"Webster-esque" marketing theory [1 of 2]

Abstract


Among the relative giants of marketing theory, Frederick E. Webster, Jr. has been following, studying and writing on the topic long enough to have “earned the right to speak” (worthy of our attention). This document seeks to address what would ordinarily appear to be reasonable, straightforward questions in relationship to a chapter written by Mr. Webster.



Introduction

The three questions referred to appear as subheads in the body of the paper. What is problematic is my industry; as a whole somewhat elusive to this line of questioning (almost by definition). The cogent presumed purpose underlying the questioning, however, assuredly is aimed at the application (and a reveal of understanding) of the theories put forth by Webster. To that end, the writer does what he can to be true to the purpose underlying the document in concert with taking on the challenge of addressing his industry.



Setting the stage

The writer’s industry is higher education, local colleges and universities. Various institutions have and do operate differently; enough where differing theories may apply from one organization to another (i.e., it is arguable that no one theory applies).

Webster starts out the chapter referencing the evolution of marketing theory with the following key milestones, “marketing as exchange”, “marketing as demand stimulation”, “marketing as creating and managing markets” and “marketing as tactics – the 4 P’s”.

“Marketing as exchange” refers to, (in an abbreviated and less eloquent expression), a basic posture wherein a consumer yields a value (classically a currency) to receive a value (typically a product / service, recognizing all that that may entail on either end). To this end, all the schools the writer has been associated with certainly feel they are striking the right value exchange.

“Marketing as demand stimulation” … in brief, the door-to-door salesperson of yore, the carnival barker … the enticement aspect associated with sales and marketing. Few aspects of any school that I am aware of fall into this until one can see how admissions departments have abused the opportunity. Just because someone has a pulse and can sign off on the financial aid paperwork should not justify entrance to a school. The writer has had numerous misfortunate classes held somewhat hostage by one or more students who fit this description (never owned and has no means of owning a computer, does not know their way around a computer, does not know what a USB drive is, what is e-mail, etc.). However, as long as schools are run as businesses and there are federal dollars out there, until a regulatory agency polices these breeches better (and they do somewhat) this tendency will continue. Therefore, yes, all the schools this writer had employed with have, to varying degrees, reflected differing degrees of marketing as demand stimulation.

“Marketing as creating and managing markets” or to otherwise summarize, the management of marketing. Here we have a conscious, studied, business approach to the discipline of marketing. Again, all associated institutions have embraced this, the most intellectual (a parallel to academic) approach.

Of the four key theories, the remaining one is “marketing as tactics – the 4 P’s”. To varying degrees (but not too much variance) they have all instituted this approach as well. As an aside, subsequent to the four “P’s” I have counted upwards of nine to eleven!