CONCEPTUAL/THEORETICAL PAPER
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 ServiceDominant
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
2006a; Vargo and Lusch 2006), while we have acknowledged
legitimate issues with some of the original wording
of some of the foundational premises (FPs) of S-D logic,
we have avoided changing them to avoid the confusion
likely to follow a series of isolated modifications in
multiple articles. However, we feel that this issue of JAMS
provides an appropriate venue for addressing the most
central issues and providing essential modifications.
The purpose of this commentary is to explore the major
issues surrounding S-D logic and to offer revisions to the
FPs as published in the 2004 JM article. First, we discuss
several general issues and concerns that have been raised.
Second, we explain and elaborate several misunderstandings
that we have found to be relatively common. We then
offer modifications to the original FPs, add one FP, and
provide explanation in some cases where we do not feel
either a modification or addition is warranted. Finally, we
point toward some directions that the development of S-D
logic could (should) take.
General issues
There have been several relatively salient themes that we
have noted in the suggested refinements for S-D logic.
Among these are the (1) observation that some of the
wording of the original FPs is overly reliant on a goodsdominant
(G-D) logic lexicon, (2) concern that we were
overly managerial in our approach, especially as reflected
in the wording of some FPs, (3) suggestion that we need to
more explicitly recognize the interactive, networked nature
of value creation, and (4) observation that we were not
sufficiently explicit in our acknowledgement of value
creation being phenomenological and experiential in nature.
There is an additional general issue of whether “service” is
the proper designator of the “new dominant logic.” Because
of the central importance of that issue, it is dealt with
separately in this special issue (Vargo and Lusch in this
issue). The others are addressed here.
S-D logic’s G-D lexicon
As discussed elsewhere (Vargo and Morgan 2005), since at
least the time of Smith’s (1776) declaration that “productive”
meant the creation of surplus tangible goods that could be
exported to enhance national wealth, the lexicon of
economics, business, and society in general (in its
discussion of business) has developed around a logic of
tangible goods. The goods-centric nature of the language
of commerce can be seen in the core lexicon: “product,”
“production,” “goods,” “supplier,” “supply chain,” “valueadded,”
“distribution,” “producer,” “consumer,” etc. This
foundational lexicon reflects more than just words available
to talk about goods; it reflects an underlying
paradigm for thinking about commerce, marketing,
and exchange in general. This presents a problem for
any attempt at discussing and describing a counterparadigmatic
view, such as S-D logic. Often, there are no
generally acceptable, counter-paradigmatic, or even
neutral, words available. Thus, it often becomes convenient,
if not necessary, to employ a G-D logic lexicon to
describe an S-D logic foundation.
As we have further discussed and elaborated our view of
S-D logic since “Evolving...” (Vargo and Lusch 2004a) was
published, we have caught and corrected some of the more
critical lexicographic slips that had become apparent.
Examples are the change of FP6 from “The customer is
always a co-producer” to “The customer is always a cocreator
of value” (Vargo and Lusch 2006) and the more
subtle, but critical shift from the use of the (plural) term
“services” (reflecting a special type of output—intangible
product) to the (singular) term “service” (reflecting the
process of using one’s resources for the benefit of another
entity) (Vargo and Lusch 2004b, 2006).
Some terms we did not judge to be sufficiently critical
to warrant changing in isolation. An example is the use of
the phrase “unit of exchange” (see also Ballantyne and
Varey 2006) in FP1, a change we make below. Others are
more problematic because suitable language is hard to
find. For example, the terms “producer” and “consumer”
are clearly inconsistent with S-D logic’s co-creation of
value premise. Yet, at least since The Otago Forum, we
have been asking for suggestions for S-D logic-friendly
alternatives. To date, none has emerged, so we find
ourselves using some combination of “actor” “firm,”
“provider,” “customer,” “beneficiary,” or similarly connotatively
imprecise labels. Still other issues of language,
both in the FPs and their discussion, will likely continue to
emerge. Kohli (2006, p. 291) captures the importance of
this issue of language:
I would like to underscore a critical observation made
by Vargo and Lusch 2006 regarding lexicons. Our
thinking is profoundly influenced, indeed trapped, by
the words we use and the images they evoke. It is
crucial that we find new labels and phrases that help us
think and conceptualize afresh.
We agree.
The managerial phrasing of S-D logic
There have been a number of comments that, as presented,
S-D logic is firm-centric and managerially oriented. These
observations are at least partially correct. Marketing, by
almost any definition, is a professional and applied discipline
(Hunt 1992). Application implies a normative orientation
2 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10
and normative implies a constituency. Additionally,
the Journal of Marketing, in which the first S-D logic article
was published, is a managerially oriented journal. Thus,
the “S-D logic of marketing,” as presented, appropriately,
has a somewhat managerial and firm-centric slant. However,
this acknowledgement does not mean that S-D logic is
applicable only to managers, or even only to marketing (see
Vargo and Lusch 2006).
The more pertinent, general issue is not that the S-D logic
of marketing is overly managerially marketing oriented, but
rather that there is a need for a more robust (than economics)
positive foundation (Vargo 2007) for the development of
normative theory that can inform marketing managers as
well as other constituencies, such as public policy makers.
Venkatesh et al. (2006, p. 252) perhaps capture the central
issue best in their contention that in the marketing literature
the “term market is everywhere and nowhere.” Stated
somewhat differently, while application must be firm—
(or customer, or societal, etc.) centric, understanding should
be market-centric. Thus, what is needed is a general theory
of the market. We contend that S D logic is a generalizable
mindset from which a general theory of the market can be
developed; the S D logic of marketing is a specific
application of the logic. We (Lusch and Vargo 2006c; Vargo
and Lusch 2006) have also suggested that S-D logic could
provide the foundation for a revised theory of the firm
(and other resource-integrating activities), a theory of service
systems (see also Maglio and Spohrer in this issue), and a
revised theory of economics and society.
Having said this, for reasons discussed, some of the
wording in the original FPs is a little unnecessarily firm
centric, or at least G-D-logic-lexicon driven. These issues
are addressed further in later sections (see also Vargo and
Lusch 2006).
Interactive and networked nature of value creation
As noted in Lusch and Vargo (2006a), several scholars
(e.g., Achrol and Kotler 2006; Gronroos 2006; Gummesson
2006) have pointed out that we were not as explicit about
the interactive and networked nature of value creation and
exchange as might be appropriate. We agree. As we also
noted then, “it is not so much that S-D ignores interaction
and networks as it deals with them somewhat implicitly”
(Vargo and Lusch 2006, p. 285).
The interaction orientation is clearly present in FP6 (as
restated in Vargo and Lusch 2006): “The customer is
always a co-creator of value.” It is also implied by the
relational orientation specified in FP8. The network
orientation is somewhat more oblique, if not opaque, but is
implied in FP2 where it is indicated that indirect exchange
masks the nature of exchange. That is, indirect exchange
implies networks or, as we stated originally: “Over time,
exchange moved from one-to-one trading of specialized
skills to the indirect exchange of skills in vertical marketing
systems and increasingly large, bureaucratic hierarchical
organizations” (Vargo and Lusch 2004a, p.8). Thus, value
networks and constellations, as we later argued (e.g., Lusch
and Vargo 2006c), will continue to mask the fundamental
nature of exchange. In addition, networks are implied in the
original FP9—“Organizations exist to integrate and transform
micro-specialized competences into complex services
that are demanded in the marketplace—but becomes more
apparent in its almost immediate restatement (Lusch and
Vargo 2006a, p. 283–4)—“all economic actors (e.g.,
individuals, households, firms, nations, etc.) are resource
integrators.”
We made the interaction and networks, and thus the
relational nature of value creation, to S-D logic considerably
more central and explicit in subsequent writing (e.g.,
Lusch and Vargo 2006a, c) and in numerous presentations.
For instance we show (Lusch and Vargo 2006c, p. 411) the
close link between specialization and the exchange of
service for service and networks and interaction.
...as the division of labor increased, another important
development occurred—the connectedness of individuals.
As each person specializes we become more
dependent and connected to others. Thus both the
extent of the market and the density of the network of
interconnections is a function of the division of labor
in society.
We more directly emphasize interactivity and networks
by formal inclusion in the revised FPs and related
elaborations of this update. Michel et al., in their discussion
of discontinuous innovation, in which reconfigured value
constellations are common, and the writing of Payne et al.
(both in this issue), on managing the co-creation of value,
also contribute to the discussion of the network nature of
value creation.
The phenomenological/experiential nature of value
We have always considered value to be phenomenologically
determined. We believe that this orientation is implied by the
term “service,” as we have defined it. It is also reflected in
the JM (Vargo and Lush 2004a) article in the use of terms
like “consumer’s perceptions,” “meeting higher-level
needs,” “customer determination,” “co-creation,” etc., in
conjunction with the discussion of “service” to capture its
phenomenological nature and idiosyncratic determination.
Yet, we acknowledge that “experience” is perhaps a more
contemporarily specific and descriptive term. In the JM
article, our focus was on the connection between a market
provider and a market beneficiary (value co-creator)—that
is, on the service provision process—rather than the
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10 3
specifics of how value is uniquely and contextually
interpreted. Some (e.g., Shembri 2006) construed this
single-article treatment as evidence that we considered
value-determination by the customer to be entirely
“rationalistic,” which we do not. Others, perhaps based
on a more extensive review of S-D logic literature, found
it relatively easy to make the connections between what
we were advocating and a more interpretivistic perspective.
For example, Arnould (2006, p. 293–4) recognized
the connection in his contention that S-D logic and
Consumer Culture Theory are “natural allies.”
“Vargo and Lusch’s (2004a) premise three: ‘Goods are
Distribution Mechanisms for Service Provision’,
recalls Sid Levy’s ‘Symbols for Sale’ (1959). In this
text (foundation) of Consumer Culture Theory, he
asserted that people buy things for what they mean...
Premise three, like the definition of service itself
(Vargo and Lusch 2006b, p. 4), also recalls Deighton’s
(1992) contention that people don’t buy objects, but
instead buy performances. CCT researchers [are in a
position to] understand how consumers perform
service with firm-provided offerings.
Regardless, we find the term “experience” closer to our
intended meaning than were the words that we had
originally used. In fact, it is the term we have increasingly
used (Vargo and Lusch 2004b; Lusch et al. 2007).
However, for reasons discussed below, we find the term
“phenomenological,” arguably, more precise, or at least less
subject to multiple connotations.
In a similar vein, Penaloza and Venkatesh (2006) suggest
the term “meaning” to capture both phenomenological
interpretation and cultural context. Like Arnould’s (2006)
amplification, we believe that Penaloza and Venkatesh’s
elaboration of S-D logic provides enrichment to the
underlying framework. We make our experiential/phenomenological
understanding of value more explicit in our
modification of the FPs in this commentary.
Misunderstandings or misinterpretations
In Vargo and Lusch (2006), we discussed several misunderstandings
about S-D logic. Generally, we point the
interested reader to that chapter. However, several issues are
so central that they are worthy of emphasis here. Among
these are the ideas that (1) S-D logic is necessitated and/or
justified by the fact that we have entered a “services
economy,” (2) the notion that S-D logic applies only to
dyadic, firm/customer exchange, and (3) the contention that
S-D logic does not accommodate or pay sufficient attention
to social and nonprofit marketing and marketing ethics.
These issues are discussed below.
The “Services Economy” justification of S-D logic
Perhaps one of the most frequently stated misconceptions
about S-D logic is that it is justified by the fact that
many national economies have now become “service
economies.” Ironically, the perception of a service
economy is mostly an aberration of G-D logic thinking.
S-D logic says that the application of competences for
the benefit of another party—that is, service—is the
foundation of all economic exchange. Thus, even when
goods are involved, what is driving economic activity is
service—applied knowledge. It is instructive to note that
at least 100 years before the term “service economy” was
coined and deep in the middle of the “Industrial
Revolution,” Bastiat (1848) was arguing that “services
are exchanged for services,” essentially, our FP5: “all
economies are service economies.”
What has changed today is not that services are
overtaking goods in economic activity, but rather that the
relative inadequacy of the goods-based classification
system of businesses for capturing and informing changes
in economic activity is becoming increasingly apparent.
Because of the G-D logic-based economic foundation,
most countries use an economic classifications system
centered on the good (or more generally, units of output—
manufactured goods, agricultural commodities; minerals,
etc.). One has to look no further than the titles of the
classification system(s) in the U.S.—historically, the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), now supplanted
by the North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS).
What is changing today is not the sudden emergence
of service but, rather, the combination of (1) increasing
ability to separate, transport, and exchange information,
apart from embodiment in goods and people and (2)
increasing specialization—what Normann (2001) calls
“liquification” and “unbundling,” respectively—allowing
increased outsourcing. These changes might create
new opportunities for service provision but they do not
change the nature of what is being exchanged (applied
knowledge and skills). They just lead to increases in
economic exchanges that are necessarily classified residually,
in relation to goods—that is, as “services”—in a
goods-centered classification system (Vargo and Lusch
2004b).
The reason this distinction is critical is that the notion
of a tertiary and recent “services economy” blinds us to
the fundamental nature of exchange and, thus, to
opportunities in innovation. We argue that the S-D logic
premise that all economies are service economies and the
postulate that all businesses are service business liberates
marketers to think of innovation in new and innovative
ways (as Michel et al. in this issue encourage). That is,
4 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10
innovation is not defined by what firms produce as output
but how firms can better serve. It is a distinction we make
between competing with services vs. competing through
service (Lusch et al. 2007).
S-D logic as a dyadic, firm/customer, exchange perspective
Perhaps partly because we initially focused the S-D logic
discussion of value co-creation on “firm”/“customer”
exchange, there is a tendency to think that we are
suggesting that it only applies to this dyadic exchange.
For similar reasons that it is incorrect to suggest S-D
logic is limited to marketing management, the firm/
customer characterization is also incorrect. That is, while
we initially focused on exchange between two parties,
we have increasingly tried to make it clear that it needs
to be understood that the venue of value creation is the
value configurations—economic and social actors within
networks interacting and exchanging across and through
networks. Consequently, value creation takes place
within and between systems at various levels of
aggregation. The former point originally centered on
descriptions of “value constellations” and “value-creation
network partners” and later on discussions of “resource
integrators” (Lusch and Vargo 2006a; Vargo 2007).
The later point is partially captured in the increasing
attention we have given international (e.g., country-tocountry)
exchange (Lusch et al. 2006) and employee
treatment (e.g., Lusch et al. 2007). More recently,
we have been extending the applicability of S-D logic
to all entities that exchange to improve their own state
of being (e.g., individuals, families, firms, societies,
nations, etc.).
Increasingly, some of expanded applicability is occurring
in conjunction with the development of “service
science,” an industry-led, university-assisted movement
to create a new discipline to study exchange among
“service systems.” As Maglio and Spohrer (this issue)
note;
A service system represents any value-co-creation
configuration of people, technology, value propositions
connecting internal and external service systems,
and shared information (e.g., language, laws, and
measures). The smallest service system centers on an
individual as he or she interacts with others, and the
largest service system comprises the global economy.
Cities, city departments, businesses, business departments,
nations, and national agencies are all service
systems.
The general orientation of S-D logic applies to any
service system. Even in the somewhat limited-focus of the
S-D logic of marketing, it is directly applicable to firms,
employees, “suppliers,” customers, and a variety of other
stakeholders. That is, the service-for-service perspective of,
S-D logic characterizes the interaction within and among all
of theses service systems.
Accommodation of social and non-profit marketing
and ethics
In a sense, those who contend that we have not dedicated a
great deal of attention to societal and ethical issues are
probably correct. Yet, S-D logic is particularly accommodating
to these issues. As we have noted, we have not intended
our explication of S-D logic to be comprehensive; rather, our
intention has been to identify S-D logic and invite the
discipline to join us in elaborating it. We are gratified that
Abela and Murphy take up some of this challenge by
examining the ethical foundations of S-D logic in this issue.
Ironically, we suggest that it is the G-D logic on which
most of the current work on societal and ethical issues is
grounded that is not particularly accommodating; worse, it
could be argued that G-D logic is the source of some of the
underlying concerns. Consider the difference in the way a
logic that says something like “the purpose of commerce is to
make and sell more units of output” informs social and ethical
issues differently from a logic that says “the purpose of
exchange is to mutually serve.” In relation to ethics, Abela
and Murphy (this issue) state it much more eloquently.
...there is a compartmentalization of ethical issues in
current marketing theory that causes ethical tensions,
which in turn give rise to ethical conflict, and that this
compartmentalization is largely overcome in the
Service-Dominant (S-D) logic proposed by Vargo
and Lusch (2004). This compartmentalization is
problematic for marketing ethics, both theoretically
and practically. The theoretical problem with the
current approach to marketing ethics is that the
presumption of a clear separation between business
theory and ethical theory is difficult to sustain. The
practical problem is that ethical theory must be
brought in as a check on recommendations generated
by marketing theory, creating a separate step that can
easily be overlooked by marketing practitioners. The
emerging S-D logic with its foundational principles
offers a more integrative approach that avoids such
compartmentalization, and therefore should reduce
ethical conflicts in marketing. We propose that many
of the foundational premises of the S-D logic are
inherently ethical—they appear to presume or incorporate
within them ethical norms.
Similarly, “social marketing” (e.g., Kotler and Zaltman
1971) seems to have several somewhat overlapping meanings,
including both the idea of offering only what is good
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10 5
for society and the marketing of ideas and getting people to
do things that some party considers good for them.
Sometimes it also is attached to non-profit marketing,
usually focused on the marketing of intangibles. However,
it seems to us that traditional G-D logic is neither
accommodating to “goodness” nor the marketing of
intangibles. S-D logic, with its core notions that (1) service
is the fundamental basis of exchange, (2) service is
exchanged for service, and (3) the customer is always a
co-creator of value (see FP1, FP5, FP6), is especially
compatible with social and non-profit marketing.
More generally, we have suggested elsewhere that S-D
logic could provide a foundation for the development of a
new theory of society. As we state in Vargo and Lusch
2006, p. 54).
The central notions of S-D logic are that fundamental
to human well-being, if not survival, is specialization
by individuals in a subset of knowledge and skills
(operant resources) and exchanging the application of
these resources for the application of knowledge and
skills they do not specialize...This shift in focus from
operand to operant resources has implications for
understanding social interaction and structure that are
markedly different from the ones suggested by a focus
on the exchange of operand resources and potentially
has ramifications for understanding exchange processes,
dynamics, structures, and institutions beyond
commerce.
Thus, we see S-D logic not only accommodative but
potentially foundational to not only social marketing and
issues of ethics but also more general societal issues and
non-profit marketing.
Modifications and additions
As noted, since about the time “Evolving...” (Vargo and
Lusch 2004a) was published, we have noticed wording that
could be improved. Additionally, others have pointed out
potential wording and conceptual issues. In a few isolated
cases (e.g., Lusch and Vargo 2006a; Vargo and Lusch 2006)
we have already made modifications to FPs. In the
following sections we (1) reemphasize previous modifications,
(2) discuss some of the more frequently raised (or
noticed by us) issues and modify additional FPs, and (3)
provide elaboration in cases in which the issues may be
valid but an FP modification might not be warranted, in our
opinion. The guiding principle is to make as few changes as
possible for consistency while making as many as necessary
for clarity. We make one addition to the FPs. Both the
original FPs and the modified/added FPs are shown in
Table 1.
FP1: The application of specialized skill(s)
and knowledge is the fundamental unit of exchange
Ballantyne and Varey (2006) were the first to point out
what should have been obvious to us: “unit of exchange” is
inherently goods-centric phrase because it suggests that
what is being exchanged is units of output, whereas S-D
logic revolves around processes. However, we did not
consider the correction of this inappropriate word choice to
be sufficiently critical to warrant changing it either in the
book or subsequent articles, for reasons discussed above.
We believe that this special issue provides a more
appropriate opportunity and have changed “unit” to
“basis.”
Arguably more important, since the “application of
skills and knowledge” (operant resources) for the
benefit of another party is “service” as we define it
(Vargo and Lusch 2004a; 2006), we have simplified FP1
to reflect more directly the central role of service in
exchange. That is, “service is the fundamental basis of
exchange.”
FP2: Indirect exchange masks the fundamental unit
of exchange
For reasons essentially identical to those associated with the
word “unit” (of exchange) being an inappropriate choice for
FP1, it is not appropriate for FP2. Thus, we also change
“unit” to “basis” in FP2: “Indirect exchange masks the
fundamental basis of exchange.”
FP4: Knowledge is the fundamental source
of competitive advantage
Knowledge and skills represent “operant resources,” as
we defined the latter in Vargo and Lusch (2004a).
However, when we wrote the original article, the operand/
operant resource distinction was generally an unfamiliar
one, so we did not use the term in the FPs. The distinction
is now not only relatively common knowledge but also
seems to have resonated well. Thus, we have more
precisely made “operant resources” the focus of FP4:
“Operant resources are the fundamental source of
competitive advantage.”
Ballantyne and Varey (2006) also argue for a change
from “knowledge” to “knowledge renewal” to emphasize
their contention that knowledge renewal processes operating
at the micro (firm, employee) level are primary to
competitive advantage and can be activated by communication
and dialog (Ballantyne 2004). We have no argument
with their thesis, but see “renewal” as implicit to FP4 and
6 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10
we consider their point an elaboration of, rather than
integral to, the premise.
FP5: All economies are services economies
At the time that we initially developed the FPs of S-D
logic, we had not fully made the transition form the
plural “services” to the singular “service,” to more
clearly reflect a process of using one’s resources for the
benefit of another entity. Now that we have, it is
appropriate to make the change in FP5: “All economies
are service economies.”
FP6: The customer is always a co-producer
As discussed, FP6 represents one of several instances in
which we got trapped in G-D logic lexicon. We caught this
oversight about the time that numerous others were calling
it to our attention. Clearly, S-D logic is primarily about
value creation, rather than “production,” making units of
output. The emphasis was intended to be on the collaborative
nature of value creation, but that emphases could
easily become lost in the connotations of “production.”
Because the distinction between co-creation of value and
co-production is critical to the S-D logic thesis, we changed
Table 1 Service-dominant logic foundational premise modifications and additions
FPs Original foundational premise Modified/new foundational premise Comment/explanation
FP1 The application of specialized skill(s) and
knowledge is the fundamental unit of
exchange
Service is the fundamental
basis of exchange
The application of operant resources
(knowledge and skills), “service,”
as defined in S-D logic, is the basis
for all exchange. Service is
exchanged for service
FP2 Indirect exchange masks the fundamental unit
of exchange
Indirect exchange masks the
fundamental basis of
exchange
Because service is provided through
complex combinations of goods,
money, and institutions,
the service basis of exchange is
not always apparent
FP3 Goods are a distribution mechanism for service
provision
Goods are a distribution
mechanism for service
provision
Goods (both durable and non-durable)
derive their value through use – the
service they provide
FP4 Knowledge is the fundamental source of
competitive advantage
Operant resources are the
fundamental source of
competitive advantage
The comparative ability to cause
desired change drives competition
FP5 All economies are services economies All economies are service
economies
Service (singular) is only now
becoming more apparent with
increased specialization and
outsourcing
FP6 The customer is always a co-producer The customer is always a cocreator
of value
Implies value creation is interactional
FP7 The enterprise can only make value propositions The enterprise cannot deliver
value, but only offer value
propositions
Enterprises can offer their applied
resources for value creation and
collaboratively (interactively)
create value following acceptance
of value propositions, but can not
create and/or deliver value
independently
FP8 A service-centered view is customer oriented
and relational
A service-centered view is
inherently customer
oriented and relational
Because service is defined in terms
of customer-determined benefit and
co-created it is inherently customer
oriented and relational
FP9 Organizations exist to integrate and transform
microspecialized competences into complex
services that are demanded in the marketplace
All social and economic
actors are resource
integrators
Implies the context of value creation
is networks of networks
(resource integrators)
FP10 Value is always uniquely
and phenomenologically
determined by the
beneficiary
Value is idiosyncratic, experiential,
contextual, and meaning laden
Words in bold type represent changes in wording from the original FPs (Vargo and Lusch 2004a, 2006).
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10 7
FP6 to refer to co-creation the first time we had a chance
(see Vargo and Lusch 2006).
However, we believe that co-production, though distinct
from (but nested within) co-creation of value, has a place in
S-D logic. Thus, we further emphasized the change to FP6
and the distinction in Lusch and Vargo (2006a). In short,
we argue that co-production is a component of co-creation
of value and captures “participation in the development of
the core offering itself” (p. 284), especially when goods are
used in the value-creation process.
Some seem to have interpreted FP6 as a normative
statement. It is actually intended as a positive statement.
Our argument is that value obtained in conjunction with
market exchanges can not be created unilaterally but always
involves a unique combination of resources and an
idiosyncratic determination of value (also see FP10) and
thus the customer is always a co-creator of value. On the
other hand, the involvement in “co-production” is optional
and can vary from none at all to extensive co-production
activities by the customer or user. Hopefully, the coproduction
versus co-creation of value distinction makes
this misinterpretation less likely. FP6 now states “the
customer is always a co-creator of value.”
FP7: The enterprise can only make value propositions
It appears that FP7 has been misinterpreted by some or, at
least, it is subject to misinterpretation as written. That is, the
casual reader could interpret it to mean that once the
enterprise has made a value proposition, it is finished with
its part of the value-creation process. This was not the
intention. Rather, it was intended to convey that the
enterprise cannot unilaterally create and/or deliver value.
“Value co-creation” (FP6) and “relational” (FP8) imply that
both the offeror and the beneficiary of service collaboratively
create value. Thus, we have tried to make the
intended distinction between value creation and value
proposing more explicit in the revised FP: “The enterprise
can not deliver value, but only offer value propositions.”
FP8: A service-centered view is customer oriented
and relational
As with FP6, it is possible to interpret the original FP8 as
normative—that is, advocating a customer orientation and
relationship. Rather, it is intended to be a positive statement.
That is, in the consideration of value creation with G-D,
logic the customer and the firm are separate, with the former
as a creator of value and the later a destroyer. With S-D
logic, value creation is an interactive process and, thus, the
firm and customer must be considered in a relational context.
Furthermore, in S-D logic, value is always determined by the
beneficiary of service—in the unique experience of that
benefit—and, thus it is inherently customer oriented.
Ironically, then, no “consumer orientation” is necessary in
S-D logic. In fact, we have argued (Vargo and Lusch 2006)
that the existence of a “consumer orientation” is evidence of
the inadequacy of G-D logic; it is a “fix” for a fundamental
flaw. In S-D logic, no such fix is needed.
Similarly, in S-D logic, “relational” is not a normative
option. The “co-creation of value” premise (FP5) makes
value creation inherently relational. That is, value can not
be created any other way. As we noted in Vargo and Lusch
(2004a):
It may be argued that at least some firms and
customers seek single transactions rather than
relationships. If relationship is understood in the
limited sense of multiple transactions over an
extended period of time, this argument might appear
persuasive. However... even apparently relatively
discrete transactions come with social, if not legal,
contracts (often relatively extended) with implied, if
not expressed, warranties. They are promises and
assurances that the exchange relationship will yield
valuable service provision, often for very extended
periods of time. These contracts are at least partially
represented by the brand of the offering firm. Part of
the compensation for the service provision is the
creation and accumulation of brand equity (an off
balance sheet resource).
Customers may also not desire multiple discrete
transactions. However, the consumer is similarly not
freed of relational participation....we argue that value
is co-produced (FP6)... Service provision and the cocreation
of value imply that exchange is inherently
relational.
To emphasize this normative/positive distinction, we have
added the word “inherently” to FP8: “A service-centered
view is inherently customer oriented and relational.”
FP9: Organizations exist to integrate and transform
microspecialized competences into complex services
that are demanded in the marketplace
FP9 was not part of the original set of FPs as published in
Vargo and Lusch (2004a) but was added in Vargo and
Lusch (2006). As we expressed soon after (Lusch and
Vargo 2006a, p. 284):
[B]efore the ink was dry on FP9, we realized that the
resource-integration role of the firm is equally applicable
to individuals and households (Arnould 2006);
or more generally, all economic entities are resource
integrators. It is this unique application of uniquely
8 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10
integrated resources that motivates and constitutes
exchange, both economic and otherwise.
We did not however formally change the FP at that time. We
believe that this special issue is the proper place to do so.
But as we do, we find ourselves faced with the recurring
difficulty of finding the proper designation for these generic
resource integrators. Clearly, “organizations” is not appropriate
because individuals are resource integrators. With
something less than complete comfort, we have chosen to
adopt the term that the IPM Group (and others) uses (e.g.,
Hakansson and Snehota 1995): “actors.” For present
purposes, we have identified the parties involved in
exchange relationships as “economic and social actors.”
However, we are not forever committed to that term.
Alternatively, “service systems” (Spohrer et al. 2007) might
be a good, S-D friendly term, but we suspect it is not yet
sufficiently familiar to marketing scholars and practitioners.
Therefore, the revised FP10 is “All social and economic
actors are resource integrators.”
FP10: Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically
determined by the beneficiary
As acknowledged, we were probably not sufficiently explicit
about the experiential nature of value in “Evolving...” (Vargo
and Lusch 2004a). FP10 – “Value is always uniquely and
phenomenolgically determined by the beneficiary” – is
intended to correct that. Note, however, that we chose the
word “phenomenological” rather than “experiential.” This is
partly because of the fact that we have found when many
people encounter the term “experience,” it often invokes
connotations of something like a “Disneyworld event.” Of
course, the word experience has several other meanings as
well, including previous interaction. However, to the extent
that the word experience is intended in a phenomenological
sense, we are comfortable with the terms being used
interchangeably, as we have done on a number of occasions.
Where to
Ultimately, it is the discipline that will determine where SD
logic goes from here. We have suggested a number of
possibilities (Vargo and Lusch 2006; Lusch and Vargo
2006a, c). As with our discussion of misconceptions, we point
the reader to those sources. However, we do want reemphasize
a few of the possibilities and share some of our vision.
The scholarly work of the large and growing number of
scholars who have contributed to the special sessions,
independent articles, and special issues and other publications
have already contributed to and helped set the course
for S-D logic well beyond anything that we have or could
have done. The articles that make up this special issue
continue to set the course. However, these and other
directions remain to be fully explored. Among some of the
specific, central issues that are ripe for further elaboration are
value propositions, value networks and constellations,
dialogue as a dominant communication form, internal
service systems, global service systems, and new conceptualization
of global wealth and wellbeing based on service
thinking. There are of course endless others.
More generally, some have called S-D logic a theory. It
is not, at least as we understand the requirement of theory—
law-like generalizations, ability to both explain and predict,
etc. (e.g., Hunt 2002). We believe that this qualification is
not so much a caveat as it is a statement of potential
potency. Our characterization of a generalized S-D logic is
that it is a mindset, a lens through which to look at social
and economic exchange phenomena so they can potentially
be seen more clearly. That is, S-D logic functions at the pretheoretic,
paradigm level—though it is also not a paradigm
because it does not have “worldview” status.
The more specific, S-D logic of marketing is the result of
using this lens to refocus on the particular issues related
specifically to marketing. Thus, as we have suggested
elsewhere (e.g., Lusch and Vargo 2006c; Vargo and Lusch
2006), it could provide a foundation for a general theory of
marketing. Panning back slightly, it could provide a similar
foundation for a general theory of the market (Vargo 2007;
Venkatesh et al. 2006), which we believe would be an even
more solid basis for a general theory of marketing than the
economic science foundation found presently.
One particularly intriguing possibility is for S-D logic
to provide the philosophical and conceptual foundation for
the development of service science, as has been suggested
by its primary framers (Maglio and Spohrer in this issue).
The intrigue stems from the fact that service science has
the potential of taking the perspective of value co-creation
and exchange beyond the market by providing a systems
orientation that takes the issues out of the economic arena
and re-contextualizing them. Thus, ironically, it has the
potential of shedding light on the role of exchange
between and among service systems at different levels of
analysis (e.g., individuals, organizations, social units,
nations, etc.), thus enriching marketing in ways that are
difficult from its usual tighter, enterprise, economic, and
normative focus, even when enhanced through S-D logic.
Likewise, panning back still further, S-D logic could
provide a basis for reorienting theories of society and
economic science.
Some will find these potential directions overly ambitious
or at least beyond the scope of marketing-generated
scholarship. But consider that, for its first one hundred
years, marketing has largely borrowed most of its core
concepts, models, and theories and, of course, all of its
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10 9
basic paradigmatic foundation—that is, goods-dominant
logic – from other disciplines. Perhaps it is time that
marketing, from its somewhat unique, market-centered
perspective, contribute more directly to the general understanding
of value creation and exchange. This might be at
least partially what Alderson (1957, p. 69) had in mind over
50 years ago, when he advocated “What is needed is not an
interpretation of the utility created by marketing but a
marketing interpretation of the whole process of creating
utility.” We believe S-D logic is a step toward realizing
Alderson’s call.
Acknowledgement We would like to thank David Ballantyne and
Richard Varey for their insights and suggestions for developing this
commentary.
References
Abela, A. V., & Murphy, P. E. (2008). Marketing with integrity: Ethics
and the service dominant logic for marketing. (in this issue).
Achrol, R., & Kotler, P. (2006). The service-dominant logic for
marketing: A critique. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The
service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and
directions (pp. 320–333). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Aitken, R., Ballantyne, D., Osborne, P., & Williams, J. (2006).
Introduction to the special issue on the service-dominant logic of
marketing: Insights from The Otago Forum. Market Theory, 6,
275–281 (Sept).
Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: A
functionalist approach to marketing theory. Homewood IL:
Richard D. Irwin.
Arnould, E. J. (2006). Service-dominant logic and consumer culture
theory: Natural allies in an emerging paradigm. Marketing
Theory, 6(3), 293–298.
Ballantyne, D. (2004). Dialogue and its role in the development of
knowledge. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19(2),
114–123.
Ballantyne, D., & Varey, R. J. (2006). Introducing a dialogical
orientation to the service-dominant logic of marketing. In R. F.
Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of
marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 224–235).
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Bastiat, F. (1848/1964). Selected essays on political economy, S. Cain,
trans., G. B. de Huszar, ed., Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nordstrand.
Bolton, R. (2004). Invited commentaries on evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 18–27,
(January).
Deighton, J. (1992). The consumption of performance. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19(3), 362–373, (December).
Gronroos, C. (2006). What can service logic offer marketing theory?
In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.), The Service-dominant logic
of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 354–364).
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Gummesson, E. (2006). Many-to-many marketing as grand theory. In
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (eds), The service-dominant logic of
marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 339–353),
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Hakansson, H., & Snehota, I. (1995). Developing relationships in
business newtworks. London: Routledge.
Hunt, S. (1992). Marketing is.... Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 20, 301–311, (Fall).
Hunt, S. (2002). Foundations of marketing theory: Toward a general
theoryof marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kohli, A. K. (2006). Dynamic integration: Extending the concept of
resource integration. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 290–291.
Kotler, S. J., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to
planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 3–12.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard business Review, 37,
117–124, (July–August).
Lusch, R. F. (2006). The small and long view. Journal of Macromarketing,
26, 240–244, (December).
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006a). The service-dominant logic of
marketing: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing
Theory, 6(3), 281–288.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006b). The service-dominant logic of
marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions, Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006c). Service-dominant logic as a
foundation for a general theory. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo
(Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate,
and directions (pp. 406–420). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & Malter, A. (2006). Marketing as
service-exchange: Taking a leadership role in global marketing
management. Organizational Dynamics, 35(3), 264–278.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Competing
through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal
of Retailing, 83(1), 5–18.
Michel, S., Stephen, W., & Gallen, A. S. (2008). Exploring and
categorizing discontinuous innovations: A service-dominant
logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
(this issue).
Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (this issue).
Normann, R. (2001). Reframing business: When the map changes the
landscape. Chichester, New Sussex: Wiley.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K, & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation
of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, (this
issue).
Penaloza, L., & Venkatesh, A. (2006). Further evolving the new
dominant logic of marketing: From services to the construction of
markets. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 299–316.
Shemebri, S. (2006). Rationalizing service logic, or understanding
services as experience? Marketing Theory, 6(3), 381–392.
Spohrer, J., Maglio, P. P., Bailey, J., & Gruhl, D. (2007). Steps toward
a science of service systems. IEEE Computer Society, 40, 71–77,
(January).
Vargo, S. L. (2007). On a theory of markets and marketing: From
positively normative to normatively positive. Australasian
Journal of Marketing, (in press).
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant
logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17, (January).
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004b). The four services marketing
myths: Remnants from a manufacturing model. Journal of
Service Research, 324–335, (May).
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it
is, what it is not, what it might be. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo
(Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate,
and directions (pp. 43–56). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Why service. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science (this issue).
Vargo, S. L., & Morgan, F. W. (2005). An historical reexamination of
the nature of exchange: The service-dominant perspective.
Journal of Macromarketing, 25(1), 42–53.
Venkatesh, A., Penaloza, L., & Firat, F. (2006). The market as a sign
system and the logic of the market. In R. F. Lusch, & S. L. Vargo
(Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate,
and directions (pp. 251–265). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
10 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:1–10