I was presenting my research to my colleagues and got feedback on the historical perspective on marketing thought. Personally I think the paper by Vargo and Lusch (2004) on evolving marketing paradigms is excellent and very much needed. It has a profound message underneath the somewhat complex web of arguments. In my reading the message goes something like this: in all market phenomena value is co-created in use and in exchange, and thus firms cannot perform their tasks well while being isolated from other actors in the market – the firms have to engage in all kinds of meaningful relationships.

Many of the senior researchers seem to be highly critical of the newness of Vargo and Lusch’s ideas. As V&L have said, the ideas themselves aren’t new but they have pulled all the different strings together. Starting a high profile debate, they have also legitimized this discussion for younger researchers.

I agree that most of the ideas have been presented before, some even by Kotler already in the 60’s. What some critics seem to be missing is that the world of business practice is obviously still predominantly product-oriented or following the “old” goods-dominant logic. Measured by growth and profits to shareholders, the firms have done well. But what about the (near) future? Can the firms still continue with their tried and true isolated style? I don’t think so. In this knowledge-intensive, globally networked world, firms cannot survive on their own.

If the senior researchers have known the stuff by V&L all along, and at the same time they have been analyzing the real business world in their research and communicating the result to managers, how is it possible that the managers are still in the old mindset? Two possibilities come to mind: first, the senior researchers still base their thoughts and theories on the old economics-oriented view, or second, the existing theories and real world practice don’t meet.