Marketing concept evolution: a bibliometrics co-occurrence analysis

Muhammad Taqi1, Nilgun Gurkaynak1, Mehmet Gencer1
1. Izmir University of Economics (Turkey)
185 - 197
Cite as:
Taqi, M., Gurkaynak, N., & Gencer, M. (2019). Marketing Concept Evolution: a Bibliometrics Co-occurrence Analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 2, 185-197.


This study examines how scholarly research on marketing has evolved since the beginning of the millennium, and how the marketing academia has responded to the call for reform in 2006. The main purpose of the study is to find out the directions in which the marketing academia was before the call of reform and how/if the direction changed after the call of reform and has/has not evolved the marketing concept. The call for a reform in marketing academia has pointed out the number of issues which marketing has been facing, yet no proper actions were taken by the scholarly body in the past. This study investigates the topics of study which were in focus before the call of reform in comparison to the topics which were emphasized on after the call. In order to understand if changes took place, the authors used a bibliometrics approach known as co-word analysis. VOSviewer software was used for carrying out co-word (keyword co-occurrence) analysis. The data for the study was attained via the SCOPUS database. The body of literature under review is comprised of a corpus of 3,618 articles from top 11 marketing journals according to the citation index of SCOPUS database. In addition to general marketing journals, the list includes journals from some of the specialized areas such as channel and supply management, consumer behaviour, interactive and international marketing. The keyword analysis sought to identify trends in marketing research and compared findings to the call of a possible reform in the field of marketing as presented in the 2006 compilation of articles written by over 40 well-known scholars in the marketing discipline edited by Sheth and Sisodia. Through keyword analysis, the authors developed eight themes to which the keywords belonged. The keyword analysis empirically confirms and theoretically proves there is a change in trend since the call of reform which shows the changes taking place in the evolution of marketing concept. A lot of new topics appeared which the call had emphasized on, lots of the topics were left behind, and several were carried on after the call. Based on the results of the analysis we hold that the call for the reform was responded by the academia to a certain extent. These results of the study are useful to see how the academia responded to call for reform and to see the changes brought in the marketing research since the call for reform. Alongside, to the knowledge of authors, there currently is no study to see whether the call for reform by the top marketing scholars was given any importance or not, or whether if it brought any changes.

bibliometrics, co-occurrence analysis, evolution of marketing, marketing reform, marketing.

  1. Acedo, J., & Casillas, C. (2005). Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis. International Business Review, 14(5), 619–639.
  2. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 307–323.
  3. Ambler, T. (2006). Questions Marketers Need to Answer. In Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future. (pp. 172-179). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
  4. An, X.Y., & Wu, Q.Q. (2011). Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting, Scientometrics, 88. 133-144.
  5. Arnott, D. C. (2007). Research on trust: A bibliography and brief bibliometric analysis of the special issue submissions. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9), 1203–1240.
  6. Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1-16.
  7. Berry, L. L., and Mirabito A. M. (2006). Recapturing Marketing’s Mission. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 295-299). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  8. Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Customer Orientation. Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 241-251. 
  9. Brown, S. (2006). Does Reform Need Reform. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 57-63). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  10. CAS. Casualty Actuarial Society. (2001). Retrieved Online. Websites:
  11. Chalmeta, R. (2006). Methodology for customer relationship management. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(7), 1015-1024. doi:j.jss.2005.10.018
  12. Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), 323-347. doi:10.1002/mar.10076
  13. Chipp, K., Hoeing, S. and Nel, D. (2006). What Can Industrializing Countries Do to Avoid the Need for Marketing Reform?. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 222-228). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  14. Cho, Yung-Jan, Pei-Wen Fu, And Chi-Cheng Wu. (2017), "Popular Research Topics In Marketing Journals, 1995–2014." Journal Of Interactive Marketing 40: 52-72. Doi:10.1016/J.Intmar.2017.06.003.
  15. Cronin J.J., Skinner S.J. (2015) The Marketing-Finance Interface: The Impact of Marketing Objectives and Financial Conditions on Retail Profitability. In: Malhotra N. (eds) Proceedings of the 1985 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham.
  16. Dehdarirad T., Villarroya A., Barrios M. (2014). Research trends in gender differences in higher education and science: a co-word analysis, Scientometrics, 101. 273-290.
  17. Fetscherin, M., Voss, H., & Gugler, P. (2010). 30 years of foreign direct investment to China: An interdisciplinary literature review. International Business Review, 19(3), 235–246.
  18. Fiona, S., Meamber, L., & Hall, R. (2012). Introspecting the spiritual nature of a brand divorce. Journal of Business Research, 65(4), 520–526.
  19. Glanzel, W. (1996). A bibliometric approach to social sciences, national research performances in 6 selected social science areas, 1990–1992. Scientometrics, 35(3), 291–307.
  20. Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Does Marketing need Reform School? On the Misapplication of Marketing to the Education of Marketers. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 265-269). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  21. Johansson J.K. (2006). Why Marketing Needs Reform. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 37-44). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  22. Keller, K. L. & Kotler, P. (2006). Holistic Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future. (pp. 300-305). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
  23. Kim, J., & McMillan, S. (2008). Evaluation of internet advertising research: A bibliometric analysis of citations from key sources. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 99–112.
  24. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1996), Principles of Marketing, 7th edition ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  25. Laczniak, G.R. and Murphy, P.E. (1993) Ethical Marketing Decisions: The Higher Road. Naadham heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 
  26. Malhotra. N.K., Wu, L. and Allvine, F.C. (2006). Marketing Reform: The Case of Excessive Buying. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 45-54). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  27. Meldrum, M.J. and R. Palmer (1998), “The Future of Marketing in Industrial and Technological Organizations,” Working paper, Cranfield University.
  28. Melkman, A. (2004), “Increasing Marketing’s Influence in the Boardroom,” MCE Knowledge, boardroom&hl=en.
  29. Pasadeos, Y., Renfro, R., & Hanily, M. (1999). Influential authors and works of the public relations scholarly literature: A network of recent research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(1), 29–52.
  30. Pfeffer, J. (1994), Competitive Advantage Through People. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  31. Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantages processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5–6), 292–306.
  32. Raju, J. S. (2006). Revitalizing the Role of Marketing in Business Organizations: What Can Poor Academics Do to Help?. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 261-264). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  33. Sheth J.N., Sisodia R.S., and Barbulescu A. (2006). The Image of Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 26-36). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  34. Sheth, J. N. & Sisodia, R. S. (2006b). How to Reform Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future. (pp. 324-333). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc
  35. Sheth, J. N., & Sisodia, R. (2006a). Does marketing need reform?: fresh perspectives on the future. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  36. Shipley, D. (1994), “Achieving Cross-Functional Co-Ordination for Marketing Implementation,” Management Decision, 32 (October), 17–20.
  37. Simms, J. (2003), “How to Drive Business Success . . . and Your Own Career,” Marketing, September 18, 22–23.
  38. Sisodia, R. and Backer, A. (2004), “Cybermarketing and the Tragedy of the Commons: An Environmental Policy Perspective,” in Research Reaching New Heights, Proceedings of the AMA Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
  39. Smith, J. W. (2004a), “Consumer Resistance to Marketing,” paper presented at the symposium Does Marketing Need Reform? Bentley College, Boston.
  40. Smith, J.W. (2004b). Consumer Resistance to Marketing Reaches All-Time High, Marketing Productivity Plummets. Presented at American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) Conference. Miami: AAAA.
  41. Smith, J.W. (2006). Coming to Concurrence: Improving Marketing Productivity by Reengaging Resistant Consumers. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 15-25). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  42. Stewart, D.W. (2006). Reform, Reclamation, or Improvement: Reinventing Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 82-88). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  43. Urban G.L. (2006). Customer Advocacy: A New Paradigm for Marketing?. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 119-125). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  44. Van Eck, N.J. (2011). Methodological advances in bibliometric mapping of science. PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
  45. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
  46. Varadarajan, R. (2006). Musings on the Need for Reform in Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? Fresh Perspectives on the Future. (pp. 270-281). New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc
  47. Venkatesh, A., and Penaloza, L. (2006). From Marketing to the Market: A Call for Paradigm Shift. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 134-150). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  48. Wang, Xin Shane, Neil T. Bendle, Feng Mai, And June Cotte (2015), “The Journal Of Consumer Research At 40: A Historical Analysis,” Journal Of Consumer Research, 42, 1, 5–18.
  49. White, H. D., & McCain, K.W. (1989). Bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 24, 119–186.
  50. Wiberley, S. E. (2003). A methodological approach to developing bibliometric models of types of humanities scholarship. The Library Quarterly, 73(2), 121–159.
  51. Wilkie, W. L. (2006). The World of Marketing Though: Where Are We Heading?. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 239-247). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  52. Wind, Y.J. (2006). Challenging the Mental Models of Marketing. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 91-104). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  53. Winer, R.S. (2006). Does Marketing Need Reform? Personal Reflections. In Does Marketing Need Reform? (pp. 78-81). New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
  54. Wu, D.S., Xie, Y.J., Dai, Q.Z., Li, J.P. (2016). A systematic overview of operations research/ management science research in Mainland China: Bibliometric analysis of the period 2001-2013, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, forthcoming.
  55. Yang Y., Wu M., Cui L. (2012). Integration of three visualization methods based on co-word analysis, Scientometrics, 90. 659-673.
  56. Zarantonello L., Romani S., Grappi S., Bagozzi R. P., (2016) "Brand hate", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 Issue: 1, pp.11-25,