{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01975051975051975, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008316008316008316, 'mean_word_length': 4.944444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marketing Scholarship, Intellectual Leadership, and the Zeitgeist

Wilkie and Moore (2003) render a valuable service to scholars and practitioners by tracing the pattern and influences on "thought development" in the field of marketing over the past century. However, in my view, the narrative does not give the reader sufficient insight into the personal forces that shaped the careers of the scholars who created the base of knowledge that Wilkie and Moore extensively cite. In this brief note, I describe some of the forces in Era III that have shaped my own career and, I am confident, the careers of many others who have contributed to the understanding of marketing's social role. I also briefly introduce a distinction between two kinds of leadership and take issue with a key premise of the framework that Wilkie and Moore (2003) use in their overview. I conclude with an alternative view of the broad topic and recommendations for future investigations.