The document discusses the development of marketing management school of thought from the 1950s to 2000s. It analyzes criticisms of the school from the time periods it was developed, the data used, questions addressed, and theories/concepts. While marketing management focuses on how organizations market products/services from the seller's perspective, it is criticized for not addressing other questions, using only micro-level data missing general perspectives, and theories that varied periodically without a unified structure. Overall, the school provided an important foundation but its assumptions are outdated given changes over the past 50+ years.

1. Addis Ababa University School of Commerce
Department of Marketing Management
Assignment 1 of Marketing Theory and Practices
Article review
Title-Marketing management school of thought
Authors -Alderson 1956, 1965, Howard 1956, Kelley and Lazer 1958, McCarthy
1960, Kotler 1967
Summarized by: ID/NO
Bizuayehu mekonnen -------- - GSR/
Haymanot Abebaw---- - GSR/0515/10
WondesenAssefa--------- - GSR/5498/10
Submitted to – mesfin. (PHD)
Date – 23 Nov, 2017

2. Introduction
• During the mid-twentieth, there was a paradigm shift in marketing
thinking that resulted in new schools of thoughts. Marketing school of
thoughts the first modern school of thought it is participated by
different scholars and authors in different periods. There has been
around ten schools of thoughts that had clearly define and analysis
different marketing concepts starting from 1950 that is emergence of
new marketing function schools and reaches to its peaked and followed
by other schools the development of the marketing school can be
divided in different periods that is pre academic thought before 1900,
traditional approach to marketing thought 1900-1955, the paradigm
shift 1955-1975, the paradigm shift 1975-2000. From the emergence of
different schools marketing management has been one of the most
prominent school by addressed the question how should the
organizations market their product and service? Also some ideas wear
raised by different scholars to reach all arguments but their idea was not
come together because their level of focus of analysis was micro level
based on individuals but at general level or macro level different ideas or
marketing management concepts are available to address the problem.

3. Development of schools of marketing
• The development of schools of marketing thought can
be divided into four periods, roughly paralleling Wilkie
and Moore’s (2003) ‘4 Eras’:
• Pre-Academic Marketing Thought, prior to 1900;
• Traditional Approaches to Marketing Thought,
extending from roughly 1900 to 1955;
• the Paradigm Shift, based on Alderson’s work, from
about 1955 to 1975; and
• The Paradigm Broadening, mostly following Kotler’s
(and various co-authors) Writings, from approximately
1975 to 2000.

4. Con…nd
• Period three, approximately between 1955 and 1975, is called a Paradigm
Shift (following the phrase used by Wilkie and Moore, 2003). The paradigm
shift from traditional approaches to modern schools of marketing thought
resulted from several developments. It was influenced by military advances
in mathematical modeling, such as linear programming, during the Second
World War. Following the war, the shift in capacity from military production
to consumer goods spurred economic growth in the United States creating
supply surpluses and the concomitant necessity for demand generation
activities by business firms.
• The paradigm shift was also affected by the Foundation and Carnegie
Foundation reports of 1959 calling for greater relevance in business
education and providing foundation funding to produce significant
curriculum changes. The most important cause of the paradigm shift in
academic thought, however, was the thinking of the dominant scholar of his
time – WroeAlderson. Based on his numerous articles and presentations,
marketing theory seminars, newsletters, and two seminal books (1957,
1965), the paradigm shift resulted in or impacted most modern schools of
thought; including: marketing management; marketing systems; consumer
behavior; macro marketing; and exchange.

5. The main arguments of thought
.The mean argument of the marketing management
school of thought is how managers should market
their goods or services to customers (clients,
patrons, patients) from the sellers’ perspective.The
school originally limited the sellers’ perspective to
manufacturers, but now includes retailers, service
providers and all other types of businesses; and with
the paradigm broadening has been extended to all
forms of non-business entities as well. This school so
dominates the marketing field, it must be included
as a school of thought rather than a sub-area even
though it has only a micro-marketing focus.

6. Criticism
• From the time they develop
• From the data they used
• From the question they addressed
• From the theories and concepts perspective
the school of marketing management thought is
criticize based on the mentioned above points

7. FROM THE TIME THEY DEVELOP
• The school of marketing thought was emerged starting
from 1900 up to the period 2003 for a four era’s. in those
periods the scholars were developed different assumptions
or ideas but when we see the time that they develop was
far from the current period 21st century and everything
have been changed due to different new marketing schools
of thought scholars are come to the study.
• Even if in the fourth period or in the period of marketing
management school of thought that is the paradigm
boarding is almost one hundred years far from the current
period of marketing management schools and these shows
the school can note be amended periodically.

8. FROM THE DATA THEY USED
• When we see the marketing schools of thought they used different
data at different schools. Marketing functions, marketing commodities
marketing institutions macro marketing exchange and marketing
history school of thoughts were used macro level or general level of
data that is as a whole population targeted. This shows they were
missed the individuals and the small holder retailers in specific.
Whereas marketing systems and marketing management school of
thoughts was used micro or individual business firms and households
in their data analysis. But they missed the general trade channels
• In general speaking marketing management school of thought also
used only from micro level and missed different general data’s.
Marketing management school of thought like other thoughts it have
its Owen data analyzing problem seen the data’s at one direction in
detailed is missed the general as whole. This is difficult to see the
general because of individual perception various from person to person
and adequate information were missed.

9. FROM THE QUESTION THEY ADRESSED
• Marketing management addresses the question: how
should organizations market their products and services?
The school focuses on the practice of marketing viewed
from the sellers’ perspective. The school originally
limited the sellers’ perspective to manufacturers, but
now includes retailers, service providers and all other
types of businesses; and with the paradigm broadening
has been extended to all forms of non-business entities
as well.
This school so dominates the marketing field, it must be
included as a school of thought rather than a sub-area
even though it has only a micro-marketing focus (i.e.
perspective of an individual unit of analysis).this shows
the marketing management school do not addressed
other questions like when , why, whom and other
product related questions was not addressed.

10. FROM THE THEIORIES AND CONCEPTS
PERSPACTIVE
• All marketing school of thoughts used different theories’ and concepts these
were defer from the conclusions and generalizing the thought as one. For
example, marketing function used value added activities and marketing
commodities used classifications of goods and also the other one used channel
of distribution.
• When we see marketing management as one school of thought the scholars
used marketing mix means that segmentation, targeting and positioning but
they missed other things like goods and services classification and social
economic as well as exchange of marketing management concepts.
• It appears obvious that any attempt to synthesize schools of marketing
thought, or develop a general theory of marketing, must include systems
thinking at least as a superstructure. Nevertheless, discussions of marketing
systems, per se, declined during the 1970s (although partially reemerging in
macro marketing below) with the rise of marketing management and consumer
behavior. This show the theory was periodically varies and not took its own
structure.

11. Conclusion
• During the early 20th century, marketing developed from
individual concepts to theories, into streams of research,
and onto common approaches to subject matter, now
termed schools of marketing thought. Each of the schools
described in this article addresses one or more
perspectives to marketing thought by raising fundamental
questions the school seeks to answer but now we try to
answer the questions they are not addressed in this
marketing thought like time duration updated information
,different data they used and so on.
• Generally we can that conclude that marketing
management school of thought was not fulfill all
requirements but we recommend for the future used
timely updated thoughts.
•