FAILURES OF TRANSACTIONAL MARKETING: AN ANALYSIS

5628 WORDS

A. R. Lacey (2018), in Dictionary of Philosophy explains paradigm as “a shared assumption or an accepted theory which governs the outlook of an epoch and its approach to scientific problems … [giving]… standard forms of solutions to problems”. Within the physical and social sciences, it is common for one paradigm, a dominant paradigm to be prevalent. Currently, the dominant marketing paradigm, the accepted model of how marketing works and should be integrated with the rest of the world, is what has come to be called Transactional Marketing (TM) (Gronroos, 2019; Aijo, 2019; Gummesson, 2017; Berry, 2017; Jackson, 2016; Payne, 2019).

This research is principally concerned with what has been called Relationship Marketing (RM), a term alluded to by Thomas (1976), but first explicitly used by Berry (2020: see Kotler, 2016; Gronroos, 1990, 1991; Hunt and Morgan, 2017; Berry, 1995; Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Turnbull and Wilson, 1989). The foundations of Relationship Marketing are inextricably mixed with the development and practice of Transactional Marketing. The underpinning theories and conceptualizations of RM often only exist in relation, or opposition to the theory and practice of Transactional Marketing. It is therefore necessary to understand Transactional Marketing before RM can be fully comprehended.

The American Marketing Association has defined (transactional) marketing as “the process of planning and executing conception, pricing, promotion and distribution of ideas, goods and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.” (AMA Board, 1985). The marketing concept is a very simple but powerful idea. The best way for a company to meet its objectives, profit making or otherwise, is by satisfying customers-“the achievement of corporate goals through meeting