Marketing as we enter the 21st Century
Any major study in industrial marketing today should take note that we are living at a time when, as a
discipline, we are considered to be going through a paradigm shift as we begin to enter the 21st century.
More specifically, there are scholars who explain that "relationship marketing" is the future orientation
of marketing, both in the industrial and consumer (as well as service) marketing arenas (Grönroos, 1994;
Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). Without entering deeply into what is becoming a vast amount of research on
relationship marketing, perhaps it would be best to put this paradigm shift into perspective with regard
to this study involving communication.
As presented by Rogers and Kincaid (1981), communication in any setting always implies a relationship.
First of all, what do we actually mean by the term "relationship?" This is actually a rather "gray" area at
this moment in the new marketing paradigm's development. There is much discussion on what actually
constitutes a sellerbuyer relationship. Blois (1996), in asking what a relationship is, offered what
Gummesson (1994) provided as a definition: That the perception of relationship marketing varies
between authors and that there seems to be little agreement on what can be defined as "relationship
marketing." Gummesson adds that most definitions emphasize "longer-term" or "lasting" relationships,
but sometimes these definitions appear to be more the aim of establishing a relationship while in others
they are portrayed as the result. Grönroos (1994) speaks of the old "marketing mix (4 P's) paradigm" as
having dominated marketing thought since first introduced in the 1950s. He adds that "new approaches
have been emerging in marketing research...a major shift in the perception of the fundamentals of
marketing is taking place.
The shift is so dramatic that it can, no doubt, be described as a paradigm shift"(p.1). As such new
paradigms emerge, a revolution in science begins (Kuhn, 1970), which represents a new way of thinking
within a scientific community. With this shift in the way we collectively view the (marketing) world
comes a new way of thinking, not only in what we observe, but in how we observe it in order to develop
or add to theory. Sheth and Parvatiyar (1995), write that relationship marketing represents the
emergence of a new paradigm in marketing as we enter the 21st century and that, "the emergence of a
relationship marketing school of thought is imminent given the growing interest of marketing scholars in
the relational paradigm" (p.397). They continue that this paradigm shift (from transactions to
relationships) is associated with the return of direct marketing, both in the business-to-business (BTB)
and business-to-consumer (BTC) markets.
They add to this discussion on direct marketing that, when producers and consumers (sellers and
buyers) directly deal with one another, there is increased potential for emotional bonding that
transcends economic exchange. This shift to relationship marketing as a paradigm may not be so much
about "revolution" or "evolution" within the discipline as much as it is about returning to the
preindustrial age of marketing. Sheth, et al. explain that the relationship orientation of marketing is not
really a new phenomenon. If we look back to the practice of marketing before the 1900s, we find that
relationship orientation to marketing was actually rather prevalent. Although the history of marketing
thought dates back to only the early 1900s, actual marketing practices have existed throughout history
and pre-history (Nevett & Nevett, 1987; Pryor, 1977; Walle,1987). During the agricultural era, the
concept of 'domesticated markets' and relationship orientation were equally prevalent. In short,
"current popularity of relationship marketing is a reincarnation of the marketing practices of the pre-
industrial era in which producers and consumers interacted directly with each other and developed
emotional and structural bonds in their economic market behaviors" (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995,p.403).
The post-industrial era (what has today become known as the Information Age) has seen a marked
increase toward the development of relationship marketing, both in practice and in academic thinking.
In industrial marketing, the transactional approach during this Industrial Age of the early 1900s to mid
1970s was further compounded by the practice of competitive bidding, whereby the users (buyers) of
industrial products were separated from the purchasing function. This bidding process forced industrial
marketers (sellers) to prepare bid documents for each transaction. They add that, although "reciprocity"
was practiced to facilitate future sales, emphasis nonetheless focused on discrete transactions. Yet it
was the fact that not all firms were satisfied with concentrating on such transactions. Many industrial
buyers and sellers instead began to develop longer-term contracts for supplies and service, creating
ongoing interactive relationships between each other (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995; Håkansson,1982).
It should also be noted that "relationships" exist between more than just the seller and the buyer. Each
side also has what can be referred to as a "network" of other firms and individuals with whom they must
cooperate/work with. A seller or buyer must have relationships (and thus communication) with, for
example, banks, employees, professional associations, unions, etc. According to nderson,Håkansson,and
Johanson (1994), relationships are dyads and 14 Other Units in Focal Customer Other Units in Focal
Supplier Firm Other Supplier Unit Other Ancillary Firms Supplementary Supplier Customer's Customer
Other Ancillary Firms Other Units in Focal Customer Firm Supplier's Supplier Other Customers
Competing Supplier Supplier Business Unit Third Parties in Common Focal Relationship Customer
Business Unit these relationships multiply into business networks. Anderson, et al. (1994) state that a
business network can be defined as, "a set of two or more connected business relationships, in which
each exchange relation is between business firms that are conceptualized as collective actors"(p. 2, with
reference to Emerson, 1981).
