Customer Needs and Solutions

, Volume 5, Issue 3–4, pp 146–161 | Cite as

Understanding Influence of Marketing Thought on Practice: an Analysis of Business Journals Using Textual and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Analysis

  • Abhishek BorahEmail author
  • Xin (Shane) Wang
  • Jun Hyun (Joseph) Ryoo
Research Article


Several calls have been made to understand the influence of marketing thought on practice (Rust et al. J Mark 68:76–89, 11). Practice includes practitioners who mostly use concepts and frameworks (general practice) and who mostly use quantitative models (quantitative practice). This paper compares the relative influence of marketing thought compared to other disciplines and uncovers seminal marketing thoughts that have influenced both general and quantitative practice. Using topic modeling procedures on 94 years of Harvard Business Review, 46 years of Sloan Management Review, and 47 years of Management Science, this paper illuminates the evolution of the influence of marketing thought over time. Despite marketing’s slow start, it has an increasing influence on both general and quantitative practice. Foundational topics in marketing such as product, promotion, place, consumers, and marketing research methods have influenced both general and quantitative practice. Surprisingly, price has not influenced practice. Marketing Communications is increasingly influential while Channel Management, Product/Service Management, and surprisingly Customer Relationships have lost their early influence to practice. General practitioners find Marketing Environment and Business Models increasingly influential while quantitative practitioners find Social Influence and Metrics increasingly influential. Quantitative practice has kept up to speed with marketing thought that influence general practice.


Marketing topics Practice Harvard Business Review Management Science MIT Sloan Management Review Topic modeling Historical analysis Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) 



The authors thank Johannes Boegershausen for his detailed comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40547_2018_89_MOESM1_ESM.docx (126 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 126 kb)


  1. 1.
    Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3(Jan):993–1022Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cancino C, Merigó JM, Palacios-Marqués D (2015) A bibliometric analysis of innovation research. CID Working Papers, 2015-01, University of Chile, ChileGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    CMO Council (2004) Measures and metrics: the marketing performance measurement audit: assessing marketing’s value and impact. The CMO Council, San JoseGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dolan RJ (1995) How do you know when the price is right? Harv Bus Rev 73(5):174–181Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hauser J (2017) Phenomena, theory, application, data, and methods all have impact. J Acad Mark Sci 45(1):7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huber J, Kamakura W, Mela CF (2014) A topical history of JMR. J Mark Res 51(1):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar V (2016) My reflections on publishing in Journal of Marketing. J Mark 80(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lilien GL, Roberts JH, Shankar V (2013) Effective marketing science applications: insights from the ISMS-MSI practice prize finalist papers and projects. Mark Sci 32(2):229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mela CF, Roos J, Deng Y (2013) Invited paper—a keyword history of Marketing Science. Mark Sci 32(1):8–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palmatier RW (2016) Improving publishing success at JAMS: contribution and positioning. J Acad Mark Sci 44(6):655–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rust RT, Ambler T, Carpenter GS, Kumar V, Srivastava RK (2004) Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future directions. J Mark 68:76–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tellis GJ (2017) Interesting and impactful research: on phenomenon, theory, and writing. J Acad Mark Sci 45(1):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang XS, Bendle NT, Mai F, Cotte J (2015) The Journal of Consumer Research at 40: a historical analysis. J Consum Res 42(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Foster School of BusinessUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Ivey Business SchoolWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations