Purpose – This paper is a rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's defense of their service‐dominant logic paper against criticism. Design/methodology/approach – The paper responds to Lusch and Vargo's defense and criticism of the initial article primarily through examining the logic of their case. Findings – The paper finds that both the charges and the arguments against the criticism have no merit. Research limitations/implications – The paper offers guidance as to the approach needed to advance the study of service marketing. This rejects the notion that viewing all businesses as service entities is a progressive approach but recommends a disjunctive definition of service, which would throw up service‐categories that needed to be studied in their own right if progress is to be made. Originality/value – The paper suggests that Lusch and Vargo's S‐D‐dominant logic is unlikely to be practically fruitful while remaining theoretically limited.
European Journal of Marketing – Emerald Publishing
Published: Jul 26, 2011
Keywords: Service logic; Service definition; Disjunctive definition; Function versus benefit versus purpose; Perspective; Marketing history; Logic; United States of America; United Kingdom