., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 306–311.
2.
GundlachGregory, T. (2005), “The American Marketing Association's New Definition of Marketing: Perspectives on Its Implications for Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Marketing and Society,” in 2005 Marketing and Public Policy Conference Proceedings, Vol. 15, LangenderferJeff, CookDon Lloyd, and WilliamsJerome D., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1–3.
3.
GundlachGregory, T. (2006), “Whither ‘Marketing’? Commentary on the American Marketing Association's New Definition of Marketing,” in Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future, ShethJagdish N., and SisodiaRajendra S., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 105–108.
4.
GundlachGregory, T. (2007), “Introduction to the Special Section: The American Marketing Association's New Definition of Marketing: Perspectives on Its Implications for Scholarship and the Role and Responsibility of Marketing and Society,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(Fall), 243–50.
5.
KeefeLisa, M. (2008), “Marketing Defined?”Marketing News, (January 15), 28–29.
6.
LaczniakGene, R. (2006), “Some Societal and Ethical Dimensions of the Service-Dominant Logic Perspective of Marketing,” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, LuschRobert F., and VargoStephen L., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 279–85.
7.
LehmannDonald, R. (2006), “More Dominant Logic for Marketing,” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, LuschRobert F., and VargoStephen L., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 296–301.
8.
LevySidney, J. (2006), “How New, How Dominant,” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, LuschRobert F., and VargoStephen L., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 57–64.
LuschRobert F., and VargoStephen L., eds. (2006), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing.Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
11.
ShethJagdish N., and SisodiaRagendra S. (2006), Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future.Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
12.
WilkieWilliam, L. (2006), “The World of Marketing Thought: Where Are We Heading?” in Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future, ShethJagdish N., and SisodiaRajendra S., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 239–47.
13.
WilkieWilliam L., and MooreElizabeth S. (1999), “Marketing's Contributions to Society,”Journal of Marketing, 62(Special Issue), 198–218.
14.
WilkieWilliam L., and MooreElizabeth S. (2003), “Scholarly Research in Marketing: Exploring the ‘4 Eras’ of Thought Development,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(Fall), 116–46.
15.
WilkieWilliam L., and MooreElizabeth S. (2006), “Examining Marketing Scholarship and the Service-Dominant Logic,” in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing, LuschRobert F., and VargoStephen L., eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 266–78.
16.
WilkieWilliam L., and MooreElizabeth S. (2007), “What Does the Definition of Marketing Tell Us About Ourselves?”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(Fall), 269–76.
