46 The Marketing Book
the types of situations or circumstances when
relationships are especially sought.
If marketing is now about managing rela-
tionships, but this job is too important to
remain in the marketing department, what is
the current function of marketing? This is
another particularly problematic issue that has
yet to be resolved. The literature suggests that
‘the traditional ways of organising the market-
ing function, and of thinking about marketing
activity must be re-examined’ (Wilson, 1995,
p. 10). The problem revolves around the broad
gamut of relationship partners that have been
identified (Gummesson, 1994; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). This range of relationships tends
to fall outside the existing domain of marketing
and, as a result, it has been argued by IMP
researchers that many of these are organiza-
tional strategy rather than marketing issues.
The problem is exacerbated when the interface
between the company and its customers is
primarily through part-time marketers (Gum-
messon, 1987). As a result, the role of marketing
must be identified within the relational para-
digm, as this has important implications for
developing a framework for implementation,
for devising relationship policy, and for dealing
with training requirements.
Exploring relationship variables
What are the antecedents of trust, commitment
etc.? The integral elements of successful rela-
tionships have been identified (Wilson, 1995)
and discussed. However, further research
investigating the antecedents of these elements
is clearly desirable. Taking greater account of
the contextual elements surrounding dyadic
relationships would substantially enhance this.
Thus, the incorporation of broader under-
pinning theory, other than just social exchange
theory, would be useful here.
Do bonds create relationships or do rela-
tionships create bonds? Andersson and S ̈oder-
lund (1988, p. 65) suggest that ‘relationships
can create bonds of technical, planning, knowl-
edge, social and legal content’. Since much of
the other literature suggests that bonds, in fact,
create relationships, research illuminating the
direction of causality would be beneficial.
Understanding of causal direction would also
be particularly relevant as an input into mana-
gerial training. Alternatively, it may be that
causal directions cannot be identified as a result
of the integrative and interactive nature of
relationship variables, the context in which the
research occurs, and the expectations of the
parties concerned.Domain of relationship marketing
There are many questions over the domain of
relationship marketing (Saren and Tzokas,
1998). Relationship marketing has not been
subjected to sufficient critical scrutiny and has
been indiscriminately applied to any issue
where traditional marketing has proved use-
ful. As discussed in an earlier section, the
theoretical roots of relationship marketing are
firmly grounded in business-to-business and
services marketing. However, its wholesale
extension into business-to-consumer markets
and not-for-profit contexts has been of ques-
tionable value. The issues of power and con-
flict, which have been so carefully explored in
other contexts, are ignored in business-to-
consumer marketing (see Fitchett and Mc-
Donagh, 2000; Smith and Higgins, 2000). Can
a single, individual consumer really have a
relationship with a huge, multinational com-
pany? If the customer does recognize a rela-
tionship in such a situation, is the relationship
with the service delivery employee not with
the firm itself? Does not the sheer size and
marketing budget of the firm make the possi-
bility of a mutually beneficial relationship
unlikely, if not impossible? For the consumer
there are likely to be only a few possible
providers of a particular offer, whereas for the
firm there are likely to be millions of potential
customers for their offer, so there is no equity
in the issue of power or importance.