Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution
Stephen L. Vargo & Robert F. Lusch
Received: 3 July 2007 / Accepted: 6 July 2007 / Published online: 1 August 2007
# Academy of Marketing Science 2007
Abstract Since the introductory article for what has become known as the “service-dominant (S-D) logic of marketing,” “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for
Marketing,” was published in the Journal of Marketing
(Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a)), there has been considerable discussion and elaboration of its specifics.
This article highlights and clarifies the salient issues associated with S-D logic and updates the original foundational premises (FPs) and adds an FP. Directions for future work are also discussed.
Keywords Service-dominant logic . New-dominant logic .
Service
Introduction
In the few years since we published the first article on what has become known as “service-dominant (S-D) logic,”
“Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing” (Vargo and Lusch 2004a), there has been substantial concurrence, debate, dialog, and inquiry. These varied responses began with the seven commentaries invited by Ruth Bolton (2004), the Journal of Marketing editor who published the article.
Additionally, in the publication of The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions (Lusch and Vargo 2006b), 50 well-recognized scholars reacted and responded to and elaborated S-D logic. The reactions and elaborations continued in the Otago Forum on Service-
Dominant Logic held in New Zealand during November
2005 and the special issue of Marketing Theory (Aitken et al.
2006) that resulted from that forum. They continue with this special issue of the Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, for which we received approximately 70 submissions.
Interestingly, although the call-for-papers solicited manuscripts on the broad theme of “new logics” for marketing the preponderance of the submissions were centered on the S-D logic of marketing.
Most of the responses and comments have been generally supportive, if not favorable. Others have been more cautious, if not skeptical, at least about specific aspects of S-D logic as originally presented. A few have been more critical, either generally or in relation to specific aspects.
We have always claimed that we do not “own” S-D logic but rather that it is more of an open-source evolution that we tried to identify, punctuate, and advance in our initial article and then elaborate and refine through subsequent work, while encouraging other scholars to do the same.
Thus, we have tried to remain as open to comments of skepticism and criticism as we, naturally, have been to praise. In some cases we have found that the S-D logic thesis or some of its components have been misunderstood.
More often, we have found that the insightful comments of our colleagues have offered opportunities for refining and enhancing the specifics of S-D logic as we originally presented it. With a few exceptions (e.g., Lusch and Vargo
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10
DOI 10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6
S. L. Vargo (*)
Shidler Distinguished Professor,
Associate Professor and Shidler College of Business,
University of Hawaii,
2024 Maile Way,
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA e-mail: svargo@hawaii.edu
R. F. Lusch
Lisle & Roslyn Payne Professor of Marketing,
University of Arizona,
320 McClelland Hall, 1130 E. Helen Street,
Tucson, AZ 85721, USA e-mail: rlusch@eller.arizona.edu