Perhaps most notable was the emergence of services marketing as a sub discipline, following scholars’ challenges to “break free” (Shostack 1977) from product marketing and recognize the inadequacies of the dominant logic for dealing with servicesmarketing’s subject matter (Dixon 1990). Many scholars believed that marketing thought was becoming more fragmented. On the surface, this appeared to be a reasonablecharacterization. s, Webster (1992, p. 1) argued, “The historical marketing management function, based on the microeconomic maximization paradigm, must be critically examined for its relevance to marketing theory and practice.” At the end of the twentieth century, Day and Montgomery (1999, p. 3) suggested that “with growing reservation about the validity or usefulness of the Four P’s conceptand its lack of recognition of marketing as an innovating or adaptive force, the Four P’s now are regarded as merely ahandy framework.” At the same time, advocating a network perspective, Achrol and Kotler (1999, p. 162) stated, “Thevery nature of network organization, the kinds of theories useful to its understanding, and the potential impact on theorganization of consumption all suggest that a paradigm shift for marketing may not be far over the horizon.” Shethand Parvatiyar (2000, p. 140) suggested that “an alternative paradigm of marketing is needed, a paradigm that canaccount for the continuous nature of relationships among marketing actors.” They went as far as stating (p. 140) thatthe marketing discipline “give up the sacred cow of exchange theory.” Other scholars, such as Rust (1998),called for convergence among seemingly divergent views. Fragmented thought, questions about the future of marketing, calls for a paradigm shift, and controversy over services marketing being a distinct area of study—are thesecalls for alarm? Perhaps marketing thought is not so much fragmented as it is evolving toward a new dominant logic.Increasingly, marketing has shifted much of its dominant logic away from the exchange of tangible goods (manufactured things) and toward the exchange of intangibles, spe-
Constantin and Lusch (1994) define operand resourcesas resources on which an operation or act is performed toproduce an effect, and they compare operand resources withoperant resources, which are employed to act on operandresources (and other operant recourses).A goods-centered dominant logic developed in which the operand resources were considered primary. A firm (or nation) had factors of production (largely operand resources) and a technology (anoperant resource), which had value to the extent that the firmcould convert its operand resources into outputs at a lowcost.Customers, like resources, became something to becaptured or acted on, as English vocabulary would eventually suggest; we “segment” the market, “penetrate” the market, and “promote to” the market all in hope of attractingcustomers. Share of operand resources and share of (anoperand) market was the key to success.
Operant resources are resources that produce effects(Constantin and Lusch 1994). The relative role of operantresources began to shift in the late