PETER N.

GOLDER*

Several researchers have advocated historical or longitudinal ap-

proaches to study marketing phenomena. Although some have applied
this approach, more often it has been overlooked or denigrated. The au-
thor argues that historical method is capable of producing scientific
knowledge that is currently useful, rather than simply a remembrance of
the past. The author presents a complete description of the historical
method, so researchers can use this article as a guide when applying this
method. The value of the method is illustrated by examining the prevailing
finding in the marketing literature that market shares are stable over time.
Although this finding is considered an empirical generalization, an analy-
sis of more than 650 brands in 100 categories raises doubts about the
longevity of market share stability.

Historical Method in Marketing Research with

New Evidence on Long-Term Market
Share Stability

Poetry is more scientific than history.
—Aristotle
History is bunk.
—Henry Ford
Several researchers have advocated using historical or
longitudinal approaches to study marketing phenomena
(Aaker and Day 1986; Lieberman and Montgomery 1988;
Prahalad 1995; Zaltman 1997). Recently, some studies have
used archival data (e.g., Bayus, Jain, and Rao 1997; Golder
and Tellis 1993; Low and Fullerton 1994; Tellis and Golder
1996). However, no article in the marketing literature fully
describes the historical method as it has been developed by
historians or characterizes it as a means of generating scien-
tific knowledge. The purpose of this article is to present a
comprehensive description of the historical method and
demonstrate its usefulness for generating knowledge about
marketing phenomena.
In marketing, most proponents of historical method come
from an interpretivist or relativist perspective (Hudson and
Ozanne 1988; Sherry 1991; Smith and Lux 1993). Others
*Peter N. Golder is Associate Professor of Marketing, Stern School of
Business, New York University (e-mail: pgolder@stern.nyu.edu). The con-
tributions of Dave Stewart and Gerry Tellis were most valuable in the early
stages of this project. The comments of Bob Shoemaker, Sudhir
Karunakaran, and the three anonymous JMR reviewers were helpful in im-
proving the article. The author gratefully acknowledges the data collection
efforts of Kathy Eng, Liesel Johnson, Amy Leo, and Edward Zelmanowitz.
To interact with colleagues on specific articles in this issue, see “Feedback”
on the JMR Web site at www.ama.org/pubs/jmr.
have argued for its use to provide a better understanding of
marketing’s past (Fullerton 1987; Pollay 1985; Savitt 1980).
Still others, representing a more traditional research per-
spective, have recognized that historical analysis could be
useful for studying strategic issues (e.g., Aaker and Day
1986; Day and Wensley 1983; Prahalad 1995).
However, other researchers have characterized historical
method as unscientific (Bonoma 1985; Calder and Tybout
1987; Nevett 1991). Bonoma (1985) argues that stories have
similar data integrity and more generalizability than archival
research. Calder and Tybout (1987) believe that historians
generate interpretive knowledge and therefore consider it
unscientific. Even Nevett (1991), who calls for the use of
historical analysis, proposes that it is useful for marketing
practitioners rather than researchers and specifically con-
trasts it with scientific analysis. The common belief that his-
torical research is unscientific may explain the limited num-
ber of articles that apply this method in marketing.1
However, this belief is surprising, given that many histori-
ans view their discipline quite differently. Even economists
value the historical method, as is evidenced by the awarding
of the 1993 Nobel Prize in economics to Robert Fogel and
Douglass North for their historical analyses of economic
and institutional change.
This article differs from previous articles on historical
analysis in marketing and consumer behavior. Savitt (1980)
1Several historians have presented their research on marketing topics in
journals such as Business History Review and Journal of Economic History
and books. Examples include Cusumano, Mylonadis, and Rosenbloom
(1992), Olmstead and Rhode (1995), and Tedlow (1996).

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XXXVII (May 2000), 156–172 156
Historical Method
addresses the importance of studying marketing’s past rather
than providing a description of traditional historical method.
His article references two works on the historical method,
whereas this article presents a synthesis of nearly 30 refer-
ences. Savitt’s (1980, p. 54) position is “that historical re-
search in marketing must conform in every way possible to
experimental control as applied in the experimental
method,” including preparing hypotheses before collecting
data. This view is not common among historians, because
they do not control the conditions under which their data are
created. Also, historians seek to minimize potential biases
while collecting and analyzing data rather than focus on spe-
cific hypotheses. Finally, Savitt recommends conducting
historical research for looking at the past rather than using
an understanding of the past to make better decisions today.
More recently, Nevett (1991, p. 20) proposes using his-
torical analysis “as a supplement to the techniques normally
employed in marketing practice.” However, Nevett believes
that the historical method is “impressionistic and intuitive”
(p. 22) and specifically differentiates it from scientific
analysis. Also, his article does not present a detailed de-
scription of the historical method.
Finally, Smith and Lux (1993) argue that historical re-
search is useful for explaining changes in consumer behav-
ior over time. They develop a “process of doing historical
research not previously explicated, either by historians or by
consumer researchers” (p. 599). Although their approach is
useful, it does not include all the steps in the traditional his-
torical method. Moreover, they consider their approach “a
qualitative interpretive method” (p. 595), which differs from
the way many historians view their own method.
Although these three articles are useful, their orientation
differs from that of the present one. This article has three
primary objectives that contribute to the marketing literature
in unique ways:
•to describe how historians view their own research method and
its objectives,
•to present a succinct description of the historical method that
can be used as a reference for marketing researchers applying
this method, and
•to demonstrate the usefulness of this method by reexamining
the empirical generalization that market shares are stable over
prolonged periods.
The historical method may appear to be limited in the
type of questions it can address. However, several market-
ing researchers have used archival or longitudinal data.
During the 1990s, 19 articles with these data were published
in major marketing journals (see Table 1).2 However, only a
few of these articles specifically applied the historical
method. Although many people believe that the historical
method is useful only for gaining an understanding of pre-
vious events, only one article adopted this perspective. The
more useful applications of historical method are cases in
which an understanding of previous events provides insights
into the current marketing environment. Furthermore, this
method’s principles are useful for evaluating and validating
all secondary data. Finally, the historical method provides
an approach to uncover and verify data from the distant past
2These articles are from Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Research, and Marketing Science. Journal of Consumer Research was not
included, because some consider its scope broader than marketing.
157
as well as the recent past that is not readily available from
conventional data sources.
Historical method has been defined by one researcher as
a process of critically examining and analyzing the records
and survivals of the past (Gottschalk 1969). The definition I
use is the process of collecting, verifying, interpreting, and
presenting evidence from the past. I fully elaborate the ele-
ments of this definition in a subsequent section in which the
historical method is presented.
OBJECTIVES OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Like scientists and unlike fictive artists, historians ac-
cept a primary obligation to check their assertions
against evidence or data about a world that is or once
was, “out there,” evidence that is open to public
scrutiny and criticism by reexamination of the respec-
tive records. (Hexter 1971, p. 13)
[The first law of the historian] is never to dare utter an
untruth and the second, never to suppress anything true.
(Handlin 1979, p. 414)
Historians seek to develop accurate descriptions of social
phenomena on the basis of a careful consideration of all rel-
evant and available data. They strive to understand events in
their full context (Elton 1967). Although few historians ex-
pect to find laws, they do seek generalizations while recog-
nizing that interesting and useful generalizations admit ex-
ceptions (Elton 1967; McCullagh 1984). Generalizations in
history are guided by the following principles: They are
founded on all facts and contradict none, they are plausible
and do not contradict the accepted laws of nature, they are
capable of disproof and verification, and they are as simple
as possible (Shafer 1974).
The nature of proof in history is often compared to the le-
gal model in which events are established beyond a reason-
able doubt (Fogel and Elton 1983; Salvemini 1939; Shafer
1974). Similar to the five percent statistical significance
rule, knowledge is accepted when it is highly likely rather
than certainly true.
Historians try to understand the causes of events and to
assess their relative importance (Gottschalk 1969;
Salvemini 1939). They look beyond immediate causes to de-
termine underlying ones as well, because immediate causes
may be just precipitating events (Gottschalk 1969; Shafer
1974). If an underlying cause makes an event highly proba-
ble, immediate causes are less important (McCullagh 1984).
Historians seek to generate knowledge that is falsifiable,
thus satisfying one important criterion of scientific knowl-
edge (Calder and Tybout 1987; Fogel and Elton 1983). This
falsification process is common among historians. As
Marwick (1970, p. 212) notes, “Should [a researcher’s]
work not be based on a thorough scholarship, should it not
be offered in good faith, the ever-ready police battalions of
the historical guild will soon club his pretensions into jelly.”
The research objectives of most historians are similar to
those of many marketing researchers. In addition, historians
have developed their own rigorous method of collecting and
evaluating data. Most historians believe that applying this
method generates scientific knowledge (Cochrane 1929;
Gottschalk 1969; Iggers 1979; Marwick 1970; Salvemini
1939). Although the historical method has proved useful in
a few marketing studies, it could be used in many more,
specifically those with longitudinal or archival data.
158 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000

Table 1
MARKETING RESEARCH USING ARCHIVAL DATA

Research Area Insight from Application Reference

Market entry Market pioneers have higher failure rates and lower market shares than has been found in previous Golder and Tellis (1993)
research.
Initial competitive positioning and media coverage drive long-term performance. Green, Barclay, and Ryans
(1995)
Speeding a new product to market to capture a first-mover advantage is misguided if product Bayus, Jain, and Rao (1997)
performance is poor or the size of the potential market is overestimated.
New products Fear of cannibalization inhibits incumbent innovation. Ghemawat (1991)
Impact of next-generation products drives declining prices for consumer durables. Bayus (1992)
Marketing has a limited role in new product development in an engineering-driven culture. Workman (1993)
Line extensions of strong parent brands and symbolic parent brands are more successful. Reddy, Holak, and Bhat
(1994)
New product success in the United States and China is based on appropriate resources and expertise. Calantone, Schmidt, and
Song (1996)
Sales of really new consumer durables have a dramatic increase or takeoff in sales many years after Golder and Tellis (1997)
introduction.
History of Early philosophical foundation of marketing based on German historical school of economics. Jones and Monieson (1990)
marketing
New concept of marketing focusing on relationships is developed on the basis of historical Webster (1992)
development of marketing.
Future of brand management is evaluated on the basis of its historical development. Low and Fullerton (1994)
Other Identification of factors characterizing buyer behavior process in high-technology markets. Weiss and Heide (1993)
Multidecade analysis of the grocery channel concludes that retailers have not gained profitability at Messinger and Narasimhan
the expense of manufacturers. (1995)
Celebrity endorsers have a positive impact on stock returns. Agrawal and Kamakura
(1995)
Longitudinal analysis of optometry market supports the conclusion that some consumers are satisfied Parker (1995)
with low quality at high prices.
Firms with competitor-oriented objectives are less profitable and less likely to survive than those that Armstrong and Collopy
are profit oriented. (1996)
Framework for how to incorporate marketing strategy with environmental consciousness. Menon and Menon (1997)
Determination of the forces that foster long-term business-to-business relationships. Keep, Hollander, and
Dickinson (1998)

HISTORICAL METHOD torians needed a precise approach to analyzing data

History is, to be sure, scientific in method. (Gottschalk
1969, p. 8)
What characterizes the scientific approach is a highly
critical attitude toward our theories. (Popper 1968, p. 94)
There is striking unanimity among historians regarding
what constitutes historical method (Gottschalk 1969). The
overriding characteristic of historical method is that all evi-
dence is approached critically or skeptically. Any witness,
whether living or dead, may have made mistakes or intended
to mislead (Salvemini 1939). Therefore, application of the
historical method acts as a defense against fanciful tale,
willful distortion, and even honest error (Breisach 1983).
The modern approach to historical method was first ex-
pounded in the late 1800s by Ernst Bernheim (Gottschalk
1969; Johnson 1934) and Langlois and Seignobos (1898).
Langlois and Seignobos felt the need to develop an au-
tonomous method, because they believed that instinctive
methods would become irrational methods. Therefore, his-
(Marwick 1970).
Historical method is broken down into five stages: (1) se-
lect a topic and collect evidence, (2) critically evaluate the
sources of the evidence, (3) critically evaluate the evidence,
(4) analyze and interpret the evidence, and (5) present the
evidence and conclusions. Table 2 lists the elements of each
stage, and the next sections describe these elements.
Afterward, the method is applied to a specific marketing ex-
ample: an analysis of long-term market share stability.
Stage 1: Select a Topic and Collect Evidence
Historians can study a wide range of topics from the dis-
tant as well as the more recent past, as long as sufficient
records of these events are available (Brooks 1969; Fogel
and Elton 1983). Fortunately, most marketing research top-
ics focus on twentieth-century events for which data are
plentiful. In addition, recent records are more likely to in-
clude the quantitative measures desired by some researchers.
After selecting a topic, historians prepare questions of in-
terest rather than develop hypotheses from established the-
Historical Method 159

Table 2
STAGES OF THE HISTORICAL METHOD

Stage Elements of Stage

1. Select a topic and collect evidence Select research topic.
Determine if sufficient material is available on research topic.
Collect data: published materials, field interviews, archival materials, cultural artifacts.
Prepare questions of interest.

2. Critically evaluate the sources of the evidence
Textual criticism: Verify that documents are original or best copy available.
Are witnesses reliably recorded?
Investigation of authorship: Who wrote the document, and where, when, and under what circum-
stances was it written?
Is the author able to report correct information?
Classify authenticity of sources based on temporal and geographic proximity to event being
recorded, purpose of written record, and expertness of author.

3. Critically evaluate the evidence
Interpretive criticism: Evaluate and determine the author’s meaning.
Negative internal criticism: Evaluate veracity of author’s statements for mistaken or purposely
false information.
Is the author willing to report correct information, or are there personal interests or biases?
Evaluate independence of observations. Is there corroboration from an equally credible witness?

4. Analyze and interpret the evidence
Organize events chronologically within relevant subjects.
Draw easily deduced inferences from the data.
Consider objectivity of people who created historical record and the completeness of their reports.
Look for generalizations, explanations, and implications in the evidence.
Suitable data may be analyzed quantitatively and econometrically.
Assess the relative importance of causal factors.

5. Present the evidence and conclusions Select evidence to present.

Forms of presentation include chronologies, descriptive statistics, model parameters, and narrative
discussion.
Narrative discussion of evidence and conclusions includes key events and the thesis or explana-
tion of those events.

ory (Goodman and Kruger 1988). They approach sources in
an attempt to find their answers (Shafer 1974; Todd 1972).
The general approach is that the “material must precede the
thesis” (Tuchman 1981, p. 9). After some evidence has been
evaluated, working hypotheses can be developed (Johnson
1934; Shafer 1974). However, these hypotheses should be in
the interrogative rather than the declarative form to help the
researcher maintain a noncommittal position (Fogel and
Elton 1983; Gottschalk 1969).
Potential data sources are published materials, field inter-
views, archival materials, and cultural artifacts (e.g., adver-
tisements, billboards, structures). Initial research for most
questions begins in the library, where books are available on
almost all topics. Electronic databases (e.g., Dow Jones and
ABI/Inform) are extremely useful for more recent articles.
Older articles can be found through Business Periodicals
Index, Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature, New York
Times Index, and Wall Street Journal Index. A much more ex-
tensive and Internet-accessible collection of articles is cur-
rently being prepared by Bell & Howell’s UMI division. Its
Digital Vault Initiative will soon offer access to 5.5 billion
pages of its collection, which ranges from fifteenth-century
literature to recent business periodicals, as well as more than
1.4 million dissertations. The availability of this collection
will dramatically reduce the time required to conduct histor-
ical research and expand the possibilities for obtaining new
insights. If published materials are not sufficient, researchers
most likely will try to obtain data from company archives or
through personal interviews. Additional sources of written
evidence include records from government libraries, court-
houses, churches, and private papers.
With so much data available, a common mistake of re-
searchers is to spend too much time collecting unnecessary
data. Researchers must be vigilant in focusing on relevant
rather than merely interesting data; otherwise, they can be
overwhelmed (Eisenhardt 1989). The researcher’s questions
of interest and working hypotheses must be used to focus data
collection efforts. Researchers should constantly ask whether
data being collected support or refute their propositions.
When researchers collect evidence, notes are often consid-
ered sufficient (Gottschalk 1969). Transcribing exact quota-
tions is recommended in cases in which that information may
contradict the accepted story. I have found that making copies
of all relevant articles is most efficient. Important information
can be highlighted rather than transcribed, and the entire text
is readily available for quotation and further analysis.
Although historical research may end up confirming es-
tablished theory, its more useful application may be gener-
ating new theory from new data. It has this potential because
this method can be used to study phenomena that are not
suited to other methods. The process of discovering gener-
alizations about previously unknown phenomena may be the
more common mode of scientific progress. Simon (1968, p.
458) states that “histories of science written in terms of the
processes that discover patterns in nature would seem closer
to the mark than histories that emphasize the search for data
to test hypotheses created out of whole cloth.”
Stage 2: Critically Evaluate the Sources of the Evidence
The primary purpose of this stage is to evaluate the au-
thenticity of documents and to exclude all inauthentic evi-
dence (Gottschalk 1969). Many historians refer to this stage
160
as “external criticism.” During this stage, researchers seek
to determine who wrote each document and where, when,
and under what circumstances it was written (Shafer 1974).
If complete documents are not available, incomplete texts
are established in their most accurate form. Langlois and
Seignobos (1898, p. 113) considered external criticism of
utmost importance: “Sure methods of external criticism
have raised history to the dignity of a science.” Historians
sometimes criticize social scientists for not sufficiently ap-
plying the criteria of external criticism and accepting data
too easily (Marwick 1970).
Langlois and Seignobos (1898) list three steps in external
criticism. The first step is textual criticism, which calls for
the examination of documents to see if they are original or
the best copy available. It is preferable to obtain multiple
copies, but if only a single copy exists, it is assumed to con-
tain errors. The next step is investigation of authorship,
which calls for the determination of who wrote the docu-
ment, where it came from, and when it was written. Finally,
there is a classification of sources, in which verified docu-
ments are arranged according to several principles.
Documents are considered more authentic if they are written
with the following characteristics (Gottschalk 1969):
•close to the event being researched (or rely on records written
close to the event),
•for the sole purpose of making a record (e.g., legal documents),
•for confidential communication,
•for communicating with a small number of people (personal
correspondence),
•for a personal record or memory aid (diary),
•for making a public record (newspapers and magazines), and
•by experts with broad knowledge of the events of interest.
Newspaper or magazine reports are often rated high in au-
thenticity because the time between events and their report-
ing is short. In addition, reporters generally have a vested in-
terest in reporting events accurately, and the public nature of
the reports leaves them open to correction. The reputations
of these sources must be considered too.
Documents, especially older ones, must be evaluated for
forgery. Chemical tests can be used to validate the date of
documents and artifacts. Anachronisms within a document,
as well as the means by which it was prepared, have re-
vealed many forgeries. Therefore, it is important to have
broad knowledge about the events, culture, and language of
the period of interest. Today, the risk of accepting forgeries
may be much less, because multiple copies are usually avail-
able. Some modern documents that must be scrutinized for
authenticity are press releases, propaganda, personal apolo-
gies, and private correspondence. As documents are stored
and retrieved electronically, the issue of potential forgery
becomes more important again.
Another useful classification is whether documents are
based on primary or secondary sources.3 Primary sources
are eyewitness accounts of an event. They also could be
based on audio or video recordings of an event. Secondary
sources are testimony from witnesses who were not present
at the event of interest. Although the testimony of secondary
sources is not as authentic, it can provide important corrob-
oration or add missing details that are consistent with the
testimony of primary sources.
3Some historians place this discussion under internal criticism.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000
After completing external criticism, researchers should
have established the testimony of their witnesses (as
recorded in documents most often) and have an understand-
ing of each witness’s capability to report that testimony. The
next stage analyzes the particulars of that testimony.
Stage 3: Critically Evaluate the Evidence
The primary purpose of this stage is to evaluate the par-
ticular contents of a document and extract credible testi-
mony from it (Gottschalk 1969). Many historians refer to
this stage as “internal criticism.” During this stage, re-
searchers usually start with a literal interpretation of the ev-
idence and then consider context to determine if the real
meaning is different from the literal meaning (Shafer 1974).
Documents are evaluated for two types of errors, deliberate
and unintentional (Shafer 1974).
Again, Langlois and Seignobos (1898) provide a useful
summary of internal criticism. One step is interpretive criti-
cism, which seeks to determine what the author meant.
Special attention is required if authors are from outside the
researcher’s culture, because determination of intended
meaning must be based on an understanding of the authors’
culture and the period in which they lived. Semantic misun-
derstandings can be minimized by using a dictionary from
the authors’ culture and time. Also, a witness’s testimony
must be considered in its full context rather than in isola-
tion. Otherwise, a humorous or ironic statement may be
misunderstood.
A second step is negative internal criticism, in which the
veracity of the authors’ or witnesses’ statements is evalu-
ated. What witnesses expressed may not be what they be-
lieved, because they might have lied; in addition, what they
believed might not have actually happened, because they
might be mistaken. Therefore, historians do not feel obli-
gated to accept all the testimony of even authentic witnesses.
An important consideration in determining veracity is the
witnesses’ objectives in presenting testimony. Personal in-
terests may distort a report for the witnesses’ benefit. An au-
thor with a literary style may recount hearsay without the
proper disclaimer. Egocentrism may increase the witnesses’
role. A desire to please may cause omission of important de-
tails or a less harsh presentation of events. Conditions that
promote veracity include the witnesses being indifferent to
the subject or event, the witnesses being harmed by their
own testimony, and the witnesses relating events that would
be common knowledge among their audience.
The final step is evaluating the independence of observa-
tions. Testimony from multiple, independent witnesses is
preferred. Because evaluating credibility is central to inter-
nal criticism and important to external criticism, Gottschalk
(1969) proposes four criteria for this critical task:
•Competence: Is the witness able to report correct information?
Important factors are nearness to the event and to the recording
of the event (geographical and temporal) and familiarity with
the subject (expertness).
•Objectivity: Is the witness willing to report correct information?
Important factors are assessing personal interests, biases, and
desire to please.
•Reliability: Is the witness accurately reported? Does the re-
porter have a reputation for integrity? Does the document lack
internal self-contradictions?
•Corroboration: Is there confirmatory evidence from equally
credible witnesses?
Historical Method
Evidence is considered credible if it passes all four crite-
ria.4 In particular, the final criterion is vital for developing
confidence in the data. Conformance with other facts and
witnesses is a critical test of evidence. Uncorroborated evi-
dence should be reported accordingly. When secondary evi-
dence is evaluated, credibility is determined for the primary
evidence on which it is based (Gottschalk 1969). Doubts
about particulars of an event usually arise from the lack of
testimony based on primary evidence.
The goal of internal criticism is to verify the events on
which the historical record will be based. In many cases,
these events are straightforward, well-documented, and
rarely disputed among historians. These cases typically do
not involve value judgments or contradictory evidence and
are logically acceptable. These conditions apply to pure de-
scriptions of many events. Fortunately, in marketing re-
search, these types of descriptions often provide the basis for
generating and testing our theories, models, and frameworks.
Stage 4: Analyze and Interpret the Evidence
Only evidence that has passed the stringent tests in Stages
2 and 3 is qualified for further analysis and interpretation
(Baron 1986). At this point, many historians organize their
data chronologically within each subject area (e.g., person,
institution, country). This arrangement has two advantages.
Contradictory evidence can be viewed in the appropriate
context, and potential explanations are more easily recog-
nized, because causes precede effects. Proper synthesis of
evidence usually requires multiple readings of documents.
Historians may use inferences at this stage to complete in-
formation that is not specifically provided (Shafer 1974).
However, these inferences are usually restricted to situations
in which they are much more precise than educated guesses.
An example of the type of inference used is when a historian
has information that Caesar was in Rome on a certain date
and in Gaul on a later date. Even though no specific evi-
dence of a trip between cities exists, the historian feels con-
fident in inferring that a trip did take place. Inferences be-
yond what the data specify should be clearly delineated.
After organizing their data, historians analyze and inter-
pret them. This process is straightforward with simple de-
scriptions of common events. Often, there is little dispute
among historians in these cases (Shafer 1974). However,
historians may disagree about the objectivity of people who
created the historical record and the completeness of their
reports.
The process of interpretation becomes complicated when
historians try to provide a higher level of meaning for a col-
lection of events. Because most historians seek to under-
stand the meaning of events and not just report facts, multi-
ple potential causes should be considered (Hughes 1964).
These explanations are often the source of disagreement
among historians (Gottschalk 1969). Yet these disagree-
ments tend to focus on the relative degree of importance
4In evaluating the credibility of evidence, historians recognize the limi-
tations of any testimony or evidence being completely objective (Breisach
1983; Malin 1946). Some historians make use of this fact by trying to glean
information about authors and institutions. They do this by evaluating
which evidence was selected for collection and presentation. Articles on
this approach can be found in History and Theory (Martin 1997; Quillen
1998).
161
rather than the existence of certain evidence or causes. Even
though historians sometimes hold competing theories and
explanations, this situation is shared with other sciences. In
terms of the data on which these theories depend, historians
have an advantage over some other scientists. The evidence
of historical events is generated independently of any effort
to study them. Finally, historians may develop generaliza-
tions and try to interpret events in a way that is relevant to
the present (Fogel and Elton 1983).
When suitable quantitative data exist, most historians
conduct descriptive analyses to summarize their evidence
and develop generalizations. Some historians develop and
test econometric models (Fogel and Elton 1983). Their in-
terpretations come from evaluating parameter estimates.
This approach may be most familiar to marketing re-
searchers who analyze historical data.
Even though the historical method seeks to minimize bi-
ases, the potential for biased analysis still exists. Previous
studies have found that researchers may leap to conclusions
based on limited data (Kahneman and Tversky 1973), be
overly influenced by vividness (Nisbett and Ross 1980), or
weight more elite respondents disproportionately (Miles and
Huberman 1984). Several safeguards may help limit these
occurrences. First, the many steps of the historical method
are designed to derive conclusions from the data rather than
from preconceived notions. Second, the public nature of the
data makes it easier to falsify misguided interpretations.
Third, some techniques for generating theory from case
studies may help ensure thorough analysis of all data
(Eisenhardt 1989). These techniques call for selecting cate-
gories or dimensions to look for within-group similarities
and between-group differences. Dimensions may be sug-
gested from the current research or existing literature. Two-
or three-dimensional matrices may prove useful for insight-
ful classification of events. The technique of classifying ex-
amples on the basis of selected dimensions may be particu-
larly useful for developing generalizations and new theory
from historical data.
Stage 5: Present the Evidence and Conclusions
When historians present their research, they must use
their judgment to make many decisions. A thesis developed
from analysis and interpretation of evidence often guides
these decisions. They must select evidence to present it,
arrange it, and decide how it should be emphasized or min-
imized. Although it is rarely possible to present all the evi-
dence that has been collected, historians include important
evidence in relating their results and conclusions.
The form of presentation depends on the data that were
collected to address the research objectives. Different types
of evidence may be presented as chronologies, descriptive
statistics, or model parameters. Most commonly, historians
present some or all of their evidence, analysis, and conclu-
sions in narrative form. This type of presentation enables
historians to communicate a rich understanding of events,
especially when the evidence collected is primarily qualita-
tive. It links events together in a way that is not possible
with simple chronologies.
The next section illustrates how the historical method can
be applied in marketing and whether this method can gener-
ate new insights.
162 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000

ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM MARKET Table 3

SHARE STABILITY MARKET SHARE RANK OF BRANDS: 1923 VERSUS 1983
(BASED ON ADVERTISING AGE 1983)
Stage 1: Select a Topic and Collect Evidence
The historical method is well suited to address strategic Brand 1923 Rank 1983 Rank
issues in marketing, in which relationships must be exam- Swift’s Premium bacon 1 1
ined over a long period. This section addresses a specific Kellogg’s Corn Flakes 1 3
strategic research question: How stable are the market shares Eastman Kodak cameras 1 1
of leading brands over prolonged periods? The next para- Del Monte canned fruit 1 1
Hershey’s chocolates 1 2
graphs provide a brief description of the current evidence. Crisco shortening 1 2
Early research by Bain (1956) finds evidence of strong Carnation canned milk 1 1
and stable product preference patterns due to product differ- Wrigley’s chewing gum 1 1
entiation advantages of established brands. Carpenter and Nabisco biscuits 1 1
Eveready flashlight batteries 1 1
Nakamoto (1989, p. 285) report that “leading brands outsell Gold Medal flour 1 1
their rivals for years and sometimes decades.” Kotler (1997, Life Savers mint candies 1 1
p. 352) reports that “19 out of 25 companies who were mar- Sherwin Williams paint 1 1
ket leaders in 1923 were still the market leaders in 1983, Hammermill paper 1 1
sixty years later.” On the basis of this evidence, maintaining Prince Albert pipe tobacco 1 1
Gillette razors 1 1
market leadership is surprisingly common, because more Singer sewing machines 1 1
than 75% of leaders maintained their leadership for at least Manhattan shirts 1 top 5
60 years. Coca-Cola soft drinks 1 1
More recently, the concept of stable or stationary market Campbell’s soup 1 1
Ivory soap 1 1
shares has been found to be an empirical generalization. Lipton tea 1 1
DeKimpe and Hanssens (1995) and Lal and Padmanabhan Goodyear tires 1 1
(1995) cite an impressive list of previous articles that sup- Palmolive toilet soap 1 2
port stable market shares (Bass 1974; Bass and Pilon 1980; Colgate toothpaste 1 2
Ehrenberg 1988, 1991). More important, on the basis of ex-
tensive empirical evidence, Lal and Padmanabhan (1995, p.
G104) conclude that “market shares of most brands are in about leading brands refers to a study from Advertising Age
equilibrium.” Similarly, on the basis of a database of more (1983; see Table 3). These findings appear to be the basis of
than 400 prior analyses, DeKimpe and Hanssens (1995, p. Kotler’s (1997) report.
G118) conclude that “even when looking at prolonged peri- Because the Advertising Age study serves as the basis for
ods of time, market shares tend to be in a long-run equilib- much of the conclusions about long-term leadership, it is
rium position.” critical that the principles of the historical method be ap-
At this point, the answer to the research question seems plied to this document. This analysis raises several con-
clear. Long-term leadership and stable market shares seem cerns. From the standpoint of the criteria of external criti-
to be well-documented empirical generalizations. Rather cism, there is no author listed for this article. The source of
than end the investigation here, I complete the remaining the article’s findings is the president of a small communica-
stages of the historical method. tions design and marketing research firm. His expertness
cannot be determined. Also, it is not clear why the study was
Stage 2: Critically Evaluate the Sources of the Evidence undertaken. Furthermore, the study is far removed from the
Multiple copies of original documents for all the refer- time of the 1923 data on which its results depend. On the ba-
ences mentioned previously are available. Therefore, it was sis of the criteria of internal criticism, the objectivity of this
easy to establish authorship and date of publication and ver- study is questionable. The study claims to show that long-
ify that these findings are the result of scholarly inquiry. term success is due to well-managed promotions and con-
Furthermore, these authors are recognized experts in the temporary graphic presentations. Although no evidence on
field, with a broad knowledge of marketing phenomena. The these factors is presented, it seems clear that increased use
only concern from this stage of analysis is that the authors of these factors would benefit the source’s firm. Another
are not reporting contemporaneous events. Rather, they are concern is that the Advertising Age results depend on a book
relying on data or reports written many years before their published in 1923.
own reporting. The original 1923 book reveals a startling finding about
the commonly referenced data that “19 out of 25” market
Stage 3: Critically Evaluate the Evidence leaders maintained their leadership for at least 60 years.
Here, I focus on the findings of Carpenter and Nakamoto Although this finding of long-term leadership has been
(1989) and Kotler (1997), because the original data underly- widely reported in marketing textbooks and journals and in
ing the results in DeKimpe and Hanssens’s (1995) and Lal mass-market publications, it is based on a biased sample of
and Padmanabhan’s (1995) work are not available to me. categories. The original 1923 study was not done on 25 cat-
The criteria of this stage seem reasonably well satisfied egories, but rather on 100 categories (Hotchkiss and
except for corroboration. Kotler (1997) attributes his report Franken 1923). The sample of 25 categories was selectively
about “19 out of 25 companies” to Carpenter and Nakamoto chosen to demonstrate long-term leadership. Therefore, the
(1989), even though this information does not appear in Advertising Age study is dramatically flawed, and the re-
their article. Carpenter and Nakamoto’s (1989) statement ports of long-term leadership are overstated. But what is the
Historical Method
proper estimate of long-term leadership? And what is the an-
swer to the original research question, How stable are the
market shares of leading brands over prolonged periods?
New Analysis of Research Question
Historians consider multiple sources of evidence to ad-
dress their research questions. To illustrate this approach,
I collect and analyze two types of evidence. In this sec-
tion, a comparison of leading brands in 1923 and 1997 re-
sults in the presentation of descriptive statistics on long-
term leadership. In the following section, analysis of
qualitative data results in the narrative history of the
causes of success and failure for brands in two product
categories.
Data collection and evaluation. By comparing the leading
brands in 1923 with the leading brands today in all 100 cat-
egories, the actual percentage of former leaders that have
maintained leadership can be determined. In addition, the
market share stability of leading brands over this period can
be considered. I now briefly describe the data from the 1923
study and the data collected in 1997.
The 1923 study was conducted by two faculty members
from New York University. They collected data in 1920 and
1921 from 512 men and 512 women at a representative sam-
ple of U.S. colleges. Most of the colleges were in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, and colleges from the
South, Midwest, and West were included too. Subjects were
given a list of 100 categories and asked to write the brand or
manufacturer they first thought of for each category. The
analysis of these data considers all brands that were men-
tioned by at least 50 people. The only exceptions are 4 cat-
egories in which the leading brand is included even though
it was mentioned by fewer than 50 people. This threshold
ensures that nearly all the brands considered were reason-
ably strong and more likely to be sold beyond a regional
market.
The data collected in 1997 are the leading brands in each
category based on market share. Many data sources were
used to compile this list, including Gale’s Market Share
Reporter, Simmon’s Study of Media and Markets, trade pub-
lications, and multiple sources referenced in Business
Periodicals Index, Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature,
and Lexis-Nexis. Reports of market share are primarily
based on 1996 sales. After investigating these 100 cate-
gories, 5 no longer seem relevant for today’s consumers.
Independent public reports of market share were available
for 85% of the remaining categories. In the other categories,
market shares are estimated on the basis of (1) company re-
ports and (2) visits to multiple stores in New York City and
Los Angeles. A potential limitation in comparing these data
is that the 1923 brands are not ranked on market share but
rather on mind share. However, market share and mind
share should be highly correlated, so the rank order of
brands on these two measures should be similar within cat-
egories. More important, the 1923 data have been the refer-
ence point for assessing market share stability in the mar-
keting literature for many years, so it seems appropriate to
prepare results on the basis of this sample.
When the criteria of external criticism and internal criti-
cism are applied to the 1997 data, minor concerns about au-
thenticity, credibility, and corroboration of the data sources
still exist. However, the answer to the research question de-
163
pends on the average rate of leadership across all categories
rather than the results from a single one. Therefore, even mi-
nor errors in the sources on which these data are based still
leave a high degree of confidence in the final results.
Table 4 presents a sample of the 100 categories and the
leading brands in 1923 and 1997.5 These 15 categories are
grouped according to a classification from the 1923 study.
The numbers in parentheses beside the 1923 leaders are the
numbers of respondents who mentioned those brands.
Results. This extensive database provides several ways to
address the research question about long-term market share
stability. We can assess first the frequency of maintaining
the leading market share position. Table 5 compares mar-
keting’s current knowledge (which is based on a biased sam-
ple) with the new findings that are based on the full sample
of categories.
The difference in the findings is striking. Leading brands
maintain their leadership at a rate less than one-third of that
currently believed. Table 6 presents a broader set of findings
based on these data. Because there may be differences be-
tween durables and nondurables (durables last for many
uses, whereas nondurables do not), Tables 7 and 8 present
findings for these two classes of goods.
Summary of major findings. Among the many findings
presented in Tables 6–8, the following seem most important:
•More of the leading brands in 1923 failed than remained
leaders.
•More of the top three brands in 1923 failed than remained
among the top five brands.
•Market shares over this prolonged period are not stable; regres-
sions of rank-order market share versus time show a significant
decrease in market position over time (separate regressions
were run for each starting position: Number 1, Number 2,
Number 3, and Number 4).
•The long-term success or failure of brands is proportional to the
strength or weakness of their starting positions; however, even
the most successful brands in 1923 (Number 1 brand, Group 1)
have a rate of long-term leadership (42%) much lower than that
currently believed for all leading brands.
•These 100 categories may be biased in favor of the null hy-
pothesis of long-term leadership and market share stability, be-
cause there are more nondurables when innovation is less im-
portant and branding is more so.
•For durable goods, the rate of maintaining leadership is lower
than the overall average, and the rate of failure is higher than
the overall average.
•The subgroup of clothing has no brands that maintained leader-
ship and 67% of former leaders that failed.
•For nondurable goods, the rate of maintaining leadership is
higher than the overall average, and the rate of failure is lower.
•The subgroup of food and beverages has 39% of brands that
maintained leadership and only 21% of former leaders that
failed.
Why Do Some Leaders Maintain Leadership Whereas
Others Do Not?
The previous findings describe the rate at which market
leaders maintain leadership. In addition, the historical
method can be used to develop explanations for these out-
comes. To address this question partially, I selected two cat-
egories for analysis: one nondurable representative of cate-
5The complete list of categories and brands is available from the author.
164 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000

gories in which leaders are more likely to maintain leader- major search for contemporaneous articles describing events
ship and one durable representative of categories in which in each category. These articles helped minimize biases that
they are less likely to do so. Data collection consisted of a might come from a retrospective recollection of events.

Table 4
SAMPLE OF LEADING BRANDS IN 1923 AND 1997

Product Category 1923 Leaders 1997 Leaders

Single dominant brand in 1923 (well-known categories)a
Cleanser Old Dutch (744) Comet
Soft Scrub
Ajax
Chewing gum Wrigley’s (664) Wrigley’s
Adams (97) Bubble Yum
Bubblicious
Motorcycles Indian (564) Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson (156) Honda
Kawasaki
Single dominant brand in 1923 (less well-known categories)b
Five-cent mint candies Life-Savers (436) Breath-Savers
Tic Tac
Certs
Peanut butter Beech-Nut (435) Jif
Heinz (140) Skippy
Peter Pan
Razors Gillette (396) Gillette
Gem (87) Bic
Ever Ready (50) Schick
Single leading brand in 1923c
Soft drinks Coca-Cola (353) Coca-Cola
Cliquot Club (85) Pepsi
Bevo (75) Dr. Pepper/Cadbury
Hires (51)
Coffee Arbuckle’s Yuban (224) Folgers
White House (100) Maxwell House
Hotel Astor (56) Hills Bros.
George Washington (55)
Laundry soap Fels Naptha (192) Tide
Octagon (93) Cheer
Kirkman (83) Wisk
Ivory (82)
Babbitts (51)
Crystal White (51)
Brands sharing leadership in 1923
Typewriters Underwood (394) Smith Corona
Remington (265) Brother
Oliver (100) Lexmark
Corona (53)
Cigarettes Camel (256) Marlboro
Fatima (156) Winston
Pall Mall (90) Newport
Murad (72)
Lucky Strike (64)
Hosiery Holeproof (180) L’eggs
Onyx (156) Hanes
Phoenix (66) No Nonsense
Luxite (60)
Leading brands in 1923 that do not have pronounced leadership
Shoes Douglas (146) Nike
Walkover (120) Reebok
Hanan (52)
Candy Huyler’s (144) Hershey
Loft (94) M&M’s/Mars
Page & Shaw (91) Nestlé
Whitman (89)
Jelly or jam Heinz (62) Smucker’s
Welch’s
Kraft
aThe leading brand was mentioned by a majority or near majority of subjects.
bThe leading brand was mentioned by a majority of subjects who responded to the question for that category.
cThe leading brand was mentioned by more than twice as many subjects as was the next brand in the category.
Historical Method 165

More than 100 articles were collected, primarily from major First, over the years, Wrigley has maintained a strong
magazines and newspapers.6 These articles were written for commitment to its brands. In 1927, it was an early sponsor
the public record at a time when many potential readers of national radio. By some reports, Wrigley was the largest
were fully aware of the facts being presented. Furthermore, single-product national advertiser in the 1930s. Perhaps
major events were corroborated with independent, similarly Wrigley’s greatest commitment to its brands was shown in
credible reports. Explanations developed from this evidence World War II. Scarce supplies of ingredients meant that
are presented in narrative form, because this approach can Wrigley could not produce its normal quality gum. So it
link events in a way that is not possible with a simple withdrew its traditional brands and introduced another
chronology. brand, which they advertised as not up to Wrigley standards.
Category in which leader has maintained leadership: At the same time, Wrigley continued to advertise its tradi-
chewing gum. Wrigley has dominated chewing gum for the tional brands with the slogan “Remember this wrapper.”
past nine decades. By 1923, Wrigley had sold the leading After the war, sales soon surpassed their previous level. As
brand for more than ten years and was one of the strongest far back as 1964, Wrigley had well-formulated brand per-
brands in the 1923 study of market leaders. Wrigley’s early
success is primarily attributed to building strong brands
through extensive advertising. Its main competitor, Table 5
American Chicle, was formed by combining several gum LONG-TERM SUCCESS RATE OF 1923 MARKET LEADERS
companies into the chewing gum trust. This company
tended to maximize profits by minimizing its marketing ex- Current Knowledge New Findings
Later Market (based on biased (based on complete
penses, whereas Wrigley invested in building its brands. Share Rank 1983 sample) 1997 sample)
Since 1923, Wrigley’s success is primarily based on three
factors: maintaining and building strong brands, focusing on Number 1 76% 23%
Number 2 16% 8%
a single product, and being in a category that has not Number 3 4% 9%
changed much. Top 5 4% 8%
Top 10 0% 7%
Below 10 0% 16%
Failed 0% 28%
6These references are available from the author.

Table 6
COMPARISON OF STARTING AND ENDING MARKET SHARE POSITIONS

Ending (1997)

Starting (1923) Sample Size Number 1 Number 2 Number 3 Top 5 Top 10 > 10 Failed
Number 1 brand 97a 23% 8% 9% 8% 7% 16% 28%
Group 1 19 42% 5% 11% 5% 5% 5% 26%
Group 2 11 18% 18% 18% 9% 9% 0% 27%
Group 3 25 24% 8% 12% 12% 8% 20% 16%
Group 4 15 13% 7% 7% 20% 13% 20% 20%
Group 5 27 15% 7% 4% 0% 4% 26% 44%
Number 2 brand 70 11% 9% 3% 4% 9% 26% 39%
Number 3 brand 43 5% 7% 2% 5% 9% 14% 58%
Number 4 brand 26 4% 4% 4% 4% 8% 42% 35%
Number 5 brand 12 0% 0% 25% 0% 17% 42% 17%
Number 6 brand 5 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 60%
Number 7 brand 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
aThe authors of the 1923 study determined that three categories had names mentioned that were not actual brands. The remaining 97 categories include 45
durables, 51 nondurables, and one service.

Table 7
COMPARISON OF STARTING AND ENDING MARKET SHARE POSITIONS FOR DURABLE GOODS

Ending (1997)

Starting (1923) Sample Size Number 1 Number 2 Number 3 Top 5 Top 10 > 10 Failed
Number 1 brand 45 16% 4% 13% 7% 2% 16% 42%
Number 2 brand 28 11% 7% 0% 0% 11% 25% 46%
Number 3 brand 17 6% 6% 0% 6% 6% 6% 71%
Number 4 brand 8 13% 0% 13% 13% 13% 38% 13%
Number 5 brand 4 0% 0% 50% 0% 25% 0% 25%
Number 6 brand 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Number 7 brand 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
166
Table 8
COMPARISON OF STARTING AND ENDING MARKET SHARE POSITIONS FOR NONDURABLE GOODS
Starting (1923) Sample Size Number 1 Number 2
Number 1 brand 51 29% 10%
Number 2 brand 41 10% 10%
Number 3 brand 25 4% 8%
Number 4 brand 17 0% 6%
Number 5 brand 7 0% 0%
Number 6 brand 2 0% 0%
Number 7 brand 0 — — —
sonalities for its major products. More recently, Wrigley has
continued to manage its brand equity carefully. When sug-
arless gum and bubble gum became popular in the 1970s,
Wrigley did not automatically extend its brand. Several
years after the sugarless gum market had taken off, Wrigley
introduced sugarless gum, but only under the same brand
they had used for the subpar gum during World War II. A
stronger commitment to sugarless gum did not emerge until
Extra in 1984. In bubble gum, Wrigley used a subsidiary to
introduce Hubba Bubba and still limits the association of
Wrigley with bubble gum, because Wrigley targets a more
adult market. In 1998, Wrigley explored chewing gum with
caffeine, but only through one of its subsidiaries rather than
with the valuable Wrigley brand.
The second factor in Wrigley’s long-term dominance is its
unrelenting focus on chewing gum. Even though the
Wrigley family owned the Chicago Cubs baseball team for
many years, this was considered a sideline to its real busi-
ness. For more than 100 years, Wrigley has been run by
three generations of Wrigleys. Collectively, the family still
owns more than 40% of the company. In the 1960s, the firm
chose not to expand into other businesses and considered di-
versification a dirty word. The firm rejected joining a con-
glomerate, American Home Products, even though Warner-
Lambert and Squibb had acquired their major competitors.
As a single-product company, Wrigley has continued to
grow and prosper, both domestically and internationally.
Over the past ten years, dollar sales have grown nearly 10%
per year in what is considered a mature category.
The third factor contributing to Wrigley’s long-term domi-
nance is that chewing gum has changed very little over the
years. In some ways, the market has simplified. In the 1920s,
at least 25 flavors of chewing gum were available. Today, only
mint-flavored gums dominate sales. These minimal changes
have made later entry difficult. In fact, Beech-Nut (now part
of Nabisco) was the last major chewing gum company to en-
ter, way back in 1911. Although chewing gum has changed
relatively little, Wrigley maintains a serious research and de-
velopment effort to improve its products and packaging.
Category in which leader has not maintained leadership:
typewriters. Underwood was the leading typewriter brand in
1923. Over the next three decades, Underwood was prof-
itable; however, its success was based on a harvesting strat-
egy. During this period, Underwood’s core mistake was its
unwillingness to innovate. Rather than try to outdo its com-
petitors, Underwood sought to collude with them.
According to a 1939 federal antitrust indictment, the four
largest typewriter manufacturers met to coordinate activities
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000
Ending (1997)
Number 3 Top 5 Top 10 > 10 Failed
6% 10% 12% 18% 16%
5% 7% 7% 27% 34%
4% 0% 12% 20% 52%
0% 0% 6% 47% 41%
14% 0% 0% 71% 14%
0% 0% 0% 50% 50%
— — — —
as early as 1930. Their combined 90% market share and co-
ordinated pricing enhanced short-term profitability. One
year after the indictment, Underwood and the other three
manufacturers agreed to a consent decree that prohibited
their monopolistic practices.
During World War II, many companies developed tech-
nology that would be useful after the war; however,
Underwood did not. Its profitability from 1945 to 1955 was
due to pent-up, postwar demand for typewriters; a growing
economy; and sales from the Korean War effort. During this
period, Underwood continued to pay high dividends rather
than invest more in product development and manufactur-
ing. Whereas other companies were investing heavily in
computer technology, Underwood only acquired tiny
Electronic Computer Corporation of Brooklyn in 1952.
Finally, in 1956, several factors exposed Underwood’s
weaknesses. First, lower-priced foreign competitors’ share
of manual typewriters began a five-year increase from 15%
to 40%. Second, outdated manufacturing facilities became
too costly. Third, electric typewriters became more compet-
itive, eventually surpassing sales of manual typewriters in
the early 1960s. These conditions led to increasingly large
losses and failed efforts at new strategic directions.
Underwood spent $12 million to diversify into computers
but gave up after 18 months, lacking the necessary techni-
cal expertise. In 1957, the firm sought mergers with IT&T
and National Cash Register but was already too weak to be
attractive to these firms. After a few more unprofitable
years, Underwood was acquired by Olivetti. Although
Olivetti’s U.S. subsidiary returned to profitability from the
mid-1960s until 1970, it lost money throughout the 1970s
and early 1980s. The Underwood name was phased out, and
today, Olivetti is only a small part of a relatively unimpor-
tant category.
Underwood’s lack of innovation stands in stark contrast
with IBM. Although electric typewriters were well known in
the 1920s, there was not a meaningful effort among the ma-
jor typewriter manufacturers to introduce them. In contrast,
IBM bought Electromatic Typewriter in 1933 and intro-
duced the first successful electric typewriter in 1935. In
1941, IBM introduced proportional letter spacing. In 1961,
the firm introduced the Selectric typewriter with no moving
carriage and the “golf-ball” typing element. In 1964, it in-
troduced an automatic typewriter that stored information on
magnetic tape. These advances and others enabled IBM to
dominate electric typewriters through the late 1970s.
Afterwards, advances in electronics enabled removal of
many mechanical components. This change lowered barriers
Historical Method
to entry, made the category less profitable, and contributed
to IBM’s eventual withdrawal.
More important than succeeding in typewriters, IBM
leveraged its strong position to become the dominant firm in
computers. During World War II, IBM developed the Mark
I computing calculator. The firm sold its first computer to
the government research facility at Los Alamos, N. Mex., in
1953 and soon afterwards captured market leadership.
IBM’s leadership continues today in important segments of
the computer industry. Similarly, Remington-Rand moved
successfully from typewriters to computers by acquiring the
Eckert-Mauchly Computer Company in 1950. Eckert and
Mauchly were responsible for developing one of the world’s
first computers during World War II. This acquisition en-
abled Remington-Rand to sell the first commercial com-
puter, a Univac, to the Census Bureau in 1951. Today, the
corporate descendants of Remington-Rand continue to sell
computers and computer services as Unisys Corporation.
Underwood’s demise demonstrates the importance of
continuous innovation. At least until the mid-1930s,
Underwood was well positioned to be the dominant firm in
office automation. Its revenues were approximately equal to
IBM’s in 1937, but by 1957, IBM’s revenues were about 15
times those of Underwood. Even though Underwood should
not be expected to have duplicated the success of IBM, his-
tory suggests it did not even really try.
DISCUSSION
Laboring the difference between science and the hu-
manities has long been a fashion, and has become a
bore. The method of problem solving, the method of
conjecture and refutation, is practiced by both. It is
practiced in reconstructing a damaged text as in con-
structing a theory of radioactivity. (Popper 1972, p. 185)
As the previous analysis of market share stability illus-
trates, the historical method is capable of producing new
knowledge about marketing phenomena. However, the
method does have weaknesses as well as strengths relative
to more conventional methods. After discussing these
strengths and weaknesses, the concluding paragraphs sum-
marize the key points of this research.
As noted previously, historical method has several
strengths that make it appropriate for studying marketing
phenomena. First, the method is helpful in collecting and
evaluating data for longitudinal analysis. This type of analy-
sis is useful for understanding strategic issues and could
help restore marketing’s influence in the strategy literature
(Day 1992). One alternative for collecting data on strategic
issues is survey research. Although survey research is useful
for collecting current information, it can produce biased in-
formation when past events are recalled. These biases are re-
duced when contemporaneous accounts are used, as is called
for in the historical method. Furthermore, the emphasis of
the historical method on authenticating, establishing the
credibility of, and corroborating evidence remains a key
strength relative to data collection in much survey research.
A second strength of the method is that it can be used to
corroborate findings from existing data (e.g., PIMS) or ob-
tain new or more precise measures of constructs in quanti-
tative models. For example, potential sources of mass media
influence in diffusion models are advertising and unpaid
media reports (Horsky and Simon 1983). Although some
167
diffusion models have included a measure of advertising,
none has included a measure of unpaid media. One archival
measure of unpaid media is the number of articles on a new
product in the Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature, an
index of more than 100 periodicals. The results of estimat-
ing a diffusion model with this measure of unpaid media
and advertising are presented in Table 9. When both mass
media variables are included, the unpaid media variable is
significant in one of three categories, whereas advertising is
not significant in any. When the variables are considered
separately, the unpaid media variable is significant in two
categories, whereas advertising is significant in one. These
results suggest that unpaid media may be at least as impor-
tant as advertising in measuring mass media influence.
Although a complete historical analysis of the role of unpaid
media in new product adoption is beyond the scope of this
article, this example illustrates the ability of archival
sources to provide more complete measures of constructs in
quantitative models.
A third strength of historical method is that it provides an
approach for dealing with complex phenomena that cannot
be studied adequately in a laboratory or with readily avail-
able data. Although case study research methods have been
used to address similar phenomena, the four stages of case
research (drift, design, prediction, and disconfirmation;
Bonoma 1985) seem imprecise in comparison with the his-
torical method.
The strengths of the historical method must be viewed
against its limitations, some of which apply to other social
science methods. First, because the historical method evalu-
ates phenomena in their complex real-world environment,
developing and confirming theory precisely can be difficult.
However, even when a single study does not generate the-
ory, it can contribute to new theory. For example,
Chandler’s (1962) historical study of organizational struc-
ture and economic efficiency contributed to the develop-
ment of transaction cost analysis theory (Williamson 1981).
A second limitation of historical method is that it is more
capable of descriptions than of explanations or predictions.
However, historians attempt to determine causal factors and
evaluate their relative importance when working with qual-
itative data. With quantitative data, their approach to devel-
oping explanations and predictions is similar to that of mar-
keting researchers.
A third limitation of historical method is that it is subject
to interpretive biases in the selection and evaluation of data
(Calder and Tybout 1987). Some interpretive researchers in
marketing assert that it is meaningless or impossible to dis-
tinguish causes from effects (Hirschman 1986; Hudson and
Ozanne 1988). In contrast, most historians make concerted
efforts to determine the immediate and underlying causes of
events. Furthermore, competing explanations of historical
events may be more easily evaluated, because the original
data are more commonly available than in many marketing
studies.
A final limitation of the historical method, which prevents
its use by most researchers, is that it is very time consuming.
Instead of using established databases, researchers must
construct their own databases or at least verify existing data-
bases. Unlike surveys and experiments, researchers do not
construct the scenario under which their data are recorded.
168 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000

Table 9
PARAMETER ESTIMATES FROM DIFFUSION MODEL

Room Air Conditioner Color Television Clothes Dryer

Model with Model with Model with
Unpaid Model with Unpaid Model with Unpaid Model with
Variable Media and Unpaid Model with Media and Unpaid Model with Media and Unpaid Model with
(parameter) Advertising Media Advertising Advertising Media Advertising Advertising Media Advertising
Unpaid .00022** .00025*** NS .00011** NS NS
media (b) (.00009) (.00006) (.00005)
Advertising (c) NS .00062** NS NS NS NS
(.00030)
External
influence (a) NS NS .00649*** NS .00255** .00512*** .01063** .01360*** .01063***
(.00195) (.00113) (.00127) (.00438) (.00365) (.00264)
Internal
influence (q) .4034*** .4196*** .3567*** .6704*** .6704*** .6354*** .3007*** .3267*** .3006***
(.0459) (.0380) (.512) (.1533) (.0403) (.1442) (.0522) (.0386) (.0480)
Market
potential (m) 16.7*** 16.6*** 18.1*** 38.2*** 38.2*** 40.2*** 17.2*** 16.5*** 17.2***
(1.4) (1.3) (1.7) (8.3) (1.8) (8.6) (1.7) (1.3) (1.6)
*p < .10.
** p < .05.
*** p < .01.
NS = not significant.
Notes: Sales and advertising figures are from Bass, Krishnan and Jain’s (1994) study. The following model is estimated with nonlinear least squares (for
details, see Srinivasan and Mason 1986):
Sales(t) = m[F(t) – F(t – 1)] + u,
where

(1 − e − (p + q) t )
F(t) = ,
q
(1 + p e −( p+ q )t )

and
p = coefficient of external influence (mass media or innovation),
q = coefficient of internal influence (word of mouth or imitation),
m = market potential, and
u = error term.
The coefficient of external influence is reparameterized as
a + b × Unpaid Mediat + c × Advertisingt.
Parameters for color television were also estimated with a second source of unpaid media, the Business Periodicals Index. Color television is the only cat-
egory in which this reference was published during the years of interest. In this estimation, unpaid media considered alone was statistically significant, whereas
advertising, considered alone or with unpaid media, was not. These results provide some corroboration of the findings in Table 9.

They must depend on records of events that were made in-
dependently of their efforts to study them.
In conclusion, this article contributes to the marketing lit-
erature in several unique ways. First, it is the only article to
discuss the objectives of historical research as viewed by
historians. Second, it presents a complete description of the
historical method that can be used as a reference by market-
ing researchers who apply this method. Third, it demon-
strates the usefulness of this method by presenting new evi-
dence on long-term market share stability. The findings
from this analysis show that the rate of long-term leadership
is much lower than currently believed. In addition, these
findings raise doubts about the currently accepted empirical
generalization that market shares are stable over prolonged
periods. Although market shares may be stable over shorter
periods, they are not stable in these categories over the pe-
riod considered. This finding opens up several avenues for
further research into the real duration of market share sta-
bility and the conditions in which it is more and less com-
mon. Additional areas for further research with the histori-
cal method are presented in Table 10. I hope this table will
encourage marketing researchers to consider historical
analyses in their research.
Historians believe that a reasonable outcome of histori-
cally generated knowledge is being able to manage better in
similar situations (Tuchman 1981). Although historical
method is not suited for all research questions, it is capable
of producing empirical generalizations in areas in which
other methods cannot. It is particularly well suited to ad-
dress longitudinal issues in which recollections of past
events may be biased or wrong. Also, it is useful for uncov-
ering data that may not be available from more conventional
data sources. At a minimum, as a substantially different
method, it can enhance the value of findings based on all
other research methods.
Historical Method 169

Table 10
POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF HISTORICAL METHOD IN MARKETING RESEARCH

Previous studies that described limitations or proposed research on the application of the historical method
Market entry Data on survivors and failures necessary to establish how a firm’s competencies and resources Kerin, Varadarajan, and
are converted into sustainable advantages. Peterson (1992)
Longitudinal data and “thick” empirical studies needed to determine whether corporate-level Gruca and Sudharshan
strategies and resources enhance entry deterrence. (1995)
Examine the relationship between order of entry and short-term and long-term survival rates. Kalyanaram, Robinson,
and Urban (1995)

New products Study of brand extensions could be strengthened by including failures. Smith and Park (1992)
Insights from new product development process are limited by using cross-sectional data and Olson, Walker, and
could be enhanced with longitudinal data. Ruekert (1995)
Need a greater understanding of how organizations develop breakthrough products or Wind and Mahajan
discontinuous innovations. (1997)
A broader set of variables is needed to explain variance in product development cycle time. Griffin (1997)
Evaluating the determinants of new product success in a longitudinal framework would Song and Parry (1997b)
provide additional insight.
Evaluate cross-functional integration and internal commitment at various points during the Song and Parry (1997a)
new product development cycle.

Business Further research on organizational relationships should include longitudinal methods to Weiss and Anderson
relationships provide additional insights. (1992)
Develop an understanding of the forces leading to long-term customer relationships, strategic Webster (1992)
partnerships with vendors, alliances for the codevelopment of technologies, and the issues
involved in creating, managing, and dissolving these partnerships over time.
Limits of cross-sectional design could be overcome with longitudinal study of organizational Weiss and Heide (1993)
search process.
Longitudinal analysis could examine ethics across different types of exchange relationships. Gundlach and Murphy
(1993)
History of relationships could provide insight into the governance of marketing channels. Heide (1994)
Detailed case studies over substantial time periods could enhance understanding of dyadic Anderson, Hakansson,
business relationships. and Johanson (1994)
Limitation of cross-sectional data to study an undoubtedly dynamic process of relationship Fein and Anderson
development could be overcome with historical data. (1997)

Other Insights into decisions not to extend a brand name or take other marketing actions. Smith and Park (1992)
Future studies of standardization versus adaptation in international marketing should adopt a Szymanski, Bharadwaj,
longitudinal approach. and Varadarajan (1993)
The largest payoff for understanding the capabilities of market-driven organizations will come Day (1994)
from thoughtful clinical investigations of best practices and failed transformation efforts. Germain, Droge, and
Greater confidence in model of just-in-time selling could be achieved with longitudinal data. Daugherty (1994)
Competition cannot be understood without a longitudinal view of competitors and their Prahalad (1995)
competencies.

Additional areas of research in which the historical method could be applied

Market entry Survival durations of brands under various conditions.
and exit Order of entry–market share relationship after controlling for survival bias across all entrants.
Appropriate marketing-mix investment at time of entry.

New products Role of patents in successful new product introductions.

Operationalizing innovation in diffusion models by measuring the number of media reports on
a new category.
Role of firm size in new product development success.
Role of incumbency in new product development success.
Process by which consumers learn about, adopt, and use new products.
Elements of continuity versus discontinuity in new product development from the firm’s
perspective.
The determinants of sales takeoff for new products.
Incorporation of product features in sales growth models.
Causes of new product failure.
Organizational decision process to withdraw products from the market.

Product life Profitability or stock market returns over stages of PLC.

cycle (PLC) Pricing strategies over the PLC, for example, penetration and skimming.
Entry and failure rates over the PLC.

Other Survival duration of business relationships, alliances, and so forth.

Conditions under which preannouncements are more and less common.
How industry structures evolve over time.
Impact of new media on marketing; lessons from advent of radio and television for Internet.
170
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and George S. Day (1986), “The Perils of High-
Growth Markets,” Strategic Management Journal, 7
(September/October), 409–21.
Advertising Age (1983), “Study: Majority of 25 Leaders in 1923
Still on Top—‘Old Standbys’ Hold Their Own,” (September
19), 32.
Agrawal, Jagdish and Wagner A. Kamakura (1995), “The
Economic Worth of Celebrity Endorsers: An Event Study
Analysis,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 56–62.
Anderson, James C., Hakan Hakansson, and Jan Johanson (1994),
“Dyadic Business Relationships Within a Business Network
Context,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 1–15.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Fred Collopy (1996), “Competitor
Orientation: Effects of Objectives and Information on
Managerial Decisions and Profitability,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 33 (May), 188–99.
Bain, Joe S. (1956), Barriers to New Competition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Baron, Salo W. (1986), The Contemporary Relevance of History.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Bass, Frank M. (1974), “The Theory of Stochastic Preference and
Brand Switching,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11
(February), 1–20.
———, Trichy V. Krishnan, and Dipak C. Jain (1994), “Why the
Bass Model Fits Without Decision Variables,” Marketing
Science, 13 (Summer), 203–23.
——— and T.L. Pilon (1980), “A Stochastic Brand Choice
Framework for Econometric Modeling of Time Series Market
Share Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17
(November), 486–97.
Bayus, Barry L. (1992), “The Dynamic Pricing of Next Generation
Consumer Durables,” Marketing Science, 11 (3), 251–65.
———, Sanjay Jain, and Ambar G. Rao (1997), “Too Little, Too
Early: Introduction Timing and New Product Performance in the
Personal Digital Assistant Industry,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 34 (February), 50–63.
Bonoma, Thomas V. (1985), “Case Research in Marketing:
Opportunities, Problems, and a Process,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 22 (May), 199–208.
Breisach, Ernst (1983), Historiography. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Brooks, Philip C. (1969), Research in Archives. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Calantone, Roger J., Jeffrey B. Schmidt, and X. Michael Song
(1996), “Controllable Factors of New Product Success: A Cross-
National Comparison,” Marketing Science, 15 (4), 341–58.
Calder, Bobby J. and Alice M. Tybout (1987), “What Consumer
Research Is ...,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June),
136–40.
Carpenter, Gregory S. and Kent Nakamoto (1989), “Consumer
Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 26 (August), 285–98.
Chandler, Alfred D., Jr. (1962), Strategy and Structure: Chapters in
the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Cochrane, Charles Norris (1929), Thucydides and the Science of
History. London: Oxford University Press.
Cusumano, Michael A., Yiorgos Mylonadis, and Richard S.
Rosenbloom (1992), “Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market
Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta,” Business History
Review, 66 (Spring), 51–94.
Day, George S. (1992), “Marketing’s Contribution to the Strategy
Dialogue,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47
(Fall), 43–55.
——— (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37–52.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000
——— and Robin Wensley (1983), “Marketing Theory with a
Strategic Orientation,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 79–89.
DeKimpe, Marnik G. and Dominique M. Hanssens (1995),
“Empirical Generalizations About Market Evolution and
Stationarity,” Marketing Science, 14 (3, Part 2 of 2),
G109–G121.
Ehrenberg, Andrew S.C. (1988), Repeat Buying: Facts, Theory and
Data, 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
——— (1991), “New Brands and the Existing Market,” Journal of
the Market Research Society, 33 (4), 285–99.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), “Building Theories from Case
Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, 14 (4),
532–50.
Elton, G.R. (1967), The Practice of History. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell.
Fein, Adam J. and Erin Anderson (1997), “Patterns of Credible
Commitments: Territory and Brand Selectivity in Industrial
Distribution Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (April),
19–34.
Fogel, Robert William and G.R. Elton (1983), Which Road to the
Past? Two Views of History. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Fullerton, Ronald A. (1987), “The Poverty of Ahistorical Analysis:
Present Weaknesses and Future Cure in U.S. Marketing
Thought,” in Philosophical and Radical Thought in Marketing,
A. Fuat Firat, Nikhilesh Dholakia, and Richard P. Bagozzi, eds.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 97–116.
Germain, Richard, Cornelia Droge, and Patricia J. Daugherty
(1994), “The Effect of Just-in-Time Selling on Organizational
Structure: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (November), 471–83.
Ghemawat, Pankaj (1991), “Market Incumbency and
Technological Inertia,” Marketing Science, 10 (2), 161–71.
Golder, Peter N. and Gerard J. Tellis (1993), “Pioneer Advantage:
Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend?” Journal of Marketing
Research, 30 (May), 158–70.
——— and ——— (1997), “Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the
Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables,” Marketing
Science, 16 (3), 256–270.
Goodman, Robert S. and Evonne Jonas Kruger (1988), “Data
Dredging or Legitimate Research Method? Historiography and
Its Potential for Management Research,” Academy of
Management Review, 13 (2), 315–25.
Gottschalk, Louis (1969), Understanding History: A Primer of
Historical Method. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Green, Donna H., Donald W. Barclay, and Adrian B. Ryans (1995),
“Entry Strategy and Long-Term Performance: Conceptualiza-
tion and Empirical Examination,” Journal of Marketing, 59
(October), 1–16.
Griffin, Abbie (1997), “The Effect of Project and Process
Characteristics on Product Development Cycle Time,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 24–35.
Gruca, Thomas S. and D. Sudharshan (1995), “A Framework for
Entry Deterrence Strategy: The Competitive Environment,
Choices, and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July),
44–55.
Gundlach, Gregory T. and Patrick E. Murphy (1993), “Ethical and
Legal Foundations of Relational Marketing Exchanges,”
Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 35–46.
Handlin, Oscar (1979), Truth in History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press.
Heide, Jan B. (1994), “Interorganizational Governance in
Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (January),
71–85.
Hexter, J.H. (1971), The History Primer. New York: Basic Books.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), “Humanistic Inquiry in
Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and Criteria,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (August), 237–49.
Historical Method
Horsky, Dan and Leonard S. Simon (1983), “Advertising and the
Diffusion of New Products,” Marketing Science, 2 (Winter),
1–17.
Hotchkiss, George Burton and Richard B. Franken (1923), The
Leadership of Advertised Brands. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
Page & Company.
Hudson, Laurel Anderson and Julie L. Ozanne (1988), “Alternative
Ways of Seeking Knowledge in Consumer Research,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 508–21.
Hughes, H. Stuart (1964), History as Art and Science. New York:
Harper and Row Publishers.
Iggers, Georg G. (1979), “Federal Republic of Germany,” in
International Handbook of Historical Studies: Contemporary
Research and Theory, Georg G. Iggers and Harold T. Parker,
eds. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 217–32.
Johnson, Allen (1934), The Historian and Historical Evidence.
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Jones, D.G. Brian and David D. Monieson (1990), “Early
Development of the Philosophy of Marketing Thought,” Journal
of Marketing, 54 (January), 102–13.
Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (1973), “On the Psychology
of Prediction,” Psychological Review, 80 (2), 237–51.
Kalyanaram, Gurumurthy, William T. Robinson, and Glen L.
Urban (1995), “Order of Market Entry: Established Empirical
Generalizations, Emerging Empirical Generalizations, and
Future Research,” Marketing Science, 14 (3), G212–G221.
Keep, William W., Stanley C. Hollander, and Roger Dickinson
(1998), “Forces Impinging on Long-Term Business-to-Business
Relationships in the United States: An Historical Perspective,”
Journal of Marketing, 62 (April), 31–45.
Kerin, Roger A., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A. Peterson
(1992), “First-Mover Advantage: A Synthesis, Conceptual
Framework, and Research Propositions,” Journal of Marketing,
56 (October), 33–52.
Kotler, Philip (1997), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning,
Implementation, and Control, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Lal, Rajiv and V. Padmanabhan (1995), “Competitive Response
and Equilibria,” Marketing Science, 14 (3, Part 2 of 2),
G101–G108.
Langlois, C.V. and C. Seignobos (1898), Introduction to the Study
of History. New York: Henry Holt and Co.
Lieberman, Marvin B. and David B. Montgomery (1988), “First-
Mover Advantages,” Strategic Management Journal, 9
(Summer), 41–58.
Low, George S. and Ronald A. Fullerton (1994), “Brands, Brand
Management, and the Brand Manager System: A Critical-
Historical Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31
(May), 173–90.
Malin, James C. (1946), Essays on Historiography. Ann Arbor, MI:
Edwards Brothers.
Martin, Raymond (1997), “The Essential Difference Between
History and Science,” History and Theory, 36 (February), 1–14.
Marwick, Arthur (1970), The Nature of History. London:
MacMillan.
McCullagh, C. Behan (1984), Justifying Historical Descriptions.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Menon, Ajay and Anil Menon (1997), “Enviropreneurial Marketing
Strategy: The Emergence of Corporate Environmentalism as
Market Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 51–67.
Messinger, Paul R. and Chakravarthi Narasimhan (1995), “Has
Power Shifted in the Grocery Channel?” Marketing Science, 14
(2), 189–223.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman (1984), Qualitative
Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Nevett, Terence (1991), “Historical Investigation and the Practice
of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (July), 13–23.
171
Nisbett, R. and L. Ross (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and
Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Olmstead, Alan L. and Paul W. Rhode (1995), “Beyond the
Threshold: An Analysis of the Characteristics and Behavior of
Early Reaper Adopters,” Journal of Economic History, 55
(March), 27–57.
Olson, Eric M., Orville C. Walker Jr., and Robert W. Ruekert
(1995), “Organizing for Effective New Product Development:
The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness,” Journal of
Marketing, 59 (January), 48–62.
Parker, Philip M. (1995), “‘Sweet Lemons’: Illusory Quality, Self-
Deceivers, Advertising, and Price,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 32 (August), 291–307.
Pollay, Richard W. (1985), “The Subsidizing Sizzle: A Descriptive
History of Print Advertising, 1900–1980,” Journal of Marketing,
49 (Summer), 24–37.
Popper, Karl R. (1968), “Remarks on the Problems of Demarcation
and of Rationality,” in Problems in the Philosophy of Science,
Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds. Amsterdam: North-
Holland Publishing Co., 88–102.
——— (1972), Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Prahalad, C.K. (1995), “Weak Signals Versus Strong Paradigms,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (August), iii–viii.
Quillen, Carol E. (1998), “Crossing the Line: Limits and Desire in
Historical Interpretation,” History and Theory, 37 (February),
40–68.
Reddy, Srinivas K., Susan Holak, and Subodh Bhat (1994), “To
Extend or Not to Extend: Success Determinants of Line
Extensions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 243–62.
Salvemini, Gaetano (1939), Historian and Scientist. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Savitt, Ronald (1980), “Historical Research in Marketing,” Journal
of Marketing, 44 (Fall), 52–58.
Shafer, Robert Jones (1974), A Guide to Historical Method.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Sherry, John F. (1991), “Postmodern Alternatives: The Interpretive
Turn in Consumer Research,” in Handbook of Consumer
Behavior, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian, eds.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 548–91.
Simon, Herbert A. (1968), “On Judging the Plausibility of
Theories,” in Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science III,
B. Van Rootselaar and J.F. Staal, eds. Amsterdam: North-
Holland Publishing Company, 439–59.
Smith, Daniel C. and C. Whan Park (1992), “The Effects of Brand
Extensions on Market Share and Advertising Efficiency,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August), 296–313.
Smith, Ruth Ann and David S. Lux (1993), “Historical Method in
Consumer Research: Developing Causal Explanations of
Change,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March), 595–610.
Song, X. Michael and Mark E. Parry (1997a), “A Cross-National
Comparative Study of New Product Development Processes:
Japan and the United States,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (April),
1–18.
——— and ——— (1997b), “The Determinants of Japanese New
Product Success,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34
(February), 64–76.
Srinivasan, V. and Charlotte H. Mason (1986), “Nonlinear Least
Squares Estimation of New Product Diffusion Models,”
Marketing Science, 5 (Spring), 169–78.
Szymanski, David M., Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and P. Rajan
Varadarajan (1993), “Standardization Versus Adaptation of
International Marketing Strategy: An Empirical Investigation,”
Journal of Marketing, 57 (October), 1–17.
Tedlow, Richard S. (1996), New and Improved: The Story of Mass
Marketing in America. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
172
Tellis, Gerard J. and Peter N. Golder (1996), “First to Market, First
to Fail? Real Causes of Enduring Market Leadership,” Sloan
Management Review, 37 (Winter), 65–75.
Todd, William (1972), History as Applied Science. Detroit: Wayne
State University Press.
Tuchman, Barbara (1981), Practicing History. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1992), “The Changing Role of Marketing
in the Corporation,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (October), 1–17.
Weiss, Allen M. and Erin Anderson (1992), “Converting from
Independent to Employee Salesforces: The Role of Perceived
Switching Costs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29
(February), 101–15.
——— and Jan B. Heide (1993), “The Nature of Organizational
Search in High Technology Markets,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 30 (May), 220–33.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, MAY 2000
Williamson, Oliver E. (1981), “The Economics of Organization:
The Transaction Cost Approach,” American Journal of
Sociology, 87 (3), 548–77.
Wind, Jerry and Vijay Mahajan (1997), “Issue and Opportunities in
New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special
Issue,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 1–12.
Workman, John P. (1993), “Marketing’s Limited Role in New
Product Development in One Computer Systems Firm,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 30 (November), 405–21.
Zaltman, Gerald (1997), “Rethinking Market Research: Putting
People Back In,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34
(November), 424–37.