Distinction between Theory and Law in Marketing Researc/Problems and Symptoms Often Confused/Combining Induction and Deduction

Distinction between Theory and Law in Marketing Research

When a theory is in use it stands out to be challenged by new competing similar theories. It however remains THE THEORY until a new higher superior theory comes into existence. A new superior theory cannot exist side-by-side with an “inferior” theory. Therefore the higher theory displaces the existing lower theory. If a theory ages perfectly over time, it earns the position of Law of science, which is virtually synonymous with the law of nature. Law is defined ordinarily, as a system of rules that must be obeyed or the way in which things happen in an activity, which is assumed or accepted to be the rule because it is unchangeable rule. Law of science is a product of scientific enquiry e.g. the law of gravity.

 Marketing Research Problems and Symptoms Often Confused

The moral of marketing manager should understand the target market and what needs the firm can satisfy. Then the manager can focus on lower-level problems – namely, how sensitive the target market is to a change in one or more of the marketing mix ingredients. Without such a framework, marketing researchers can waste time, and money, working on the wrong problem.

The problem definition step sounds simple – and that’s the danger. It’s easy to confuse symptoms with the problem. Suppose a firm’s Miss shows that the company’s sales are decreasing in certain territories while expenses are remaining the same resulting in a decline in profits. Will it help to define the problem by asking: How can we stop the sales decline? Probably not. This would be like fitting a hearing – impaired patient with a hearing aid without first trying to find out why the patient was having trouble hearing.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for the problem. When this happens, the research objectives are not clear, and researchers may ignore relevant questions – while analyzing unimportant question in expensive detail.

 Combining Induction and Deduction in Marketing Research

Induction and deduction are used in research reasoning in a sequential manner. John Dewey describes this process as the double movement of reflective thought. Induction occurs when we observe a fact and ask. Why is this? In answer to this question, we advance a tentative explanation (hypothesis). The hypothesis is plausible if it explains the event or condition (fact) that prompted the question.

Deduction is the process by which we test whether the hypothesis is capable of explaining the fact.
Examine these:

1. You promote a product but sales don’t increase (fact 1) 
2. You ask the question. Why didn’t sales increase? (induction) 
3. You infer confusion (hypothesis) to answer the question. The promotion was poorly executed. (Hypothesis). 

You use this hypothesis to conclude (deduce) that the sales will not increase during a poorly executed promotion. You know from experience that ineffective promotion will not increase sales (Deduction).