Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
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
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.