Executive summary of “The pragmatic importance of theory for marketing practice”

Citation

(2014), "Executive summary of “The pragmatic importance of theory for marketing practice”", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2014-0995

Executive summary of “The pragmatic importance of theory for marketing practice”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 31, Issue 4

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.

Yet practitioners by and large treat theory with considerable derision. Many would rather ignore the theory component altogether and instead focus on interpreting whatever data they had amassed. Thus, the tendency to misconstrue the purpose of theories and their appropriateness to the business world continues to prevail.

One of their main gripes is the often incomprehensible nature of academic work. Jargon and abstract terminology serve to make even what might prove to be the most valuable articles only accessible to a like-minded elite few.

The narrow-mindedness of business professionals helps sustain this divide between theory and practice. In their view, theory is extraneous and in no way responsible for any success they have experienced. Without theory’s building blocks though, business perspective can only be short-term, and decisions which pay-off are invariably down to luck rather than judgment. It is true that on occasions, companies are blessed with unique individuals who boast an instinctive talent for interpreting future consumer needs. Such pioneers are an extremely rare breed though.

It does not help that there is little attention paid as to what a theory essentially constitutes. Many academics simply assume that people know. Rotfeld believes theory comprises three components:

• provides some clarification of existing data;

• explanation can be used to predict future occurrences; and

• can be shown to be falsifiable when those predictions are tested.

Although past analyses might show the theory to be true, certain tests could end up indicating otherwise.

The value of any theory lies in its predictive capabilities. Experiments and analyses can ascertain the ideal conditions in which these predictions are most likely to be upheld. Determining the specific contexts in which a forecast might be less accurate or totally wrong even is equally significant with regard to future decision making. The author concedes that it is impractical to expect every business judgment to be made on the basis of research indications. There is clearly room for experience and gut feeling too. However, marketing does not come cheap; so it would also be wise to get some perspective on relevant theories to better determine whether a particular strategy is feasible.

Opposition to theories is exasperated by the questionable nature of some of them. According to Rotfeld, the tendency exists for academic work to be totally disconnected to business reality, and therefore of minimal worth. There are additional claims of content simply masquerading as a theory. He cites Maslow’s celebrated hierarchy of needs as an example of something being accepted as a theory despite glaring limitations. For instance, some commentators note its strong relevance to American culture at the time of its emergence in the 1940s. Being bound to a certain era raises doubts about its description of “innate human needs”, and thus its general applicability within different contexts. Even more damaging is the claim that it “cannot be tested empirically”. Not being able to be tested through “observation or experiment” would immediately disqualify any endeavor from attaining theory status. Maslow’s model is based on the notion of a pyramid, whereby needs must be satisfied in order of their complexity. A comment pointing to the difficulty of defining satisfaction at one level before moving on to the next highest need is another damning indictment. It is hard to identify different consumer segments for marketing purposes if one does not know which level of the framework these consumers have reached. Despite such flaws, Maslow remains a staple diet on many marketing courses. Marketing also continues to embrace the personality theory of Freud, even though the work has been shown to lack any true scientific rigor.

Compounding the problem is the seemingly perpetual faith in what have been termed “zombie ideas”. This refers to theories which persist despite being outdated or having been frequently unmasked as false. The fact that new journal articles continue to cite these sources impedes proper understanding of the real purpose that the theory is intended to serve. Furthermore, researchers stubbornly advocate these highly dubious perspectives.

One zombie theory that still widely prevails is the use of fear as a means of persuasion. This devotion to the belief that human fear will motivate people toward a desired response has guided work relating to public health and safety communications. However, the original comment which inspired the belief was eventually discredited as a theory.

That textbooks include examples to illustrate “misplaced and misapplied” theories hardly helps. Although intended to show theory in practice, the fit is often vague at best. This prompts the charge that illustrations are selected more in faint hope than in genuine expectation that it will properly demonstrate the theory supposedly being applied. In essence, the author purports that many researchers struggle to appreciate what a theory actually is.

Another consequence of adhering to outmoded textbooks is the tendency to become a slave to the statistical aspects of an experiment. Data are paramount and theory is inconsequential. Either that, or it is relegated to something which is effectively bolted on as an afterthought. Certain authors have admitted as much. However, failing to provide any context, basis or reason for test results dilutes the significance of any analysis. Stripped of a theoretical base, data are reduced to becoming “idiosyncratic meaningless artifacts” with negligible value beyond the point at which it was generated. One analyst explained the imbalance by insisting that “new intellectual structures” are far more important than facts.

It is not lost on Rotfeld that researchers typically reference appropriate sources and theories in their work. Once again, however, it appears that data have been collected first, and theory made to fit later on. Incongruence between the two is not uncommon, and some scholars supposedly even allude to articles they have at most read the abstract of. This further illustrates the inability and failure to match theory with research. Ignorance can prove extremely misleading in the long run, as the author points out in his allusion to the use of subliminal advertising messages.

In one academic’s view, putting the main emphasis on data collection is misguided. He notes the demand of such work, but asserts that it is the easiest component of research. That is, providing relevant theory is adequately evaluated beforehand. Theories predict, and the accuracy of these predictions will become clear once findings are applied. Even in the worst-case scenario, any prediction subsequently proved wrong offers a valuable opportunity to learn from the error. Leaving theory out of the equation, however, means that marketing decisions become, in Rotfeld’s words, a “blank slate”.

To read the full article enter 10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0854 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “The pragmatic importance of theory for marketing practice”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)