<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">467979820</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180323112516.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">170328e19900901xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1007/BF02723920</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/BF02723920</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="4">
   <subfield code="a">The commodity approach in marketing research: Is it really obsolete?</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[Walter Zinn, Scott Johnson]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">The purpose of this paper is to examine a paradox in the marketing literature. This paradox concerns the commodity approach to marketing research. On the one hand, the commodity approach is perceived as obsolete. Few marketing journals or textbooks refer to it as a marketing research method. On the other hand, commodity based papers are still prominent in the marketing literature. Industrial products and the marketing of services are still the focus of a substantial amount of research. In order to empirically investigate the actual status of the commodity approach in scholarly marketing research, this paper presents a content analysis of articles appearing in theJournal of Marketing (1936-1989) and theAMA Proceedings (1957-1989). The goal of the content analysis is to measure how the adoption rate of the commodity approach has evolved over the past 54 years. Is the commodity approach as obsolete as it is perceived to be? Results show that (1) the adoption rate of the commodity approach is cyclical, (2) different commodities are studied more frequently in each of these cycles, and (3) current papers are more theoretical and less descriptive than earlier papers adopting the commodity approach. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A00BV057 00010</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">by Academy of Marketing Science, 1990</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Zinn</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Walter</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">University of Miami, USA</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Johnson</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Scott</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Grand Valley State University, Allendale, USA</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">18/4(1990-09-01), 345-353</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0092-0703</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">18:4&lt;345</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1990</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">18</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">11747</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723920</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723920</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Zinn</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Walter</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">University of Miami, USA</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Johnson</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">Scott</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">Grand Valley State University, Allendale, USA</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">18/4(1990-09-01), 345-353</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0092-0703</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">18:4&lt;345</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1990</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">18</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">11747</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">Springer special CC-BY-NC licence</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-springer</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
