PRODUCT AND BRAND: INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS?
Geraldine Fennell, Consultant
ABSTRACT
Marketing authors often use "product'' where the context requires "brand. " The result is an indeterminate use of
"product'' that fails to make clear if a product class is at issue or an individual brand member of a product class.
Examples are discussed to illustrate the resulting ambiguity in glossary definitions. For further clarification of the
marketing primacy of brands, product and brand information from syndicated research (SMM) is discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In marketing writing, many authors use "product" both to refer to the class to which a brand belongs, and to a
specific member of the class, i.e., a brand. In the two sections immediately following, using textbook glossary
definitions of market, and market segmentation, respectively, I illustrate the consequent ambiguity. In a subsequent
section, I present data from the Simmons Markets and Media (SMM) annual survey, by way of communicating the
marketing primacy of brands, as the actual entity whose features producers choose, manufacture, distribute, price,
and promote, and that people buy and use, with satisfaction or otherwise, thus forming the basis for future purchase
and use decisions and recommendations to others. In a final section, I speculate about reasons why authors fail to
use the terms, product and brand, appropriately to convey unambiguous meaning.
GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS OF MARKET
Consider first the following definition of the term, market: "Individuals/organizations with needs for a product in a
product class and with ability, willingness, and authority to buy such products." What can it mean to speak of
"needing a product in a product class"? Note that the author uses "product" to refer both to a class and to a member
of the class, i.e., "for a product in a product class." Moreover, because some authors use "product" to refer both to a
brand and to the product class to which a brand belongs, the phrase "product in a product class" results in a
definition that is ambiguous. It is unclear if "product" is toothpaste in the product class of oral hygiene products
(e.g., toothpaste, mouthwash, dental floss, tooth brushes) or Aim, Colgate, Crest, or a store brand in the product
class of toothpaste.i From a definition, the reader needs to take away a clear picture of the scope of a market,ii i.e.,
is a market's outer limit a class whose members are brands, or a class whose members are products? The definition
under discussion (17, Table 1a) fails to deliver a meaning that fills such a basic requirement.
In other definitions in Table 1aiii the indeterminate "product" also deprives the term "market" of clarity as regards
its scope. In the case of Texts, 03, 11, 19, which add "particular" or "specific" as a qualifier, the definition could be
interpreted as referring to a brand. If this is the intended meaning, the definition is to be criticized on grounds of
being too narrow. A market cannot be restricted to one brand. The idea of a market implicates the notion of
competition, i.e., a number of competing brands in the same product class. Such variety provides individuals, who
have a use for the product class, with a range of variants (i.e., brands) from which to choose one best suited to the
user's envisaged conditions of use.
Consider other definitions. Bearing in mind that only a brand is actually available for exchange, definitions that
refer to the product "offered" (e.g., Texts 10, 20), and to being "willing to exchange for a product," "exchange
something of value to get it" (e.g., Texts 05, 15) similarly are open to be interpreted as referring to a brand. Such
definitions risk conveying a view of market that is inappropriately narrow.
Given the usual meaning of "product benefits," the remaining definition in Table 1a (Text 01's "group of customers
who seek similar product benefits") is more appropriate to a market segment than to a market. Does the author, in
fact, intend to refer to the similar product benefits that are embodied in brands whose producers have tailored them
for a particular kind of demand within a product market (i.e., a market segment)? For example, within the laundry
detergent market, some brands offer the benefits of "safe for lightly soiled, delicate fabrics"; others offer "stain
removal for ground in dirt." A student, reasonably reading the words "group ... who seek similar product benefits"
as referring to such segments of the laundry detergent market, fails to obtain the promised definition of market. On
the other hand, conceivably, the author may have intended the words to refer, broadly. to all benefits associated
with helping remove soil from clothes, in contrast, for example, to benefits associated with using shampoo.
However, only the latter interpretation makes the definition appropriate to a market.
GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS OF MARKET SEGMENTATION
Similarly, the indeterminate "product" creates problems for definitions of market segmentation. Consider Text 13 in
Table 1b, which refers to buyers in a segment as possibly requiring separate "products," i.e., "Dividing a market
into distinct groups of buyers with different needs, characteristics, or behavior who might require separate
products..." A possible implication of saying "separate products" is that a market may consist of more than one
product, e.g., dog food, soap, and shirts. In that case, what or who determines which products belong in the same
market? Is there an upper limit? Three? Twelve? Twenty? Who decides? What or who determines which products
belong in the same market? For example, do cars and dog food and mustard belong in the same market? Or, dog
food, dog accessories, and flea collars? Or, brands of dog food, e.g., Kibbles and Bits, Good Day Chunk, Purina Fit
and Trim? Consider the definition when one word is changed: "Dividing a market into distinct groups of buyers
with different needs, characteristics, or behavior who might require separate brands..." Thus revised, "market"
means a product market, i.e., only one product in the market, e.g., dog food, with brands of dog food tailored to the
varied wants of dog food buyers. Plainly, it makes a major difference to the meaning of market segmentation if
"products" means "product classes," (e.g., dog food, soap, and shirts; or dog food, dog accessories, and flea
collars), or "brands," e.g., various members of one product class, e.g., different brands of dog food, Kibbles and
Bits, Good Day Chunk, Purina Fit and Trim.
Recalling the earlier discussion of the ambiguous use of "product benefits," note that whether the writer intends
product or brand in the definition of market segmentation has implications not only for the scope of the term,
market, but also for the relevant scope of what is meant by "buyers with different needs." Is the term, market
segmentation, relevant to the situation where a person may be deciding to satisfy different kinds of user want such
as considering to spend money on dog food, or soap, or shirts? Or, is it relevant to the situation where a person has
decided to buy a particular product, e.g., dog food, and is searching for a form of that product suited to his/her
particular wants, for example, one that claims to be suited for improving the dog's coat, or indulging a pampered
pet, or for maintaining the fitness of a working dog, and so on?
People look to definitions to tell the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, usually expecting a fair degree of
precision. Yet, here is a definition that permits two widely differing meanings for the term, market segmentation:
Segments that reflect differences in the kinds of product that people want, or segments that reflect difference in the
kinds of brand within a product class that people want. It is unclear whether the author refers to distinctions among
product classes (e.g., the differing wants that are addressed by product classes such as toothpaste, mouthwash,
dental floss, and toothbrushes), or within a single product class (e.g., the differing toothpaste wants that are
addressed by Crest Tartar Control, Pearl Drops, and Sensodyne). A student of marketing will reasonably want not
to be left in doubt as to which meaning is correct. A similar problem is present in Text 17's definition.
Consider. finally, one more example, where the indeterminate "product" along with reference to demographics
leaves the reader in doubt about the meaning of market segmentation. Text 04 defines market segmentation as,
"Dividing the total market into several relatively homogeneous groups with similar product interests based on such
factors as demographic or psychographic characteristics, geographic location, or perceived product benefits."
Again. it is unclear whether what is at issue are the "similar product interests" that distinguish users of products
(e.g., toothpaste, mouthwash, dental floss, and toothbrushes) or brands within a product class (e.g., Crest Tartar
Control, Pearl Drops, and Sensodyne). Referring to similar product interests as based on "demographic ...
characteristics," tilts the interpretation to an interproduct focus, since demographic characteristics relate, if at all, to
product use. In contrast however, market segmentation refers to diversity of wants within a product class. The
"similar product interests" that are at issue in market segmentation are, then, the similarity that pertains within
segments of a market, e.g., toothbrushers who are concerned to deal with tartar (Crest Tartar Control), with dull,
stained teeth (Pearl Drops), or with sensitive teeth (Sensodyne). Demographics and other personal descriptors are
not expected to differentiate within toothbrusher wants.
DISCUSSION
Authors' lack of rigor in using the terms "product" and "brand" is not symmetrical. It is rarely if ever the case that
an author uses "brand," where "product" has to be the intended term. The problem arises because authors use
"product" sometimes in the sense of product class and sometimes where the sense requires "brand" as the correct
term. It makes a difference to the systematic import of what is being said, whether it is said of a product class, e.g.,
toothpaste, regardless of specific brand, or of a brand, i.e., to a concrete realization of the product class.
Authors who err in the manner discussed here appear to overlook the fact that "product," in the sense of product
class, has no concrete existence. One cannot buy a "product," e.g., dog food, in the abstract. One can buy only
individual members of the class, whose formulation has been chosen by whomever has decided to invest in
producing an offering for sale. The entities that constitute a product class are brands, i.e., the individual versions of
the product that management designs and offers for sale, identified with the brand's name and, usually, the
manufacturer's name and address. Even store brands and generics, which are available in retail outlets, are
individual, concrete, examples of the product class. Authors appear to forget that the term, product, is a convenient
concept to refer to a class to which brands belong. When they need to refer to some entity that is offered in
exchange, the correct term is "brand."
Space limitations permit me to present only a partial picture of the distinct meanings of product and brand.
Consider first the view that may be obtained from Figure 1, which shows the kinds of basic information obtained in
the Survey of Media and Markets conducted annually by Simmons, using a sample of roughly 20,000 US adults.
Similar questions are asked for at least 1500 product classes, comprising 20,000 brands or more. Note that such
information is obtained only from individuals who indicate that they are users of the product, in this case,
toothpaste. It is important to bear in mind that incidence of use of products varies considerably in the population.
For a sample of 52 products selected from the SMM database for special study (Tables 2, 3), incidence of use
ranged from 13% (Scotch whisky) to 96% (toothpaste); the number of brands in each product class ranged from 5
(charcoal for barbecues) to 74 (candy bars and packs, individual, full-size). It is noteworthy that incidence of
product use and number of brands per product are independent (r = 0.068; p > 0.05). A final point to note is the
range of physical variation in which producers make a product available. As shown in Figure 2, toothpaste users are
asked to report their use of at least five types, four forms, and four container types of toothpaste. Similarly,
deodorant users are asked about their use of 2 types, 2 kinds, and 5 forms of deodorant; hair conditioner and creme
rinse users are asked about 5 types, 9 kinds, and 6 forms of conditioner/creme rinse. Given the complexity and
variety that exists within a product class, it is apparent that authors who write about a "product" are making points
at a highly general and abstract level. Such comments are well removed from the reality of a user selecting and
using a particular brand in the concrete form and circumstances in which brands are used and judged.
Brands may and do vary in their formulation and presentation. Moreover, a major part of marketing's job as a
management function is guiding the firm's strategic choice among the numerous options for brand formulation and
presentation. To do so, real world marketers must clarify options, obtain, and interpret information relevant to
management's choice among such options. Focusing marketing writing at the level of classes of item exchanged,
rather than brands, excludes considerations relevant to management's strategic decisions concerning its offering.
Possibly, the practice is a carry over from the discipline of economics where an ex post view of product classes is
often in focus. Much economic analysis concerns what happens to the goods/services that are on offer, classically,
whether such supply matches demand, and the consequences of imbalance between supply and demand, whether
under or over supply. In contrast, marketers' function is to guide management's product policy ex ante. As
management's source of information on the user's world, marketers guide the firm's decision regarding what to
offer, i.e., in the case of manufacturing, what to produce or, in the case of retailing, what to buy for resale.
Moreover, when the marketing discipline took "exchange" as its disciplinary focus, authors may have regarded
"exchange" as a synonym for "trade." In turn, "trade," usually connotes transactions regarding entities, e.g.,
goods/services, whose form is already established. Such a meaning is but one concept, a static view, of the nature
of exchange and trade. It overlooks a dynamic concept of exchange or trade, in which a producer or a seller wants
to engage in exchange and, in order to do so, is ready to find out and provide the version of a product that, within
law and ethics, will induce a prospective exchange partner to trade (Fennell 1989). Such a dynamic view of
exchange became marketing's domain when the marketing concept was articulated. Consider the following early
statement of marketing's role in the firm (General Electric 1952). The wording is paraphrased slightly to remove
gender-specific language:
"It [the marketing concept] introduces the marketer at the beginning rather than at the end of the
production cycle and integrates marketing into each phase of the business. Thus, marketing, through
its studies and research, will establish for the engineer, the design and manufacturing person, what
the customer wants in a given product, what price he/she is willing to pay, and where and when it
will be wanted. Marketing will have authority in product planning, production scheduling, and
inventory control, as well as sales, distribution, and servicing of the product."
For present purposes, the significance of the preceding words is that they make plain that not only is management
not wedded to any particular version of an offering, but it is marketing's role to guide management's choice
regarding strategic aspects of an offering. An example would be helping to select the attributes for management's
brand entry in a particular product market, e.g., attributes that would make management's brand of pressing iron
responsive to a particular set of conditions in which (some) users envisage removing wrinkles.
CONCLUSION
In a discipline whose subject matter has been defined as exchange, it is unclear why marketing authors would write
about what is exchanged by referring to an abstraction, namely the class to which what is exchanged belongs, rather
than to the actual entities that are exchanged, i.e., brands. Focusing on product class could only be justified if the
class members were known to be identical. Various kinds of evidence suggest that some marketing writers consider
that brands of a product class are interchangeable. In experimental work, it is not unknown for researchers to
summarize findings across brands, i.e., to fail to present data for the individual brands included in the research.
Moreover, Gardner and Levy's (1955) words reflect the likely existence of the belief that brands of a product are
clones of each other, distinguished only by the name of their producer. In a paper in which they sought to convey
the multifaceted nature of brands, particularly focusing on brand image, they found it advisable to state: "[A] brand
name is more than the label employed to differentiate among the manufacturers of a product." Yet, more than forty
years later, authors fail to clarify whether a product class, or a brand member of a product class, is at issue. Perhaps
the view persists in today's marketing thought that brands are but a means to distinguish the producers of otherwise
indistinguishable members of a product class. Authors (e.g., Hunt 1991, Teas and Palan 1997) discuss ambiguity in
definitions that arises from using natural language. Here, however, greater clarity is possible even while using
natural language, if authors bear in mind that the term, product, designates a class whose members cannot be
regarded as interchangeable.
There is an alternative explanation: Authors are intentionally writing ambiguously because they are unsure how to
define "market," or "market segmentation." Is it possible that, given alternative interpretations, such as I discuss
here, authors hesitate to choose one or the other? Conceivably, uncertainty pervades the discipline about the
meaning of marketing's core terms and concepts, a conclusion that is not without support: Each of three recent
reviews (Fennell and Saegert 1998, 2000, Fennell, Saegert, and Hoover 1999) of textbook authors' definitions of
market, market segmentation, and target market, respectively, noted wide variation, as well as much ambiguity, in
the glossary definitions in Principles of Marketing textbooks. If so, what is the remedy? As one means of choosing
among alternative definitions, elsewhere (Fennell, 2000) I discuss following through on the implications of a
particular theoretical position. For now, I trust that documenting the existence of rampant ambiguity, as have done
here, is a first step toward eventual clarity and rigor.
TABLE 1A
TEXTBOOK 3 GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS OF "MARKET": INDETERMINATE "PRODUCT"
WHO
WHY
ABLE/WILLING
01
03
05
10
Group of customers who
People with
(Potential) customers who
Consumers and organizations with
seek similar product benefits
desire
want or need a product
need
ability
able, willing
ability
11
15
17
19
Group of potential buyers who
Group of customers or prospects who
Individuals/organizations with
All (potential) customers with
20
Group of potential customers
need and want a particular product
need or want a product
needs for product in a product class
common need can be satisfied by
specific product
may want the product offered
TO DO WHAT
buy specific product
exchange something for it
make an exchange for product,
service, or idea offered buy it
willing, able
resources, willingness
ability, willingness, authority
resources, authority willingness,
exchange something of value to get it
buy such products
buy the specific product
resources, authority willingness,
purchase it
TABLE 1B
TEXTBOOK3 GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS OF "MARKET SEGMENTATION: INDETERMINATE
"PRODUCT"
HOW
RELEVANT
COLLECTIVE
04
Dividing
the total market
into
13
Dividing
a market into
17
Dividing
a total market
into
BASIS/PURPOSE FOR MARKET SEGMENTATION
several relatively homogeneous groups with similar product interests based on such factors as
demographic or psychographic characteristics, geographic location, or perceived product benefits
distinct groups of buyers with different needs, characteristics, or behavior who might require
separate products or marketing mixes
groups of people or organizations with relatively similar product needs, to enable marketers to
design a marketing mix that more precisely matches the needs of consumers in a selected segment.
TABLE 2
INCIDENCE OF USE: 52 PRODUCT CLASSES
Toothpaste
Toilet Paper
Paper Towels
Toilet Soap, bars
Headache & Pain Relievers,
nonprescr'n
Batteries, Household
Garbage Bags & Trash Can Liners
Mustard
Dishwashing Liquid, not for automatics
Jams, Jellies, & Preserves
Salad Dressing, prepared
Tuna, canned
Facial Tissue
Scouring Pads & Scouring Sponges
Bleach
Kitchen Wrap, plastic type
Pancake & Table Syrup
Pickles
Potato Chips
Cookies, ready to eat
Furniture Polish
Vegetables, Frozen
Bacon
Margarine/Margarine Spread
Tea, regular in bags, packages
Candy Bars & Packs, individual, fullsize
96
95
93
92
89
88
88
88
86
85
85
84
83
82
81
81
81
81
80
78
76
76
71
71
71
68
Mouthwash/Dental Rinse
Cake Mixes, dry
Candy, Hard Roll
Coffee, ground/whole bean
Frosting, store bought
Spaghetti & Macaroni, cans,
jars
Cough Syrup, nonprescr'n
Insecticides
Orange Juice, Frozen
Brownie Mixes, dry
Drain Cleaner
Snack Cakes, ready to eat
Yogurt, not bought frozen
TV Dinners, Frozen Complete
Cola Drinks, Diet or Sugar
Free, carbon'd
Toilet Bowl Cleaners, in tank
After-Shave Lotion & Cologne
Casseroles or Entrees, Frozen
Potatoes, Packaged Instant
Charcoal, for barbecues
Eye Drops & Eye Wash,
nonprescr'n
Beer, regular domestic
Floor Wax or Polish
Sparkling
Water/Seltzer/Natural Sodas
Laxatives, nonprescr'n
Scotch Whisky
64
63
61
57
54
54
53
53
50
49
49
48
47
46
45
45
43
38
37
34
34
33
29
27
16
13
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF BRANDS IN PRODUCT CLASS: 52 PRODUCT CLASSES
Candy Bars/Packs, individual, full-size
Cookies, ready to eat
Headache & Pain Relievers, nonprescrn
After-Shave Lotion & Cologne
Toilet Soap, bars
Beer, regular domestic
Coffee, ground/whole bean
Yogurt, not bought frozen
Casseroles or Entrees, Frozen
Toothpaste
Salad Dressing, prepared
Margarine/Margarine Spread
Paper Towels
Laxatives, nonprescr'n
Potato Chips
Sparkling Water/Seltzer Natural Sodas
Toilet Paper
Mouthwash/Dental Rinse
TV Dinners, Frozen Complete
Facial Tissue
Toilet Bowl Cleaners, in tank
Candy, Hard Roll
Scotch Whisky
Vegetables, Frozen
Cake Mixes, dry
Bleach
74
47
47
46
39
38
38
37
36
32
31
26
26
25
25
25
24
23
23
22
22
21
21
21
19
18
Tea, regular in bags, packages
Furniture Polish
Garbage Bags & Trash Can Liners
Brownie Mixes, dry
Pancake & Table Syrup
Batteries, Household
Dishwashing Liquid, not for automatics
Orange Juice, Frozen
Scouring Pads & Scouring Sponges
Bacon
Cough Syr-up, nonprescr'n
Insecticides
Drain Cleaner
Floor Wax or Polish
Pickles
Snack Cakes, ready to eat
Cola Drinks, Diet/Sugar Free, carbon'd
Eye Drops & Eye Wash, nonprescr'n
Kitchen Wrap, plastic type
Spaghetti & Macaroni, cans, jars
Frosting, store bought
Jams, Jellies, & Preserves
Mustard .
Potatoes, Packaged Instant
Tuna, canned
Charcoal, for barbecues
18
17
17
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
5
FIGURE 1
SMM QUESTIONNAIRE: EXAMPLE OF QUESTIONS ASKED REGARDING A PRODUCT CLASS
TOOTHPASTE
Do you yourself use it?
Yes No DK/NA;
IF YES,
Who decides which brands you use?
(Mark as many as apply)
Yourself
Your Husband/Wife
Child(ren) under 18
Other Male 18 or Older
Other Female 18 or Older
Dentist
Types use:
Regular
With Tartar Control
With Whitening
With Baking Soda
For Sensitive Teeth
Other
Container use:
Flip Cap Tube
Regular Tube
Stand-Up Tube
Pump
Times used each day, on average:
4 or more
3
2
1
Less than 1
For each brand you use... Most Also
Often Use
Aim Anti-Tartar
Aim Extra
Aqua-fresh Extra Fresh
Aqua-fresh Tartar Control
Aqua-fresh Regular
Close-Up Anti-Plaque
Close-Up Tartar Control
Close-Up Regular
Colgate Tartar Control
Colgate Baking Soda
Colgate Regular
Crest Baking Soda
Crest Tartar Control
Crest Regular
Crest Sensitivity Protection
Gleem
Mentadent
Pearl Drops
Pepsodent
Plus White
Rembrandt
Sensodyne
Tom's Of Maine
Ultra Brite
Aqua-fresh Sensitive
Arm & Hammer Gel
Arm & Hammer Toothpaste
Arm & Hammer Tartar Control
Forms use:
Paste
Gel
Paste/Gel Combination
Powder
Viadent
Store Brands
Other Brands
FIGURE 2
SMM QUESTIONNAIRE: EXAMPLES OF SUBGROUPS OF A PRODUCT CLASSa
TYPES
KINDS
FORMS
DEODORANT
Clear
Not clear (white or colored)
Scented
Unscented
Aerosol Spray Liquid
Aerosol Spray Powder
Cream
Gel
Pads
FACIAL CLEANSER
Cream
Lotion
Gel
Scrub
Astringent/Toner/Freshener
FACIAL MOISTURIZER
Cream
Lotion
Spray
With Sunscreen/Sunblock
W/o Sunscreen/Sunblock
HAIR CONDITIONER & CREME RINSE
Creme Rinse
Hair Conditioner
Intensive Hair Conditioner
Combination
Rinse/Conditioner
Leave In
Regular
Extra Body
for Dry Hair
for Color-Treated /Penned Hair
for Normal Hair
for Oily Hair
Deep Conditioning
Bottle
Jar
Packet
Mousse
Spray
Tube
HAIR SPRAY
Regular Hold
Soft Hold
Super Hold
Maximum Hold
Scented
Unscented
Aerosol Spray
Pump Stray
HAIR STYLING PRODUCTS
CONTAINER
Mousse, MGel, Spritz
Cream, Tonic
Lotion/Liquid
SANITARY PADS & NAPKINS
Full size pads/napkins
Thin full size
pads/napkins
Ultra thin full size
pads/napkins
Mini-size pads
Panty Shields/Liners
Regular
Deodorant
TOOTHPASTE
Regular
with Tartar Control
with Whitening
with Baking Soda
for Sensitive Teeth
Paste
Gel
Paste/Get Combination
Powder
Flip Cap Tube
Regular Tube
Stand-Up Tube
Pump
a
The labels for the various subgroups of these product classes are as found in Simmons' Survey of Markets and
Media. Particular subgroup labels may reflect historic development, rather than systematic considerations.
REFERENCES
Assael, Henry (1990), Marketing: Principles and Strategy, Chicago: The Dryden Press.
Berkowitz, Eric N., Roger A. Kerin, Steven W. Hartley and William Rudelius (1997), Marketing, 5th Edition,
Chicago: Irwin.
Boone, Louis E. and David L. Kurz (1995), Contemporary Marketing, 8th Edition, Fort Worth, The Dryden Press.
Bovee Courtland L., Michael J. Houston, and John V. Thill (1995), Marketing, 2 nd Edition, New York: McGrawHill, Inc.
Fennell, Geraldine (1982). "Terms v. concepts: Market segmentation, brand positioning, and other aspects of the
academic-practitioner gap," in Marketing theory: Philosophy of science perspectives, R. Bush & S. Hunt, eds.,
Chicago: American Marketing Association.
---- (1989). Aspects of a dynamic view of marketing as exchange: Real-World impact of a model in the mind, in T.
Childers (Ed.), Proceedings of the Winter Educators' Conference, Chicago: American Marketing Association.
---- (2000). "Coherence in Marketing Terms," in Proceedings of the SCP 2000 Winter Conference, J. Jeffrey
Inman, K. Tepper, & T. Whittler (eds.), in press.
---- and Joel Saegert (1998) "Implications of the Marketing Concept: What the Textbooks Fail to State," in
Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology, Karen Machleit and Meg Campbell, eds., Washington, DC:
Society for Consumer Psychology (Division 23), American Psychological Association, p. 65-74.
---- and ---- (2000) "Market Segmentation: Textbook Definitions," in Marketing Theory and Applications, Vol. 11
in John P. Workman and William D. Perreault, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, in press.
----- ---- and Robert J Hoover (1999) "An Oxymoron in Principles of Marketing and International Marketing
Textbooks," International Trade and Finance Association (in press).
Gardner, Burleigh B, and Sidney J. Levy (1955), "The Product and the Brand," Harvard Business Review.
General Electric (1952). Annual Report.
Hunt, Shelby D. (1991), Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science.
Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing Co.
Husted, Stewart W., Dale L Varble and James R. Lowry (1989), Principles of Modern Marketing. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Keegan, Warren J., Sandra E. Moriarty and Thomas, R. Duncan (1995), Marketing, 2 d Edition, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kotler, Philip and Gary Armstrong (1997), Marketing: an Introduction, 4th Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Nichels, William G. and Marian Burk Wood (1997), Marketing: Relationships, Quality, and Value, New York:
Worth Publishers.
Pride, William M., and O.C. Ferrell (1997), Marketing: Concepts and Strategies, I 0th Edition, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Solomon, Michael R., and Elnora Stuart (1997), Marketing Real People, Real Choices, Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Teas, R Kenneth and Kay M. Palan (1997), "The realms of scientific meaning: Framework for constructing
theoretically meaningful nominal definitions of marketing concepts." Journal of Marketing. 61(2): 52-67.
Zikmund, William G. and Michael D'Amico (1996), Marketing, 5th Edition, Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishing
Company.
ENDNOTES
To clarify as regards the topic of the present paper, the following would be unambiguous at least as to product and
brand: "individuals/organizations with needs for some brand in a particular product class..." It would take me too
far afield to discuss other aspects of the definition. For example, I have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Fennell and
Saegert 1998) that the scope of the term, needs, is too broad to be useful in the context of the conditions that affect
value in a good/service, where wants is a term whose scope is more appropriate. For present purposes, I have regard
only to the product/brand dimension of a market and, for simplicity, ignore other dimensions, which are discussed
elsewhere (e.g., Fennell 1982). I selected the definitions discussed here from a set of twenty Principles of
Marketing textbooks used in papers that reviewed glossary definitions of the terms, market, and market
segmentation, respectively (Fennell and Saegert 1998, 2000). In column I of Table 1a,b, texts are identified by
number only, as I wish to focus on substantive matters rather than authors. Complete details are included in the
References.