The service‐dominant perspective: a backward step?

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the “service dominant” perspective advocated by Vargo and Lusch and applauded by so many marketing academics in the USA is neither logically sound nor a perspective to displace others in marketing.

The paper is a conceptual analysis of the Vargo and Lusch paper that takes account of the implications of the service perspective being adopted as the perspective to replace all others.

The paper finds that the definition of services, seeking as it does to embrace all types of marketing, is too broad to have much operational meaning, while the focusing on activities rather than functions misdirects marketing altogether. Vargo and Lusch revive the claim that marketing should be viewed as a technology, the aim being to discover the techniques and rules (principles) applying to marketing. However, indifference to theoretical considerations encourages crudeness and the cultivation of ad hoc solutions. The Vargo and Lusch paper suggests that there is a one best way: a single unitary perspective for marketing. Instead there is a need for multiple perspectives in marketing, together with the methodological pluralism that it implies.

The paper does not claim to have teased out all the implications of the service‐dominant approach to marketing and other marketing academics might take into account other considerations such as the feasibility of the approach.

The paper suggests the abandonment of any approach that disdains theory and believes that the development of marketing technology is the way to go.

The paper offers original criticisms of the service‐dominant perspective and its value lies in holding marketing back from taking a backward step.