This article focuses on business marketing to extend the arguments in Hunt (2010) that R-A theory provides the foundations for a general theory of marketing. The article extends the arguments by showing (1) how Alderson's theory of market processes, on which R-A theory draws, clearly accommodates both B2B and B2C marketing, (2) that ISBM's normative, Value Delivery Framework assumes that the process of competition within which business marketers compete is actually the process of competition described by the premises and structure of R-A theory, and (3) that not only does R-A theory and the IMP theoretical structure have numerous commonalities, but also, that R-A theory, by means of its concept of “relational resource,” provides a foundation for key aspects of the IMP theoretical structure, with its commitment to the importance of relationships. Therefore, the article concludes that R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing, both B2B and B2C.
The standard view in marketing is that theories are systematically related sets of statements, including some lawlike generalizations, that are empirically testable (Hunt, 1976). How, then, do general theories differ from the ordinary kind? What is it that makes a general theory general? Again, the standard view in marketing is that there are four ways that one theory may be more general than another. General theories (1) explain and predict more phenomena, (2) accommodate, integrate, or systematically relate a large number of concepts and lawlike generalizations, (3) totally incorporate less-general theories, and/or (4) have a high level of abstraction ( Hunt, 1983). Alderson, 1957 and Alderson, 1965 functionalist theory of market processes, developed in the 1950s and 1960s, has historically been considered to be the closest thing to a general theory of marketing. In the 1990s, Hunt and Morgan developed their resource-advantage (R-A) theory of competition, and Hunt (2010) now argues that R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing.
Hunt (2010) supplies three arguments that R-A theory provides the foundations for, that is, it is toward, a general theory of marketing. First, because marketing takes place within the context of competition, a general theory of marketing should be consistent with the most general theory of competition. Accordingly, because R-A theory is a general theory of competition, it is an appropriate foundation for working toward a general theory of marketing. Second, R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing because it provides a foundation for the normative area of marketing strategy (e.g., market segmentation, relationship marketing, and brand equity). Third, the closest thing to a general theory of marketing today is Alderson, 1957 and Alderson, 1965 functionalist theory of market behavior. Therefore, R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing because it accommodates and extends key concepts and generalizations from Alderson's theory and integrates them into a broader theoretical framework.
The purpose of this article is, first, to show how R-A theory does, indeed, extend Alderson's theory and integrates it into the broader, R-A framework. Second, I explore whether R-A theory should be considered a general theory of business marketing. That is, I explore the issue of whether R-A theory is, either explicitly or implicitly, a general theory of business-to-consumer (B2C) marketing only, or a general theory of business marketing (B2B), or both B2C and B2B marketing. In my analysis of business marketing, I focus on whether R-A theory can provide a theoretical foundation for two prominent approaches to business marketing: ISBM's Value Delivery Framework and IMP's theoretical structure. I begin by reviewing Alderson's theory of market processes. Next, I review R-A theory and show how it accommodates and extends Alderson's theory. Then, I investigate whether R-A theory is a general theory of business marketing.
Hunt (2010) provides three arguments that R-A theory, provides the foundations for, that is, it is toward, a general theory of marketing. First, because marketing takes place within the context of competition, a general theory of marketing should be consistent with the most general theory of competition, and R-A theory is the most general theory of competition. Second, R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing because it provides a foundation for the normative area of marketing strategy. Third, R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing because it accommodates and extends key concepts and generalizations from Alderson's theory and integrates them into a broader theoretical framework.
This article, by focusing on business marketing, extends the arguments in Hunt (2010) that R-A theory provides the foundations for a general theory of marketing. Specifically, this article extends the arguments by showing (1) how Alderson's theory of market processes, on which R-A theory draws, clearly accommodates both B2B and B2C marketing, (2) how ISBM's normative, Value Delivery Framework assumes that the process of competition within which business marketers compete is actually the process of competition described by the premises and structure of R-A theory, and (3) that not only does R-A theory and the IMP theoretical structure have numerous commonalities, but also, R-A theory, by means of its concept of “relational resource,” provides a foundation for the IMP theoretical structure, with its commitment to the importance of relationships. Therefore, R-A theory is toward a general theory of marketing—both B2B and B2C.
