Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Making marketers accountable:a failure of marketing education?

Susan Baker, Sue Holt,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Susan Baker, Sue Holt, (2004) "Making marketers accountable:a failure of marketing
education?", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 Issue: 5, pp.557-567, https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634500410551932
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500410551932
Downloaded on: 04 August 2018, At: 04:56 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 45 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13008 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Exploring the integration of social media within integrated marketing communication frameworks:
Perspectives of services marketers", Marketing Intelligence &amp; Planning, Vol. 34 Iss 1 pp. 19-40 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2014-0169">https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-09-2014-0169</a>
(2007),"Branding the business marketing offer: exploring brand attributes in business markets",
Journal of Business &amp; Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 394-399 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/08858620710780154">https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620710780154</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:415309 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

Making
Making marketers accountable: marketers
a failure of marketing accountable
education?
557
Susan Baker and Sue Holt
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Keywords Marketing audit, Marketing information, Marketing assets
Abstract The academic/practitioner divide in marketing is very evident in marketers’ real world
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

problems of accountability. Empirical research reported in this paper reveals senior non-marketers
perceive marketers to be “unaccountable, untouchable, slippery and expensive” and this is further
reflected in the domain literature. Exploration of the issues raises questions about whether
marketing educators have failed to deliver the theory and frameworks that could address this
problem. Since the 1960s, many tools have been developed and used by marketing educators,
academic researchers and consultants that should have helped practitioners to become more
accountable; yet something appears to have gone wrong. This paper synthesizes the most recent
literature in these areas, contends that accountability is imperative to avoid the marginalization of
marketers and proposes an agenda for further research to close the academic/practitioner divide.

Introduction
A report from the National Audit Office (2003) concluded that the UK faces a major
problem in converting research output into practical knowledge. This is symptomatic
of the debate on the relevance of research undertaken by business academics to
practitioners that has emerged in the literature. Within the marketing domain, this
debate is thrown further into relief by research demonstrating that the integration of
theory and practice is considered to be a high priority by marketing academics around
the world. It has been identified as the most important issue by UK academics, and the
third most important issue by their French and US counterparts (Baker and Erdogan,
2000; Hetzel, 2000; Polonsky and Mankelow, 2000).
An important perspective in this debate is the role of marketing education. Our aim
in this paper is to explore why marketers are still seen as largely unaccountable in
what they do despite over 40 years of marketing education. Marketing accountability
has emerged as a subject of interest in both the practitioner and academic marketing
literatures, and these streams of debate are reviewed here. Criticisms have been leveled
by non-marketing practitioners at the inability of marketers to present themselves as
accountable to the rest of the organisation. The empirical research reported in this
paper demonstrates the nature of that criticism. The paper then briefly considers some
of the key marketing tools that have been developed since the 1960s to help marketers
and marketing to become more accountable. In questioning why these tools have not
succeeded in the task for which they were developed, this paper focuses on the four
constituent players in marketing education and implementation: educators, academics
(as drivers of the research agenda), consultants and practitioners. The authors outline Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 22 No. 5, 2004
the main issues associated with the role of each of these players in the accountability pp. 557-567
debate. Finally, they suggest an agenda for further research to close the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
academic/practitioner divide. DOI 10.1108/02634500410551932
 MIP Practitioner and academic perspectives on marketing accountability
22,5 It is undeniable that practising marketers have a real world problem with
accountability. This is evidenced by the fact that commentary on this issue appears
in both practitioner and academic journals. On the practitioners’ side, the question has
been posed why “safe bean counters, rather than marketing entrepreneurs, get the top
jobs” (Matthews, 2002). This and commentary by Stubbs (2002) take as their source a
558 survey of the profession that suggests that while marketing is viewed as an important
business tool, only 20 per cent of UK companies have a marketer at board level. They
also report that fewer than 15 per cent of FTSE 100 chief executives would describe
themselves first and foremost as marketers. This need to make marketing a boardroom
issue has been echoed elsewhere (e.g. Mitchell, 2003) although recent research has
revealed that unless more attention is paid to marketing accountability, marketers
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

have only a slim chance of gaining a seat on the board (Simms, 2003; Ambler, 2003).
Much of the academic perspective on this issue focuses on making marketing
financially accountable or on bridging the gap between the marketing and finance
disciplines. For example, a whole issue of the Journal of Business Research edited by
Zinkhan and Verbrugge (2000a) was given over to discussion of the marketing and
finance interface on a range of issues including advertising (Graham and
Frankenburger, 2000), shareholder returns (Kumar et al., 2000) and green marketing
(Mathur and Mathur, 2000). Zinkhan and Verbrugge (2000b) point out that marketing
scholars rarely address the issue of firm performance or stockholder wealth and “thus
the effectiveness of marketing activities is more often assumed than empirically
verified”. They suggest that some of the large unanswered questions in marketing
research remain those such as “does marketing work?” and “do marketing
expenditures pay off?” The subject was later returned to in a subsequent special
issue of the journal devoted to marketing productivity. Contributions from Sheth and
Sisodia (2002) argue that marketing’s fundamental problem today is due to low
productivity and a lack of accountability while Morgan et al. (2002) make the case for
marketing productivity analysis and marketing audits to be considered as subsets of
the broader concept of marketing performance assessment.
Other authors also concentrate on the links between marketing and the bottom line
(Ambler, 2000a, 2000b; Shaw and Mazur, 1997) and the links between marketing and
shareholder value (Doyle, 2000; McDonald et al., 2000). Doyle (2000), for example,
contends that marketing has not had the impact in the boardroom that its importance
justifies because marketers have failed to show how marketing activities and costs
influence shareholder value. He offers a redefinition of marketing in value terms and
advocates the use of shareholder value analysis to demonstrate the importance of
marketing, value brands and test marketing strategies. It is not surprising, therefore, that
marketing performance measurement and accountability has been one of the top three
“gold” priorities for academic research of the Marketing Sciences Institute (www.msi.org).
The authors’ own empirical research supports the view that accountability is a real
issue for marketers and demonstrates in more detail the nature of the criticism
marketers face from their senior management colleagues. This study is presented next.

Research into practitioner perspectives: methodology

Using Johnson’s (1992) cultural web (see Figure 1), which was developed as a
conceptual tool to surface the beliefs and assumptions that guide and constrain the
 Making
marketers
accountable

559

Figure 1.
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

Cultural web

development of strategy, the research study sought to elicit the perceptions held by
senior non-marketers about the paradigm in which their marketing colleagues operate.
The results are depicted in Figure 2.
Stories are told by members of the organisation to one another, to outsiders, to
new recruits etc. to embed the present in its organisational history. They flag up
important events and personalities as well as mavericks who don’t conform. The
rituals of organisational life point to what is important in the organisation, reinforce
“the way we do things around here”, and signal what is especially valued. The
symbols are the symbolic aspects of organisations such as logos, offices, cars, type of
language and terminology. They become the short-hand representation of the nature
of the organisation. The control systems, measurement and reward systems
emphasise what is important in the organisation and focus attention and activity.
Power structures are influential on beliefs and core assumptions with those in the
most powerful managerial groupings having the most influence. The formal

Figure 2.
Senior non-marketers’
cultural web of the
marketing function
 MIP organisational structure – or the more informal ways in which organisations work –
22,5 are likely to delineate important relationships and again emphasise what is
important in the organisation.
All these different aspects of organisational culture build the cultural paradigm at
the centre of the web. However, the paradigm is not simply a set of beliefs or
assumptions removed from organisational action, they lie within a cultural web which
560 bonds them to the day-to-day action of organisational life (Johnson and Scholes, 1992).
This framework has been used in focus groups involving over 81 senior managers
from non-marketing functions from largely UK companies over a period of three years.
Managers have been drawn from delegates attending an executive programme
(Marketing for Senior Non-Marketers) at a leading UK business school. Using a
semi-structured, highly interactive approach, respondent groups were invited to
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

complete the culture web and this was then explored in depth within the group setting.
Analysis of the webs over time produced the aggregated data shown in Figure 2.

Findings
One of the key findings is that marketers are perceived to be “unaccountable” by the
rest of the organisation; they are seen as unable to demonstrate a return on investment
in the activities they have control over. This was manifested in the web in a number of
ways. The difficulties encountered by marketers can be explained both in terms of the
paradigm itself, in which the apparent cost of marketing and unaccountability of
marketers were significant, and also in terms of the different aspects of the culture web.
“Untouchable”, a key element of the paradigm, was reflected in the perceived lack of
accessibility noted in organisational structures, control systems and rituals. There
were many stories related to the apparent need of marketers to operate outside the
organisation in off-site meetings and meetings over lunch with agencies. “Slippery”
was a view that was enforced through use of jargon, lack of structure and “mud not
sticking”, i.e. little responsibility appears to be taken for failure.
Further insights were generated through semi-structured, qualitative discussions
where one of the main problems described was in understanding what marketing
actually is. This is complicated by the fact that marketing is generally referred to in a
number of ways within an organisation. Most managers recognise promotional
literature or advertising campaigns as “marketing”. But this is only the tactical output
of the marketing process. If these visible manifestations of marketing activity are
viewed as the tip of the iceberg, then insights into the perceptions of senior
non-marketers gained through the programme are that the bulk hidden beneath the
waterline, that could be described as marketing as a management process, involving
the allocation of resources, is only scantily accepted.
The deepest level still, that of the marketing orientation, describing a philosophical
approach to doing business that puts the customer at the heart of business matters is,
interestingly, better understood. Making the link between this, the philosophical level
and the tactical level of outputs is where confusion appears to set in. Seeking to
understand the contribution of marketing to a business by continual reference to the
tactical outputs can only give a shallow appreciation of marketing’s full potential. This
is a clear message for marketers.
However, it is hardly surprising that many managers, working in areas other than
marketing, are unclear about what marketing is when marketers themselves cannot
agree on an acceptable definition or find more adequate ways of communicating the
 distinction between the three levels. The last decade of the previous millennium was Making
characterised by debate among the marketing profession as to whether marketing was marketers
going through some form of mid-life crisis and had found itself at a cross-roads (e.g.
CIM, 1994). This debate was based largely on discussions about marketing’s accountable
effectiveness and what it actually delivers.
The intensity of debate around the issue of accountability for marketers might
suggest that that there were in fact no tools available to achieve this task. However, the 561
reality is that many strategic and tactical marketing tools have been developed over
the last 40 years, which should have had a significant impact on marketing
accountability. The evidence is quite clear that this has not happened.
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

Marketing tools
While we do not intend to carry out a comprehensive survey of all the marketing tools
and approaches developed over the years, it is helpful to look at some which should
have enabled marketers to become more accountable.

Traditional marketing tools

The first of these is a toolbox we have termed traditional marketing tools which
includes, for example, the Boston Consultancy Group Matrix, the 4Ps, the Ansoff
Matrix and SWOT Analysis. These tools have formed the basis of marketing education
since the 1960s but there is a scarcity of empirical research that tests how they have
been applied and used by practitioners. Indeed, preliminary findings by McDonald
(1996) indicated that there was “inadequate understanding and inappropriate use of
SWOT analyses, the DPM, market segmentation and objective and strategy setting”
by practitioners. An earlier Australian study found that the awareness and use of
planning tools was low.

Strategic marketing planning

The second major tool is strategic marketing planning. However, research over the
years has shown that there is a big gap between theory and practice in how it is
applied, with few companies carrying out effective planning (McDonald and Wilson,
1997). This is in spite of the fact that there is some evidence of a relationship between
marketing planning and financial success (McDonald, 1996). Indeed, as far back as
1970, Thurne and House found there was “conclusive and significant” evidence that
planners outperform non-planners. Even where companies are doing strategic
planning, few get beyond crude fiscally-driven forecasts and budgets even though the
literature is replete with papers and books universally commending marketing
planning as a process (McDonald, 1996).

Marketing research
Turning to marketing research, many tools have been developed to measure
marketing effectiveness and, in particular, marketing communication activities.
Shaw and White (1999) argue that marketing accountability could be improved if
marketers utilised their marketing research more effectively. However, the
importance of investigating the relationship between marketing research and
company performance has more recently been argued. This study found that if the
market research is conducted with the specific purpose of helping to make a decision,
 MIP then the organisation will receive it more favourably than research that is conducted
22,5 to find background information.

Integrated marketing communications

Despite some indications that taking an integrated marketing communications
approach can make communications spending more effective, translating the concept
562 into reality can be problematic (Eagle and Kitchen, 2000). However, even where
agencies have adopted such an approach with clients, managers and agencies were
concerned about measuring the effectiveness of IMC programmes and managing
compensation issues (Schultz and Kitchen, 1997).

Customer retention
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

Few organisations have measured customer retention rates and the effect of
customer retention on financial performance, notwithstanding the evidence from
research that actively retaining customers improves the bottom line (Reichheld,
1996). Many organisations still focus their marketing effort on customer acquisition
rather than managing both customer acquisition and customer retention
(Christopher et al., 1991).

Customer and key account profitability

More recently, there have been claims that understanding customer and key account
profitability can help marketers target their marketing spend on profitable customer
segments. However, research suggests that suppliers’ knowledge of the real
profitability of their key customers remains poor (Woodburn and McDonald, 2001).

Customer relationship management and sales force automation

Finally, and most recently, customer relationship management (CRM) has been seen as
a process and a tool for measuring marketing effectiveness. However, despite CRM
processes and better marketing information systems, high failure rates of these
approaches are well documented (e.g. Kendrick and Fletcher, 2002).

Marketing education and implementation: the four constituent players

So, in spite of the development of these and other tools of measurement, “much of the
theory of marketing remains poorly understood and patchily applied by practitioners”
(McDonald and Wilson, 1997). So why are marketers still largely seen as
unaccountable, despite over 40 years of marketing education? What is the exact
nature of this failure?
In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to identify the main issues. To
uncover these, the authors suggest it is of value to distinguish who the constituent
players are in the marketing education and implementation process. These are given as
educators, academics (seen as driving the research agenda), consultants and
practitioners (see Figure 3). The main issues associated with the role of each of
these players in the accountability debate are outlined next.

Is it marketing educators who are failing?

Business schools and professional institutes are the principal bodies responsible for
translating academic research into models and tools that can help practitioners. By
 1995 there were over 130 MBA programmes on offer in the UK alone and each of these Making
included teaching on marketing (Ridderstrale and Nordstorm, 2000). However, many
educators still rely heavily on those practices developed in the 1960s (Wind, 1996) and
marketers
are not as assiduous as they might be at keeping up to date with the critical issues accountable
facing practitioners (Wind, 2000). The debate about whether business programmes of
this nature adequately prepare students for the business world goes back some way
(e.g. Buckley et al., 1989). There may also be a problem in the approach taken to 563
teaching. John Hughes (1988) in a wide-ranging review of management teaching
concluded that “the mistake we have made in teaching during the last 40 years has
been to follow the logical approach in teaching theory first, followed by an assumed
application in practice”. Recently, it has been suggested that the way marketing is
taught does need to change from the “traditional decision-based 4Ps approach” to
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

perhaps more of an “activity-based marketing (ABM)” approach focusing on

marketing as a process (Haire et al., 2001).

Is it marketing academics who are failing?

A number of questions may be posed here. Has the output from academic research
resulted in models and processes that are just too complex for practitioners to adopt
and adapt to their own situations? McDonald (1996) suggests that most of the tools and
techniques are inherently complex and therefore misunderstood and misused. Has an
academic focus on generalisability caused us to lose sight of context specificity? As
academics, are we guilty of building frameworks that work conceptually but which
have been the subjects of little empirical research? This draws us into both the debate
on the relevance of research (the subject of this special edition), that has been the
subject of considerable attention (e.g. Winer, 1999; Calder and Tybout, 1999), as well as
into a more detailed examination of the “relevance of relevance” (Easton, 2000; Brennan
and Turnbull, 2000).

Is it marketing consultants who are failing?

Gummesson (2000) stresses that while much is made of the difference between
academics and consultants, there is also a lot they have in common. He illustrates how
the consultant pecks at theory and contributes to practice, while the academic pecks at
practice and contributes to theory. So, similar questions can be posed about
consultants working in the field of marketing that we have posed for the academics.
Perhaps, if they worked more closely together, marketing education would benefit in a

Figure 3.
Marketing education and
implementation: the four
constituent players
 MIP positive way. Consultants often work with organisations at the point of bringing in
22,5 new systems and processes but are rarely around to monitor and review whether these
have worked. Because of the typically short-term nature of a consultancy project, there
is no continued support. How accountable are consultants themselves for what they
deliver to organisations?

564 Is it marketing practitioners who are failing?

In turning attention to practitioners themselves, a number of questions arise: Do
marketing practitioners look for “quick fix” solutions to their problems? Are they so
concerned about the tactical day-to-day issues that they leave little time to reflect on
strategic issues such as how to make their function more accountable? Are there
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

organisational or process blockages that frustrate the operationalisation of tools and

processes that could deliver accountability? Or are marketers simply measuring the
wrong things? Why are marketers failing to present themselves as accountable to the
rest of the organisation? What are the implications of this?
Ankers and Brennan (2002) demonstrate that marketing practitioners (albeit in a
business-to-business context) generally have little knowledge of relevant academic
research and perceive little value in what they are aware of. This would suggest a
need for better communication between the parties if knowledge transfer is to be
effected.

Conclusion and implications for further research

We have asked a number of questions above and would suggest that the following two
areas are where academic research needs to be most urgently focused to close the
academic/practitioner divide in respect of accountability.

Focus on practitioners
.
What are the key issues facing practitioners in terms of marketing
accountability?
.
What are the most common blockages to effective implementation that exist
within organisations?
.
How can measures for marketing accountability be operationalised effectively
within organisations?
.
Why have practitioners failed to adopt marketing measurement tools that could
prove effective?
.
Which tools have proven to be ineffective?

Focus on educators, academics and consultants

.
How can marketing educators, academics and consultants address the problem
of translating research into tools that practitioners can use more effectively than
in the past?
. How should we improve marketing education?
.
Do we need to rethink the way that marketing education is delivered to
practitioners?
 .
What role do consultants play in marketing education and how effective are they Making
from the practitioners’ perspective? marketers
It is not sufficient to simply focus on raising the problem of marketing accountability accountable
or on research that creates a toolkit for helping marketers to become more accountable.
While these are of critical importance to the current research agenda, we believe that
we also need to focus on the three processes of research, knowledge transfer between
the constituent players and implementation. Until we – the constituent players – gain
565
a better understanding of these, we are in danger of once again failing to make
marketing and marketers more accountable.
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

References
Ambler, T. (2000a), “Marketing metrics”, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 59-66.
Ambler, T. (2000b), Marketing and the Bottom Line: The New Metrics of Corporate Wealth,
Financial Times/Prentice Hall, London.
Ambler, T. (2003), “Are you a wimp or a warrior?”, Marketing, 23 October, pp. 22-3.
Ankers, P. and Brennan, R. (2002), “Managerial relevance in academic research: an exploratory
study”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 15-21.
Baker, M.J. and Erdogan, B.Z. (2000), “Who we are and what we do – 2000”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 679-96.
Brennan, R. and Turnbull, P.W. (2000), “The pursuit of relevance in interaction and networks
research”, Proceedings of the 16th IMP Conference, University of Bath, Bath.
Buckley, M.R., Peach, E.B. and Weitzel, W. (1989), “Are business programs adequately preparing
students for the business world?”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 65, pp. 101-5.
Calder, B.J. and Tybout, A.M. (1999), “A vision of theory, research, and the future of business
schools”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 359-66.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality,
Customer Service and Marketing Together, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
CIM (1994), Marketing – The Challenge of Change, a Major Study into the Future of Marketing in
Key British Enterprises, Chartered Institute of Marketing, London.
Doyle, P. (2000), “Valuing marketing’s contribution”, European Management Journal, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 233-45.
Eagle, L. and Kitchen, P.J. (2000), “IMC brand communications and corporate cultures:
client/advertising agency co-ordination and cohesion”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 34 No. 5/6, pp. 667-86.
Easton, G. (2000), “Is relevance relevant?”, Proceedings of the 16th IMP Conference, University of
Bath, Bath.
Graham, R.C. and Frankenburger, K.D. (2000), “The contribution of changes in advertising
expenditures to earnings and market values”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 149-56.
Gummesson, E. (2000), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Haire, J., Shaw, M., Bradmore, D. and Rex, J. (2001), “Rethinking marketing education:
activity-based marketing – a new paradigm for learning marketing theory and practice”,
Proceedings of the 30th EMAC Conference, Bergen.
 MIP Hetzel, P. (2000), “Where are we going? Perceptions of French marketing academics”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 697-716.
22,5
Hughes, J. (1988), “The body of knowledge in management education”, Management Education
and Development, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 301-10.
Johnson, G. (1992), “Managing strategic change: strategy, culture and action”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 28-36.
566 Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1992), Exploring Corporate Strategy, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, London.
Kendrick, T. and Fletcher, K. (2002), “Addressing customer myopia: strategic interactive
marketing planning in a volatile business environment”, Journal of Database Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-19.
Kumar, V., Ramaswami, S.N. and Srivastava, R.K. (2000), “A model to explain shareholder
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

returns: marketing implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 157-68.
Mathur, L.K. and Mathur, I. (2000), “An analysis of the wealth effects of green marketing
strategies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 193-200.
Matthews, V. (2002), “Have fun but forget the boardroom”, The Times, June 12, p. 28.
McDonald, M. (1996), “Strategic marketing planning: theory, practice and research agendas”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12, pp. 5-27.
McDonald, M. and Wilson, H. (1997), “Exploiting technique relationships: a model of strategic
marketing planning”, Proceedings of the AM/AMA Joint Conference, March.
McDonald, M., Shaw, R. and White, C. (2000), “Light into marketing’s black hole”, Marketing
Business.
Mitchell, A. (2003), “Rewriting the marketing effectiveness rulebook”, Marketing Week, Vol. 20,
February, pp. 32-3.
Morgan, N.A., Clark, B.H. and Gooner, R. (2002), “Marketing productivity – integrating multiple
perspectives”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 363-75.
National Audit Office (2003), Getting the Evidence: Using Research in Policy Making,
The Stationery Office, London.
Polonsky, M.J. and Mankelow, G. (2000), “Where are we going? Perceptions of US marketing
academics”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 717-44.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ridderstrale, J. and Nordstorm, K. (2000), Funky Business, FT/Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Schultz, D.E. and Kitchen, P.J. (1997), “Integrated marketing communications in US advertising
agencies: an exploratory study”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 7-18.
Shaw, R. and Mazur, L. (1997), “Marketing accountability: improving business performance”,
FT Management Report, FT Retail and Consumer Publishing, London.
Shaw, R. and White, C. (1999), “Improving marketing accountability through better management
of the market research process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, p. 857.
Sheth, J.N. and Sisodia, R.S. (2002), “Marketing productivity, issues and analysis”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 349-62.
Simms, J. (2003), “How to drive business success . . . and your own career”, Marketing,
18 September, pp. 22-3.
Stubbs, J. (2002), “Wanted: professional marketers”, Market Leader, Vol. 18, Autumn, pp. 28-33.
Wind, J. (1996), Sales and Marketing Management, Vol. 148 No. 3, p. S12.
 Wind, J. (2000), “Reinventing the business school for the global information age”, Keynote Making
Address at the Conference for Deans and Directors, European Foundation for
Management Development, Helsinki. marketers
Winer, R.S. (1999), “Experimentation in the 21st century: the importance of external validity”, accountable
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 349-58.
Woodburn, D. and McDonald, M. (2001), Key Customers. World-leading Key Account
Management: Identification and Development of Strategic Relationships, Cranfield School 567
of Management, Cranfield.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Verbrugge, J.A. (2000a), “Introduction to the special issue on the
marketing/finance interface”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 139-42.
Zinkhan, G.M. and Verbrugge, J.A. (2000b), “The marketing and finance interface: two divergent
and complementary views of the firm”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 2,
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

pp. 143-8.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Tim Hughes, Mario Vafeas. 2018. Service-dominant logic as a framework for exploring research
utilization. Marketing Theory 83, 147059311876401. [Crossref]
2. CarterStephen, Stephen Carter, YeoAmy Chu-May, Amy Chu-May Yeo. 2017. Undergraduate perceptions
of the knowledge, skills and competencies required of today’s practicing marketer. Higher Education, Skills
and Work-Based Learning 7:3, 240-260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Terry Smith, Tom Williams, Sid Lowe, Michel Rod, Ki-Soon Hwang. 2015. Context into text into
context: marketing practice into theory; marketing theory into practice. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
33:7, 1027-1046. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Roger Bennett. 2015. Facilitators and barriers to the assimilation of function-specific executives into senior
management roles. Career Development International 20:4, 315-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)

5. Maja Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, Vesna Zabkar. 2015. The external effect of marketing accountability in business
relationships: Exploring the role of customer perceived value. Industrial Marketing Management 46, 83-97.
[Crossref]
6. Ross Brennan, Nektarios Tzempelikos, Jonathan Wilson. 2014. Improving relevance in B2B research:
analysis and recommendations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:7/8, 601-609. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
7. Stephen Humphrey. 2014. Recruiters and applicants: An exchange of words. Journal of Financial Services
Marketing 19:2, 94-103. [Crossref]
8. Mark A.P. Davies, Barry Ardley. 2012. Denial at the top table: status attributions and implications for
marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing 20:2, 113-126. [Crossref]
9. Tim Hughes, David Bence, Louise Grisoni, Nicholas O'Regan, David Wornham. 2012. Marketing as an
applied science: lessons from other business disciplines. European Journal of Marketing 46:1/2, 92-111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Roger Bennett. 2011. Brand managers’ mindful self-management of their professional experience:
Consequences for pay, self-efficacy and job performance. Journal of Brand Management 18:8, 545-569.
[Crossref]
11. Malin Sundström, Johan Hagberg. 2010. Bridging Marketing Theory and Practice for Consumer
Behaviour Master's Students. Industry and Higher Education 24:5, 377-380. [Crossref]
12. Osman Gök, Gungor Hacioglu. 2010. The organizational roles of marketing and marketing managers.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 28:3, 291-309. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Gopala Ganesh, Audhesh K. Paswan. 2010. Teaching basic marketing accountability using spreadsheets:
An exploratory perspective. Journal of Business Research 63:2, 182-190. [Crossref]
14. Carol Scovotti, Lisa D. Spiller. 2009. Experiential Learning in Capstone Courses through the Great Case
Debate. Journal of Advertising Education 13:1, 25-37. [Crossref]
15. Roger Bennett. 2009. Reaching the Board: Factors Facilitating the Progression of Marketing Executives
to Senior Positions in British Companies. British Journal of Management 20:1, 30-54. [Crossref]
16. Tim Hughes. 2008. Knowledge exchange and the opportunities for Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 26:5, 435-440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Scott G. Dacko. 2006. Narrowing the skills gap for marketers of the future. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 24:3, 283-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 18. Grady Bruce, Gregg Schoenfeld. 2006. Marketers with MBAs: bridging the thinking‐doing divide.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:3, 257-282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Angela D'Auria Stanton. 2006. Bridging the academic/practitioner divide in marketing. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 24:3, 233-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Ross Brennan. 2004. Should we worry about an “academic‐practitioner divide” in marketing?. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 22:5, 492-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Mario Gonzalez-Fuentes. The Organization of the Future and the Marketing Function 1709-1723.
[Crossref]
22. Mario Gonzalez-Fuentes. The Organization of the Future and the Marketing Function 126-145. [Crossref]
23. Ana Estima, Paulo Duarte. The Mismatch between Undergraduate Marketing Education and Employers'
Requirements in Portugal 18-36. [Crossref]
Downloaded by Management Development Institute At 04:56 04 August 2018 (PT)