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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://hbr.org/2015/01/a-better-hbr-org

  2. 2.

    http://sloanreview.mit.edu/authors/

  3. 3.

    Details are in Web Appendix B.

  4. 4.

    A list of the five most representative Management Science articles for each topic is in Web Appendix C.

References

  1. 1.

    Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI (2003) Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res 3(Jan):993–1022

    Google 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, Chile

  3. 3.

    CMO Council (2004) Measures and metrics: the marketing performance measurement audit: assessing marketing’s value and impact. The CMO Council, San Jose

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dolan RJ (1995) How do you know when the price is right? Harv Bus Rev 73(5):174–181

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hauser J (2017) Phenomena, theory, application, data, and methods all have impact. J Acad Mark Sci 45(1):7–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Huber J, Kamakura W, Mela CF (2014) A topical history of JMR. J Mark Res 51(1):84–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kumar V (2016) My reflections on publishing in Journal of Marketing. J Mark 80(1):1–6

    Article  Google 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):229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mela CF, Roos J, Deng Y (2013) Invited paper—a keyword history of Marketing Science. Mark Sci 32(1):8–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Palmatier RW (2016) Improving publishing success at JAMS: contribution and positioning. J Acad Mark Sci 44(6):655–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rust RT, Ambler T, Carpenter GS, Kumar V, Srivastava RK (2004) Measuring marketing productivity: current knowledge and future directions. J Mark 68:76–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tellis GJ (2017) Interesting and impactful research: on phenomenon, theory, and writing. J Acad Mark Sci 45(1):1–6

    Article  Google 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):5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhishek Borah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOCX 126 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Borah, A., Wang, X.(. & Ryoo, J.H.(. Understanding Influence of Marketing Thought on Practice: an Analysis of Business Journals Using Textual and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) Analysis. Cust. Need. and Solut. 5, 146–161 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-018-0089-z

Download citation

Keywords

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