Tugas : Summary 5 Jurnal

Dosen Pengampu : Dr. I Made Bayu Dirgantara, SE, MM

Nama : Jakub Al Karmil
NIM 12010122410111
Kelas : BC1B

Jurnal 1
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011
pp. 1298-1309

Keywords:
LOGIC, O'SHAUGHNESSY, S-D logic, O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy, SERVICE-
DOMINANT, ARTICLE, PERSPECTIVE, SCHOLAR, Vargo and Lusch, marketing scholars

Digest:
VIEWPOINT Service-dominant logic: a necessary step Robert F. Lusch Department of
Marketing, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA, and Stephen L. Vargo Shidler College
of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA Abstract Purpose - The
purpose of this paper is to respond to the criticism O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy made of
service-dominant logic in EJM, on behalf of both the paper and the worldwide community of
scholars that have embraced S-D logic as historically informed, integrative, transcending and
rich in its potential to generate theoretical and practical contributions.

Findings - The paper shows that, contrary to the claims of O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy, S-
D logic: is neither regressive nor intended to displace all other marketing perspectives; is not
advocating technology at the expense of explanatory theory; and is pre-theoretic and intended to
be soundly grounded in a manner to assist theory construction.

Practical implications - O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy wish to prevent marketing scholars

from adopting, advocating, and supporting service-dominant logic and, as they suggest, taking a
backward step. They view the S-D logic movement as primarily USA-dominated (which it is not)
and are firmly anti-S-D logic.
The available evidence from around the world suggests that the S-D logic movement has
profound implications for the advancement of both marketing science and marketing practice.

In a recent article, "The service-dominant perspective: a backward step?" O'Shaughnessy and

O'Shaughnessy (2009, p. 784) position Vargo and Lusch (2004a) as "radicals" and "evangelists"
who, along with other scholars, urge for the adoption of The current issue and full text archive of
this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm EJM 45,7/8 1298 European
Journal of Marketing Vol 45 No. 7/8, 2011 page.1298-1309

We do, however, take exception with the suggestion that service-dominant (S-D) logic is
regressive - whatever the notion of radically regressive means - and have issues with the logic
and evidence for both their general position and several of the specific arguments offered in
support of their position. More specifically, they suggest that S-D logic

The primary errors are: viewing S-D logic as represented by a single article, rather than a body of
work, not only by Lusch and Vargo but a growing community of scholars around the world;
viewing the S-D logic impact as primarily the USA, rather than globally, based; and . viewing S-
D logic as based in and on what has been referred to as the growth in the services economy,
primarily in western economies.

S-D logic is a research stream and a community effort Curiously, O'Shaughnessy and
O'Shaughnessy (2009) suggest S-D logic represents an academic backward step but fail toreview,
much less incorporate the large literature Servicedominant logic 1299 on S-D logic, much of
which deals with specific points raised in their critique.

Rather, they develop their entire assessment of S-D logic on our 2004 Journal of Marketing
article (Vargo and Lusch, 2004a): "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing" - though in
many cases, they misrepresent even that one article. Not long thereafter, the publishing of a
collection of original essays by 51 marketing scholars in 2006, The Service-Dominant Logic of
Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions (Lusch and Vargo, 2006a), resulted in the S-D logic
label becoming more predominant.
Jurnal 2
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011
pp. 1319-1321

Keywords:
LOGIC, MARKET, SERVICE, LUSCH, SCHOLAR, O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy,
service-dominant logic, S-D logic, Journal of Marketing, Vargo and Lusch

Digest:

VIEWPOINT Stepping aside and moving on: a rejoinder to a rejoinder Stephen L. Vargo Shidler
College of Business, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, USA, and Robert F. Lusch
Department of Marketing, University of Arizona, Tuscon, Arizona, USA Abstract Purpose - This
paper proposes a rejoinder to the O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy rejoinder to "Service
dominant logic: a necessary step", the commentary on their previous criticism of service-
dominant logic. The work they disparage includes not only its own but, by implication, that
contributed by a large and growing number of scholars worldwide who find service-dominant
logic a useful, informed and informing orientation to the market and marketing.

Keywords Service delivery, Logic, Perspective Paper type Viewpoint We have authored
approximately three dozen service-dominant (S-D) logic publications, which have received
almost 2,500 total citations (Google Scholar), and have made several dozen keynote, and over
100 total, S-D logic presentations on five continents.There have also been a half dozen S-D
logic-focused conferences, a dozen S-D-logic-focused special issues (or sections) in journals and
countless S-D-logic-grounded articles and presentations by other scholars, all within a six-year
period. Yet, O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy (2011) summarily dismiss all of this work, while
acknowledging, as we (Lusch and Vargo, 2011) suggested, that they have never actually read
any of it, except (apparently quite cursorily) one article (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) that we wrote
about seven years ago.

Clearly, O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy have just confirmed our (Lusch and Vargo, 2011)
most critical, previous comments on their original critique (O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy,
2009) .As we have said repeatedly (e.g., Lusch and Vargo, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a),
we neither invented S-D logic nor do we own it. What we did, and continue to do, is try to
identify, elaborate, and extend what we see as a potential convergence in disparate thinking that
suggests an evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) shift, one that points toward an
understanding that economic (and social) exchange is primarily concerned with service provision
- that is, service is exchanged for service - rather than with goods.

Many scholars seem to have found S-D logic useful, if not foundational, for their own work (as
partially evidenced by the previously-cited activity). As we always have, we welcome the critical
assessment; however, we request that those so inclined actually read and study S-D logic before
criticizing it

(2006), "The service-dominant logic of marketing: reactions, reflections, and refinements",

Marketing Theory,

(2011), "Service-dominant logic: a necessary step", European Journal of Marketing,

O'Shaughnessy, J. and O'Shaughnessy, N.J

(2011), "Service-dominant logic: a rejoinder to Vargo and Lusch's reply", European Journal of
Marketing,

(2004), "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing", Journal of Marketing,

(2008a), "Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution", Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science

(2008b), "Why service?", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,

(2006), "Historical perspectives on service-dominant logic", in Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L

(Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, M.E.
Jurnal 3
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 45 No. 7/8, 2011
pp. 1310-1318

Keywords:
SERVICE, LOGIC, DEFINITION, LUSCH, Lusch and Vargo's, MARKET, BUSINESS,
PAPER, S-D logic, ARTICLE

Digest:

VIEWPOINT Service-dominant logic: a rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's reply John

O'Shaughnessy Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA,
and Nicholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK Abstract
Purpose - This paper is a rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's defense of their service-dominant logic
paper against criticism.

This rejects the notion that viewing all businesses as service entities is a progressive approach
but recommends a disjunctive definition of service, which would throw up service-categories
that needed to be studied in their own right if progress is to be made .Keywords Service logic,
Service definition, Disjunctive definition, Function versus benefit versus purpose, Perspective,
Marketing history, Logic, United States of America, United Kingdom Paper type Viewpoint This
article is a response to the Lusch and Vargo defense of their service-dominant perspective
against our criticism in the European Journal of Marketing.

We never said the S-D logic was based on this fact .Our speaking of the Service-Dominant logic,
rather than the actual title of their paper "Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing" is said
to imply that we were aware of the additional articles but chose to ignore these contributions
(presumably because it would weaken our argument) .Yes, we did say that the original Vargo
and Lusch article had had considerable impact particularly in the USA.
We based this claim on its being the lead article in the Journal of Marketing with "eminent
marketing academics offering their encomiums and sagacious approval" .Lusch and Vargo argue
that this is an inference based on a Goods-Dominant logic and is irrelevant to the S-D logic,
given a definition of services which views "all economies as services economies" Lusch and
Vargo argue that traditional G-D logic leads to arbitrary, if not meaningless, classifications like
classifying a tailor who makes a custom suit as providing tailoring services while a person who
works in a cut-and-sew, suit-making factory is classified as a manufacturing employee.

Lusch and Vargo suggest that we reject or fail to acknowledge that economic activity is
fundamentally concerned with service provision, perhaps because we disagree with their
definition of service as "the application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills)
through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself".
If the application of knowledge and skills through deeds is what defines a service, it follows that
every business is a service business.

But we question whether this is the most meaningful way to view business for marketing
purposes, since it is a definition that dilutes the notion of a service, though such a definition is
the core of their thesis. Lusch and Vargo's definition of a service is like defining all American
corporations as legal entities: true perhaps but at the expense of saying little, except for Lusch
and Vargo to be able to classify all businesses as service entities. A definition of a service
organization is only meaningful when contrasted with a non-service organization; defining as
Lusch and Vargo do, a service in such an all embracing way, says no more than all businesses
rely on the skills, competences, technology and knowledge of employees to produce the results
sought.

This reduces the notion of service in business to a truism. Viewing all businesses as service
providers and developing a new logic for marketing on that basis, is a backward step because the
more general we seek to be (as in classifying everything under service) the less the depth and
richness of what we can say about the overall service category.
Jurnal 4
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 43 No. 5/6, 2009
pp. 784-793

Keywords:
MARKET, SERVICE, PERSPECTIVE, KNOWLEDGE, VARGO, LUSCH, ADVANTAGE,
PAPER, operant resources, Vargo and Lusch paper

Digest:

John O'Shaughnessy Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, New York, New York,
USA, and Nicholas Jackson O'Shaughnessy Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK
Abstract Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the "service dominant"
perspective advocated by Vargo and Lusch and applauded by so many marketing academics in
the USA is neither logically sound nor a perspective to displace others in marketing.

Findings - The paper finds that the definition of services, seeking as it does to embrace all types
of marketing, is too broad to have much operational meaning, while the focusing on activities
rather than functions misdirects marketing altogether. Vargo and Lusch revive the claim that
marketing should be viewed as a technology, the aim being to discover the techniques and rules
(principles) applying to marketing. The Vargo and Lusch paper suggests that there is a one best
way: a single unitary perspective for marketing.

Keywords Customer service management, Perception, Customization, Marketing models Paper

type Conceptual paper In marketing, "radicals" and "evangelists" often urge us to adopt a new
perspective, commonly to replace the perspective suggested by the 4 Ps framework (product,
price, promotion, place) by, say, a systems perspective, a behavioral perspective, or even a
"sensory perspective" (Hill, 2003).

The Vargo and Lusch exposition of the service perspective was a lead article in the Journal of
Marketing with eminent marketing academics offering their encomiums and sagacious approval.
The article can be viewed as a conceptual analysis of the Vargo and Lusch paper. Operand and
operant resources Vargo and Lusch distinguish "operand" from "operant" resources, with a claim
made for the centrality of operant resources.

Since the word operand means "something operated on" and the word operant means "tending to
produce effects", the resources worked upon are operand resources while operant resources are
identified with the skills, technology and knowledge employed to generate the results sought
through working on the operand resources. Competitive advantage Knowledge, the authors argue,
as an operant resource, is the fundamental source of competitive advantage.

A critical (competitive advantage) requires employee knowledge of the market. Reminding

hairdressers, doctors, and the Greyhound bus company that their competitive advantage lies in
the application of their knowledge or specialized competences to creating an advantage in the
market would, we suspect, be met with blank stares. Knowledge, Vargo and Lusch go on to
claim, comprises "propositional knowledge", which is abstract and generalized, and "prescriptive
knowledge", which is composed of "techniques".

The exemplars of services: banking, advertising, insurance, consulting, security services and
professional services such as that given by lawyers, accountants, doctors and financial services,
typically have a defining need to embrace personalized execution. Marketing as technology
Vargo and Lusch put most weight on "knowing how": an emphasis reflected in their claim that a
service-centered college curriculum should be based on a course in principles of marketing, since
principles are established rules.
Jurnal 5
Journal of Marketing
Vol. 68 (January 2004), 1–17

Keywords:
MARKET, SERVICE, Dominant Logic, EXCHANGE, MANAGEMENT, PERSPECTIVE,
PROCESS, SHIFT, PARADIGM, marketing management

Digest:

The authors believe that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for
marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic
exchange. The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for
marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators. What appeared to be
separate lines of thought surfaced in relationship marketing, quality management, market
orientation, supply and value chain management, resource management, and networks.

In the early 1990s, Webster (1992, p. 1) argued, "The historical marketing management function,
based on the microeconomic maximization paradigm, must be critically examined for its
relevance to marketing theory and practice." At the end of the twentieth century, Day and
Montgomery (1999, p. 3) suggested that "with growing reservation about the validity or
usefulness of the Four P's concept and its lack of recognition of marketing as an innovating or
adaptive force, the Four P's now are regarded as merely a handy framework." At the same time,
advocating a network perspective, Achrol and Kotler (1999, p. 162) stated, "The very nature of
network organization, the kinds of theories useful to its understanding, and the potential impact
on the organization of consumption all suggest that a paradigm shift for marketing may not be far
over the horizon." Sheth and Parvatiyar (2000, p. 140) suggested that "an alternative paradigm of
marketing is needed, a paradigm that can account for the continuous nature of relationships
among marketing actors." They went as far as stating

Fragmented thought, questions about the future of marketing, calls for a paradigm shift, and
controversy over services marketing being a distinct area of study-are these calls for alarm?
Perhaps marketing thought is not so much fragmented as it is evolving toward a new dominant
logic. Increasingly, marketing has shifted much of its dominant logic away from the exchange of
tangible goods (manufactured things) and toward the exchange of intangibles, spe 2 /Journal of
Marketing, January 2004 1Typical traditional definitions include those of Lovelock (1991, p. 13),
"services are deeds, processes, and performances"; Solomon and colleagues (1985, p. 106),
"services marketing refers to the marketing of activities and processes rather than objects"; and
Zeithaml and Bitner (2000), "services are deeds, processes, and performances." For a definition
consistent with the one we adopt here, see Gronroos (2000). cialized skills and knowledge, and
processes (doing things for and with), which we believe points marketing toward a more
comprehensive and inclusive dominant logic, one that integrates goods with services and
provides a richer foundation for the development of marketing thought and practice.

It is not a matter of redefining services and seeing them from a customer perspective; activities
render services, things render services.The shift in focus to services is a shift from the means and
the producer perspective to the utilization and the customer perspective. The purpose of this
article is to illuminate the evolution of marketing thought toward a new dominant logic. A
Fundamental Shift in Worldview To unravel the changing worldview of marketing or its
dominant logic, we must see into, through, and beyond the extant marketing literature.