Forgotten classics: Principles of Merchandising by Melvin T. Copeland (1924)

IF 0.5 Q4 BUSINESS
Eric H. Shaw, Walter Liu
{"title":"Forgotten classics: Principles of Merchandising by Melvin T. Copeland (1924)","authors":"Eric H. Shaw, Walter Liu","doi":"10.1108/jhrm-06-2023-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>The purpose of this paper is to show that forgotten classics, such as Melvin T. Copeland’s (1924) <em>Principles of Merchandising</em>, can still teach lessons to students of the history of marketing thought.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The method involved using various key words on several internet search engines. The extensive internet search produced more than a dozen contemporaneous reviews and commentaries. Additionally, there was an intensive search through the histories of marketing thought literature. The extensive and intensive searches allowed a meta-analysis reexamining Copeland’s <em>principles</em> in light of future historical developments from the mid-1920s to the 21st century.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Historically, Copeland’s <em>principles</em> established the commodity school of marketing thought. (One of the three traditional approaches to understanding marketing taught to generations of students from the mid-1920s until the mid-1960s.) Although the traditional approaches/schools have long gone out of favor, Copeland’s classification of consumer and industrial (business) goods (products and services) have stood the test of time and are still in use 100 years later. Long overlooked, Copeland’s (1924) <em>Principles of Merchandising</em> also anticipated the marketing management/strategy as well as the consumer/buyer behavior schools of marketing thought, dominant in the discipline since the 1960s, for which he has seldom – if ever – been acknowledged.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>Historical research is limited because some relevant source material may no longer exist or may have been overlooked.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>There have been no reviews of Copeland’s principles in almost a century, and no published meta-analysis of this forgotten classic exists. New discoveries reveal the value in studying marketing history and the history of marketing thought. For marketing as a social science to progress, it is invaluable to understand how ideas originated, were improved and integrated into larger conceptualizations, classification schema and theories over time.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":44447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Historical Research in Marketing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Historical Research in Marketing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jhrm-06-2023-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show that forgotten classics, such as Melvin T. Copeland’s (1924) Principles of Merchandising, can still teach lessons to students of the history of marketing thought.

Design/methodology/approach

The method involved using various key words on several internet search engines. The extensive internet search produced more than a dozen contemporaneous reviews and commentaries. Additionally, there was an intensive search through the histories of marketing thought literature. The extensive and intensive searches allowed a meta-analysis reexamining Copeland’s principles in light of future historical developments from the mid-1920s to the 21st century.

Findings

Historically, Copeland’s principles established the commodity school of marketing thought. (One of the three traditional approaches to understanding marketing taught to generations of students from the mid-1920s until the mid-1960s.) Although the traditional approaches/schools have long gone out of favor, Copeland’s classification of consumer and industrial (business) goods (products and services) have stood the test of time and are still in use 100 years later. Long overlooked, Copeland’s (1924) Principles of Merchandising also anticipated the marketing management/strategy as well as the consumer/buyer behavior schools of marketing thought, dominant in the discipline since the 1960s, for which he has seldom – if ever – been acknowledged.

Research limitations/implications

Historical research is limited because some relevant source material may no longer exist or may have been overlooked.

Originality/value

There have been no reviews of Copeland’s principles in almost a century, and no published meta-analysis of this forgotten classic exists. New discoveries reveal the value in studying marketing history and the history of marketing thought. For marketing as a social science to progress, it is invaluable to understand how ideas originated, were improved and integrated into larger conceptualizations, classification schema and theories over time.

被遗忘的经典:梅尔文·t·科普兰的《商业原理》(1924)
本文的目的是表明,被遗忘的经典,如梅尔文·t·科普兰(1924)的《销售原理》,仍然可以给学习营销思想史的学生上一课。设计/方法/方法这个方法涉及到在几个互联网搜索引擎上使用不同的关键词。广泛的互联网搜索产生了十几篇同时代的评论和评论。此外,还对营销思想文献的历史进行了深入的研究。从20世纪20年代中期到21世纪的未来历史发展来看,广泛而深入的搜索使得元分析得以重新审视科普兰的原则。从历史上看,科普兰的原则建立了营销思想的商品学派。(从20世纪20年代中期到60年代中期,一代又一代的学生被教导理解市场营销的三种传统方法之一。)尽管传统的方法/学派早已失宠,但科普兰对消费品和工业(商业)商品(产品和服务)的分类经受住了时间的考验,100年后仍在使用。长期被忽视的是,科普兰(1924)的《销售原则》也预测了营销管理/策略以及消费者/买家行为学派的营销思想,这些学派自20世纪60年代以来在该学科中占主导地位,但他很少——如果曾经——被承认。研究局限/启示历史研究是有限的,因为一些相关的原始材料可能不再存在或可能被忽视。近一个世纪以来,没有人对科普兰的原则进行过评论,也没有发表过关于这一被遗忘经典的元分析。新的发现揭示了研究营销史和营销思想史的价值。对于市场营销作为一门社会科学的进步来说,随着时间的推移,了解想法是如何产生的,如何被改进并整合到更大的概念化,分类图式和理论中是非常宝贵的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
33.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Launched in 2009, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing is the only quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing high quality, original, academic research that focuses entirely on marketing history and the history of marketing thought. Pedagogical and historiographical / methodological essays are also welcome as long as they are grounded in a marketing and historical context. The essence of an historical perspective is a thorough, systematic, critical awareness of the changes (or continuity) in events over time and of the context in which change or continuity occurs. In addition to regular full length research articles, the Journal occasionally features material under the following sections. Explorations & Insights includes invited commentaries about marketing history and the history of marketing thought. These tend to be shorter (three to six thousand words) than the full articles that run in each issue. Sources of Historical Research in Marketing includes short essays introducing unexplored and novel archives and other primary historical resources, their contents and relevance to marketing history. Archivists or library professionals who believe their collections might be of interest to marketing historians are invited to submit essays to contribute to this section. JHRM also invites historical review essays that focus on historically important marketing books under the section Forgotten Classics. Examples of these historical reviews can be found in past issues of the Journal and those suggest an approach for potential submissions. Authors are advised to check with the editor about the suitability of a book title before submitting a Forgotten Classics review for consideration.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信