The Periodization of Marketing: Myth Or Reality? Evidence from the Scott Paper Company‪.‬

INTRODUCTION The epochs or eras of history are signified in time by production (1869-1930s), sales (1930s-1950) and the marketing concept post 1950s. The production, sales and marketing three-era phases that conforms to historical periodization derives from Keith's (1960) analysis of the Pillsbury Company founded in 1869. Keith conceived four sequential eras based on his familiarity as an employee with the company since 1935. Particularly germane to this paper is his declaration of a marketing revolution inspired by a consumer orientation occurring only since the 1950s when the marketing era began. After 1960, a fourth era institutionalized a corporate-wide marketing managerial philosophy. These are still perceived as "the received doctrine" especially in marketing textbooks despite the challenge from Hollander (1986, 3) and others. Hollander questioned periodization and identified its ubiquity in a sample of 25 textbooks published between 1980 and 1984. An in-depth analysis of business history proved to him that "The standard chronology does not fit" (1986, 22). Subsequent studies of contemporary texts from 2002 to 2006 indicate that little had changed regarding this categorization of sequential epochal history (Jones and Richardson 2007, 16). Jones and Richardson (2007) consider this periodization a "myth". Given Hollander's (1986) position and considering the two decade lapse and admonitions to reconsider sequential stages, it is surprising that we still find the "myth" perpetuated in many contemporary marketing texts (Jones and Richardson, 2007). One current popular text states: