Breaking Free From Product Marketing / 73

G. Lynn Shostack

Breaking Free from Product MarketingService marketing, to be effective and successful, requires amirror-opposite view of conventional ''product" practices.

N EW CONCEPTS are necessary if servicemarketing is to succeed. Service marketing is

an uncharted frontier. Despite the increasingdominance of services in the U.S. economy, basictexts still disagree on how services should betreated in a marketing context.^

The heart of this dispute is the issue ofapplicability. The classic marketing "mix," theseminal literature, and the language of marketingall derive from the manufacture of physical goods.Practicing marketers tend to think in terms ofproducts, particularly mass-market consumergoods. Some service companies even call theiroutput "products" and have "product" manage-ment functions modeled after those of expertssuch as Procter and Gamble.

Marketing seems to be overwhelmingly prod-uct-oriented. However, many service-based com-panies are confused about the applicability ofproduct marketing, and more than one attempt toadopt product marketing has failed.

Merely adopting product marketing's labelsdoes not resolve the question of whether productmarketing can be overlaid on service businesses.Can corporate banking services really be marketedaccording to the same basic blueprint that madeTide a success? Given marketing's historic tenets,there is simply no alternative.

Could marketing itself be "myopic" in hav-ing failed to create relevant paradigms for the ser-vice sector? Many marketing professionals whotransfer to the services arena find their work fun-damentally "different," but have a difficult time

About the AuthorG. LYNN SHOSTACK is Vice President, Citibank, N.A.,New York; she is Marketing Director for the InvestmentManagement Group.

articulating how and why their priorities and con-cepts have changed. Often, they also find to theirfrustration and bewilderment that "marketing" istreated as a peripheral function or is confusedwith one of its components, such as research oradvertising, and kept within a very narrow scopeof influence and authority. ̂

This situation is frequently rationalized asbeing due to the "ignorance" of senior managementin service businesses. "Education" is usually rec-ommended as the solution. However, an equallyfeasible, though less comforting, explanation is thatservice industries have been slow to integrate mar-keting into the mainstream of decision-making andcontrol because marketing offers no guidance, ter-minology, or practical rules that are clearly relevantto services.

Making Room for Intangibility

The American Marketing Association cites bothgoods and services as foci for marketing activities.Squeezing services into the Procrustean phrase,"intangible products,"^ is not only a distortion ofthe AMA's definition but also a complete contradic-tion in terms.

It is wrong to imply that services are just likeproducts "except" for intangibility. By such logic,apples are just like oranges, except for their "apple-ness." Intangibility is not a modifier; it is a state.Intangibles may come with tangible trappings, butno amount of money can buy physical ownership ofsuch intangibles as "experience" (movies), "time"(consultants), or "process" (dry cleaning). A serviceis rendered. A service is experienced. A servicecannot be stored on a shelf, touched, tasted or triedon for size. "Tangible" means "palpable," and"material." "Intangible" is an antonym, meaning"impalpable," and "not corporeal.'*" This distinc-

74 / Journal of Marketing, April 1977

tion has profound implications. Yet marketing of-fers no way to treat intangibility as the core elementit is, nor does marketing offer usable tools for man-aging, altering, or controlling this amorphous core.

Even the most thoughtful attempts to broadenthe definition of "that which is marketed" awayfrom product synonymity suffer from an underlyingassumption of tangibility. Not long ago, Philip Kot-ier argued that "values" should be considered theend result of "marketing. "^ However, the text wenton to imply that "values" were created by "ob-jects," and drifted irredeemably into the classicproduct axioms.

To truly expand marketing's conceptual boun-daries requires a framework which accommodatesintangibility instead of denying it. Such a frame-work must give equal descriptive weight to thecomponents of "service" as it does to the concept of"product."

The Complexity of Marketed Entities

What kind of framework would provide a new con-ceptual viewpoint? One unorthodox possibility canbe drawn from direct observation of the mar-ketplace and the nature of the market "satisfiers"available to it. Taking a fresh look, it seems thatthere are really very few, if any, "pure" products orservices in the marketplace.

Examine, for instance, the automobile. With-out question, one might say, it is a physical object,with a full range of tangible features and options.But another, equally important element is marketedin tandem with the steel and chrome—i.e., the ser-vice of transportation. Transportation is an indepen-dent marketing element; in other words, it is notcar-dependent, but can be marketed in its ownright. A car is only one alternative for satisfying themarket's transportation needs.

This presents a semantic dilemma. Howshould the automobile be defined? Is GeneralMotors marketing a service, a service that happensto include a ¿jy-product called a car? Levitt's classic"Marketing Myopia" exhorts businessmen to thinkin exactly this generic way about what they mar-ket.^ Are automobiles "tangible services"? It cannotbe denied that both elements—tangible and intan-gible—exist and are vigorously marketed. Yet theyare, by definition, different qualities, and to at-tempt to compress them into a single word orphrase begs the issue.

Conversely, how shall a service such as airlinetransportation be described? Although the serviceitself is intangible, there are certain very real thingsthat belong in any description of the total entity,including such important tangibles as interior de-

cor, food & drink, seat design, and overall graphiccontinuity from tickets to attendants' uniforms.These items can dramatically affect the "reality" ofthe service in the consumer's mind. However, thereis no accurate way to lump them into a one-worddescription.

If "either-or" terms (product vs. service) donot adequately describe the true nature of marketedentities, it makes sense to explore the usefulness ofa new structural definition. This broader conceptpostulates that market entities are, in reality, combi-nations of discrete elements which are linked togetherin molecule-like wholes. Elements can be eithertangible or intangible. The entity may have either atangible or intangible nucleus. But the whole canonly be described as having a certain dominance.

Molecular ModelA "molecular" model offers opportunities for visu-alization and management of a total market entity.It reflects the fact that a market entity can be partlytangible and partly intangible, without diminishingthe importance of either characteristic. Not only canthe potential be seen for picturing and dealing withmultiple elements, rather than a thing, but the con-cept of dominance can lead to enriched consid-erations of the priorities and approach that may berequired of a marketer. Moreover, the model sug-gests the scientific analogy that if market entitieshave multiple elements, a deliberate or inadvertentchange in a single element may completely alter theentity, as the simple switching of FE^Os to FE2O3creates a new substance. For this reason, a marketermust carefully manage all the elements, especiallythose for service-based entities, which may nothave been considered previously within his do-main.

Diagramming Market EntitiesA simplified comparison demonstrates the concep-tual usefulness of a molecular modeling system. InExhibit 1, automobiles and airline travel are brokendown into their major elements. As shown, thesetwo entities have different nuclei. They also differin dominance.

Clearly, airline travel is intangible-dominant;that is, it does not yield physical ownership of atangible good. Nearly all of the other importantelements in the entity are intangible as well. Indi-vidual elements and their combinations representunique satisfiers to different market segments.Thus:

• For some markets—students, for example—pure transport takes precedence over all other

Breaking Free From Product Marketing / 75

considerations. The charter flight businesswas based on this element. As might be ex-pected during lean economic times, "no frills"flights show renewed emphasis on this nu-clear core.

• For business travelers, on the other hand,schedule frequency may be paramount.

• Tourists, a third segment, may respond moststrongly to the combination of in-flight andpost-flight services.

As the market entity of airline travel hasevolved, it has become more and more complex.Ongoing reweighting of elements can be observed,for example, in the marketing of airline food, whichwas once a battleground of quasi-gourmet offer-ings. Today, some airlines have stopped marketingfood altogether, while others are repositioning itprimarily to the luxury markets.

Airlines vs. AutomobilesIn comparing airlines to automobiles, one sees ob-vious similarities. The element of transportation iscommon to both, as it is to boats, trains, buses, andbicycles. Tangible decor also plays a role in bothentities. Yet in spite of their similarities, the twoentities are not the same, either in configuration orin marketing implications.

In some ways, airline travel and automobilesare mirror opposites. A c£ir is a physical possessionthat renders a service. Airline travel, on the otherhand, cannot be physically possessed. It can only beexperienced. While the inherent "promise" of a caris service, airline transportation often promises aLewis Carroll version of "product," i.e., destination,which is marketed as though it were physicallyobtainable. If only tropical islands and redwoodforests could be purchased for the price of an airlineticket!

The model can be completed by adding theremaining major marketing elements in a way thatdemonstrates their function vis-a-vis the organiccore entity. First, the total entity is ringed and de-fined by a set value or price. Next, the valued entityis circumscribed by its distribution. Finally, theentire entity is encompassed, according to its coreconfiguration, by its public "face," i.e., its posi-tioning to the market.

The molecular concept makes it possible todescribe and array market entities along a con-tinuum, according to the weight of the "mix" ofelements that comprise them. As Exhibit 2 indi-cates, teaching services might be at one end ofsuch a scale, intangible or ¡-dominant, while salt

might represent the other extreme, tangible orT-dominant. Such a scale accords intangible-basedentities a place and weight commensurate withtheir true importance. The framework also pro-vides a mechanism for comparison and marketpositioning.

In one of the handful of books devoted toservices, the author holds that "the more intangi-ble the service, the greater will be the differencein the marketing characteristics of the service."'Consistent with an entity scale, this axiom mightnow be amended to read: the greater the weightof intangible elements in a market entity, thegreater will be the divergence from product mar-keting in priorities and approach.

Implications of the Molecular ModelThe hypothesis proposed by molecular modelingcarries intriguing potential for rethinking and re-shaping classic marketing concepts and practices.Recognition that service-dominant entities differfrom product-dominant entities allows considera-tion of other distinctions which have been intui-tively understood, but seldom articulated by ser-vice marketers.

A most important area of difference is im-mediately apparent—i.e., that service "knowl-edge" and product "knowledge" cannot be gainedin the same way.

A product marketer's first task is to "know"his product. For tangible-dominant entities this isrelatively straight-forward. A tangible object canbe described precisely. It is subject to physicalexamination or photographic reproduction orquantitative measure. It can not only be exactlyreplicated, but also modified in precise and dupli-cate ways.

It is not particularly difficult for the marketerof Coca-Cola, for example, to summon all the factsregarding the product itself. He can and doesmake reasonable assumptions about the product'sbehavior, e.g., that it is consistent chemically tothe taste, visually to the eye, and physically in itspackaging. Any changes he might make in thesethree areas can be deliberately controlled for uni-formity since they will be tangibly evident. Inother words, the marketer can take the product's"reality" for granted and move on to consid-erations of price, distribution, and advertising orpromotion.

To gain service "knowledge," however, orknowledge of a service element, where does onebegin? It has been pointed out that intangible ele-ments are dynamic, subjective, and ephemeral.They cannot be touched, tried on for size, or dis-

76 / Journal of Marketing, April 1977

EXHIBIT 1Diagram of Market Entities

Airlines Automobiles

Marketing Positioning(weighted toward evidence)

KEY

Tangible Elements

) Intangible Elements

Market Positioning(v /̂eighted toward image)

played on a shelf. They are exceedingly difficult toquantify.

Reverting to airline travel, precisely what isthe service of air transportation to the potentialpurchaser? What "percent" of airline travel is com-fort? What "percent" is fear or adventure? What isthis service's "reality" to its market? And how doesthat reality vary from segment to segment? Sincethis service exists only during the time in which itis rendered, the entity's true "reality" must be de-fined experientially, not in engineering terms.

A New Approach to Service Definition

Experiential definition is a little-explored area ofmarketing practice. A product-based marketer is indanger of assuming he understands an intangible-dominant entity when, in fact, he may only beprojecting his own subjective version of "reality."And because there is no documented guidance onacquiring service-knowledge, the chances for errorare magnified.

Case Example

One short-lived mistake (with which the author isfamiliar) occurred recently in the trust departmentof a large commercial bank. The department head,being close to daily operations, understood "in-vestment management" as the combined work ofhundreds of people, backed by the firm's stature.

resources, and long history. With this "reality" inmind, he concluded that the service could be betterrepresented by professional salesmen, than throughthe traditional, but intemiptive use of the portfoliomanager as main client contact.

Three salesmen were hired, and given a train-ing course in investments. They failed dismally,both in maintaining current client relationships andin producing new business for the firm. Inhindsight, it became clear that the department headmisunderstood the service's "reality" as it wasbeing experienced by his clients. To the clients,"investment management" was found to mean "in-vestment manager"—i.e., a single human beingupon whom they depended for decisions and ad-vice. No matter how well prepared, the professionalsalesman was not seen as an acceptable substituteby the majority of the market.

Visions of RealityClearly, more than one version of "reality" may befound in a service market. Therefore, the crux ofservice-knowledge is the description of the majorconsensus realities that define the service entity tovarious market segments. The determination ofconsensus realities should be a high priority forservice marketers, and marketing should offer moreconcrete guidance and emphasis on this subjectthan it does.

Breaking Free From Product Marketing / 77

EXHIBIT 2Scale of Market Entities

SaltSoft Drinks

DetergentsAutomobiles

1 TCosmetics

TFast-foodOutlets

I IntangibleDominant

TangibleDominant

Fast-foodoutlets Li 1

lont^iaf A Í rli n^c ^ ^ ^

AdvertisingAgencies Airlines

investmentManagement

ConsultingTeaching

To define the market-held "realities" of a ser-vice requires a high tolerance for subjective, "soft"data, combined with a rigidly objective attitudetoward that data. To understand what a serviceentity is to a market, the marketer must undertakemore initial research than is common in productmarketing. More important, it will be research of adifferent kind than is the case in product market-ing. The marketer must rely heavily on the tools andskills of psychology, sociology and other behavioralsciences—tools that in product marketing usuallycome into play in determining image, rather thanfundamental "reality."

In developing the blueprint of a service enti-ty's main elements, the marketer might find, forinstance, that although tax return preparation isanalogous to "accurate mathematical computation"within his firm, it means "freedom from responsi-bility" to one segment of the consuming public,"opportunity for financial savings" to another seg-ment, and "convenience" to yet a third segment.

Unless these "realities" are documented andranked by market importance, no sensible plan canbe devised to represent a service effectively or de-liberately. And in nezv service development, theimportance of the service-research function is evenmore critical, because the successful developmentof a new service—a molecular collection of intang-ibles—is so difficult it makes new-product devel-opment look like child's play.

Image vs. Evidence—The Key

The definition of consensus realities should not beconfused with the determination of "image." Imageis a method of differentiating and representing anentity to its target market. Image is not "product;"nor is it "service." As was suggested in Exhibit 1,

there appears to be a critical difference between theway tangible- and intangible-dominant entities arebest represented to their markets. Examination ofactual cases suggests a common thread among effec-tive representations of services that is anothermirror-opposite contrast to product techniques.

In comparing examples, it is clear that con-sumer product marketing often approaches themarket by enhancing a physical object throughabstract associations. Coca-Cola, for example, issurrounded with visual, verbal and aural associa-tions with authenticity and youth. Although Dr.Pepper would also by physically categorized as abeverage, its image has been structured to suggest"originality" and "risk-taking;" while 7-up is"light" and "buoyant." A high priority is placed onlinking these abstract images to physical items.

But a service is already abstract. To compoundthe abstraction dilutes the "reality" that themarketer is trying to enhance. Effective service rep-resentations appear to be turned 180° away fromabstraction. The reason for this is that service im-ages, and even service "realities," appear to beshaped to a large extent by the things that the con-sumer can comprehend with his five senses—tangible things. But a service itself cannot be tangi-ble, so reliance must be placed on peripheral clues.

Tangible clues are what allow the detective ina mystery novel to surmise events at the scene of acrime without having been present. Similarly,when a consumer attempts to judge a service, par-ticularly before using or buying it, that service is"known" by the tangible clues, the tangible evi-dence, that surround it.

The management of tangible evidence is notarticulated in marketing as a primary priority forservice marketers. There has been little in-depthexploration of the range of authority that emphasis

78 / Journal of Marketing, April 1977

on tangible evidence would create for the servicemarketer. In product marketing, tangible evidenceis primarily the product itself. But for services, tan-gible evidence would encompass broader consid-erations in contrast to product marketing, differentconsiderations than are typically considered mar-keting's domain today.

Focusing on the EvidenceIn product marketing, many kinds of evidence arebeyond the marketer's control and are consequentlyomitted from priority consideration in the marketpositioning process. Product marketing tends togive first emphasis to creating abstract associations.

Service marketers, on the other hand, shouldbe focused on enhancing and differentiating"realities" through manipulation of tangible clues.The management of evidence comes first for servicemarketers, because service "reality" is arrived at bythe consumer mostly through a process of deduc-tion, based on the total impression that the evi-dence creates. Because of product marketing'sbiases, service marketers often fail to recognize theunique forms of evidence that they can normallycontrol and fail to see that they should be part ofmarketing's^-responsibilities.

Management of the EnvironmentEnvironment is a good example. Since product dis-tribution normally means shipping to outsideagents, the marketer has little voice in structuringthe environment in which the product is sold. Hismajor controllable impact on the environment isusually product packaging. Services, on the otherhand, are often fully integrated with environment;that is, the setting in which the service is "distrib-uted" is controllable. To the extent possible, man-agement of the physical environment should be oneof a service marketer's highest priorities.

Setting can play an enormous role in influenc-ing the "reality" of a service in the consumer'smind. Marketing does not emphasize this rule forservices, yet there are numerous obvious examplesof its importance.

Physicians' offices provide an interesting ex-ample of intuitive environmental management. Al-though the quality of medical service may be iden-tical, an office furnished in teak and leather createsa totally different "reality" in the consumer's mindfrom one with plastic slipcovers and inexpensiveprints. Carrying the example further, a marketercould expect to cause change in the service's imagesimply by painting a physician's office walls neonpink or silver, instead of white.

Similarly, although the services may be iden-tical, the consumer's differentiation between "BankA Service" and "Bank B Service" is materially af-fected by whether the environment is dominated bybutcher-block and bright colors or by marble andpolished brass.

By understanding the importance of evidencemanagement, the service marketer can make it hisbusiness to review and take control of this criticalpart of his "mix." Creation of environment can bedeliberate, rather than accidental or as a result ofleaving such decisions in the hands of the interiordecorators.

Integrating Evidence

Going beyond environment, evidence can be inte-grated across a wide range of items. Airlines, forexample, manage and coordinate tangible evidence,and do it better than almost any large service indus-try. Whether by intuition or design, airlines do notfocus attention on trying to explain or characterizethe service itself. One never sees an ad that at-tempts to convey "the slant of takeoff," "the feel ofacceleration," or "the aerodynamics of lift." Airlinetransport is given shape and form through consis-tency of a firm's identification, its uniforms, thedecor of its planes, its graphics, and its advertising.Differentiation among airlines, though they all pro-vide the same service, is a direct result of differ-ences in "packages" of evidence.

Some businesses in which tangible and intan-gible elements carry equal weight emphasizeabstractions and evidence in about equal propor-tions. McDonald's is an excellent example. The foodproduct is associated with "nutritious" (two all-beef, etc.), "fun" (Ronald McDonald) and "helpful"("We Do it All for You," "You Deserve a BreakToday"). The main service element, i.e., fast foodpreparation, is tangibly distinguished by urü-formity of environment, color, and style of graphicsand apparel, consistency of delivery (young em-ployees), and the ubiquitous golden arches.

Using the scale developed in Exhibit 2, thisconcept can be postulated as a principle for ser-vice representation. As shown in Exhibit 3, oncean entity has been analyzed and positioned onthe scale, the degree to which the marketer willfocus on either tangible evidence or intangibleabstractions for market positioning will be foundto be inversely related to the entity's dominance.

The more intangible elements there are, themore the marketer must endeavor to stand in theconsumer's shoes, thinking through and gainingcontrol of all the inputs to the consumer's mindthat can be classified as material evidence.

Breaking Free From Product Marketing / 79

EXHIBIT 3Principle of Market PositioningEmphasis

TangibleDominant

cosmetics |

\food m-

outlets y

airlines |

1IntangibleDominant

TangibleEvidence

j ^

IntangibieImage

Some forms of evidence can seem trivialuntil one recognizes how great their impact canbe on service perception. Correspondence is oneexample. Letters, statements, and the like aresometimes the main conveyers of the "reality" ofa service to its market; yet often these are treatedas peripheral to any marketing plan. From thegrade of paper to the choice of colors, correspon-dence is visible evidence that conveys a uniquemessage. A mimeographed, non-personalized,cheaply offset letter contradicts any words aboutservice quality that may appear in the text of thatletter. Conversely, engraved parchment from thelocal dry cleaner might make one wonder abouttheir prices.

Profile as EvidenceAs was pointed out in the investment manage-ment example, services are often inextricably en-twined with their human representatives. Inmany fields, a person is perceived to be the ser-vice. The consumer cannot distinguish betweenthem. Product marketing is myopic in dealingwith the issue of people as evidence in terms ofmarket positioning. Consumer marketing oftenstops at the production of materials and programsfor salesmen to use. Some service industries, onthe other hand, have long intuitively managedhuman evidence to larger ends.

Examples of this principle have been thebasis for jokes, plays, and literature. "The Man inthe Grey Flannel Suit," for example, was a

synonym for the advertising business for manyyears. Physicians are uniformly "packaged" insmocks. Lawyers and bankers are still todayknown for pin-stripes and vests. IBM representa-tives were famous for adhering to a "White Shirt"policy. Going beyond apparel, as mentioned ear-lier, McDonald's even achieves age uniformity—an extra element reinforcing its total market im-age.

These examples add up to a serious principlewhen thoughtfully reviewed. They are particularlyinstructive for service marketers. None of the aboveexamples were the result of deliberate market plan-ning. McDonald's, for instance, backed into ageconsistency as a result of trying to keep labor costslow. Airlines are the single outstanding example ofconsciously-planned standards for uniformity inhuman representation. The power of the humanevidence principle is obvious, and the potentialpower of more deliberately controlling or structur-ing this element is clear.

Lest this discussion be interpreted as an advo-cacy of regimentation, it should be pointed out thatmanagement of human evidence can be as basic asproviding nametags to service representatives or ascomplex as the "packaging" of a political candidate,whose very words are often chosen by committeeand whose hair style can become a critical policyissue. Or, depending upon what kind of service"reality" the marketer wishes to create, human rep-resentation can be encouraged to display non-conformity, as is the case with the "creative" de-partments of advertising agencies. The point is thatservice marketers should be charged with tacticsand strategy in this area, and must consider it amanagement responsibility.

Services and the MediaAs has been previously discussed, service elementsare abstract. Because they are abstract, the marketermust work hard at making them "real," by buildinga case from tangible evidence. In this context,media advertising presents a particularly difficultproblem.

The problem revolves around the fact thatmedia (television, radio, print) are one step re-moved from tangibility. Media, by its McLuhan-esque nature, abstracts the physical.

Even though product tangibility provides ananchor for media representation because a productcan be shown, media still abstract products. Aphotograph is only a two-dimensional version of aphysical object, and may be visually misleading.Fortunately, the consumer makes the mental con-nection between seeing a product in the media and

80 / Journal of Marketing, April 1977

recognizing it in reality. This is true even when aproduct is substantially distorted. Sometimes, onlypart of a product is shown. Occasionally, as in re-cent commercials for 7-up, the product is notshown. However, the consumer remembers pastexperience. He has little difficulty recognizing 7-upby name or remembered appearance when he seesit or wants to buy it.

Thus, media work with the creation of productimage and help in adding abstract qualities to tan-gible goods. Cosmetics, for example, are often posi-tioned in association with an airbrushed or soft-focus filmed ideal of beauty. Were the media trulyaccurate, the wrinkles and flaws of the flesh, towhich even models are heir, might not create suchan appealing product association.

Making Services More Concrete

Because of their abstracting capabilities, the mediaoften make service entities more hazy, instead ofmore concrete, and the service marketer must workagainst this inherent effect. Unfortunately, manymarketers are so familiar with product-orientedthinking that they go down precisely the wrongpath and attempt to represent services by dealingwith them in abstractions.

The pages of the business press are filled withexamples of this type of misconception in servicesadvertising. In advertisements for investment man-agement, for instance, the worst examples attemptto describe the already intangible service with moreabstractions such as "sound analysis," "carefulportfolio monitoring," "strong research capabil-ity," etc. Such compounded abstractions do nothelp the consumer form a "reality," do not differ-entiate the service and do not achieve any credibil-ity, much less any customer "draw."

The best examples are those which attempt toassociate the service with some form of tangible

evidence, working against the media's abstractingqualities. Merrill Lynch, for instance, has firmlyassociated itself with a clear visual symbol of bullsand concomitant bullishness. Where Merrill Lynchdoes not use the visual herd, it uses photographs oftangible physical booklets, and invites the con-sumer to write for them.

Therefore, the final principle offered for ser-vice marketers would hold that effective media rep-resentation of intangibles is a function of establish-ing non-abstract manifestations of them.

ConclusionThis article has presented several market-inspiredthoughts toward the development of new market-ing concepts, and the evolution of relevant servicemarketing principles. The hypotheses presentedhere do not by any means represent an exhaustiveanalysis of the subject. No exploration was done,for example, on product vs. service pricing or prod-uct vs. service distribution. Both areas offer richpotential for creative new approaches and analysis.

It can be argued that there are many grey areasin the molecular entity concept, and that diagram-ming and managing according to the multiple-elements schema could present considerabledifficulties by virtue of its greater complexity. Itmight also be argued that some distinctions be-tween tangible and intangible-dominant entitiesare so subtle as to be unimportant.

The fact remains that service marketers are inurgent need of concepts and priorities that are rele-vant to their actual experience and needs, and thatmarketing has failed in evolving to meet that de-mand. However unorthodox, continuing explora-tion of this area must be encouraged if marketing isto achieve stature and influence in the new post-Industrial Revolution services economy.

ENDNOTES1. See, for example, E. Jerome McCarthy, Basic Market-ing: A Managerial Approach, 4th ed. (Homewood, IL:Richard D. Irwin, 1971) pg. 303 compared to William J.Stanton, Fundamentals of Marketing, 3rd ed. (New York;McGraw-Hill, 1971), pg. 567.2. See William R. George and Hiram C. Barksdale, "Mar-keting Activities in the Service Industries," Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 38 No. 4 (October 1974), pp. 65-70.3. The Meaning and Sources of Marketing Theory—Marketing Science Institute Series (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1965), pg. 88.

4. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA:G.&C. Merriam Company, 1974).

5. Philip Kotier, "A Generic Concept of Marketing,"Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2 (April 1972), pp.46-54.

6. Theodore H. Levitt, "Marketing Myopia," HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 38 (July-August 1960), pp. 45-46.

7. Aubrey Wilson, The Marketing of Professional Services,(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972) pg. 8.