Zebra crossings

Abstract

It is suggested that the debate on Empirical Generalisation versus Marketing Management can be considered in terms of correspondence theory versus coherence theory. A critical theory response to the paper in question is moderated by an epistemological discussion giving rise to the useful notion of bridging via localized conceptual pontoons. This is followed by a marketing practice orientated response which straddles Empirical Generalisation and Marketing Management and makes some useful observations. High Involvement Products and Services (HIPS) are put forward as examples of areas where Empirical Generalisation may be less useful than Marketing Management. Finally, it is acknowledged that while proponents of Empirical Generalisation has finally declared their hand, it might be time for adherents of Marketing Management to respond in kind so that a useful discussion develops which improves marketing as a discipline and practice.