Service Dominant Logic

886 Words4 Pages
Service-dominant logic: reactions, reflexions and refinement Authors: Robert F.Lusch and Stephen L.Vargo This article identifies aspects of the service-dominant logic of marketing that need clarification and refinement. It is divided into five sections. The first part talks about “why service-dominant” logic. In fact, they use service in singular and not services. This difference is important because service in singular indicates a process of doing something for someone while services in plural mean units of output as would be consistent with good-dominant logic. We can say there is a relationship between service and good because we use a good to offer a service. Then, they are both important in service-dominant logic. It exists different definitions of a service and they based the service-dominant logic on their definition: “the application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills) through deeds, process, and performances for the benefit of another entity itself”. The first part talked about “why a SD” logic. Someone think that services has won the goods versus services debate and it’s because of this it’s called the service dominant logic. But it’s not true. There is no winner or loser in the debate goods versus services. In SD logic, a good is an appliance used in service provision and service is the common denominator of exchange and thus is hypernymic to goods. One of the fallacies of this debate is that it is couched in a logic that treats ‘services’ as a special kind of product – that is, what goods are not – which is inconsistent with S-D logic. To someone “service” is too vague to represent a new dominant logic, however the work of some scholars has resulted in a number of modifications in the way value creation and exchange are conceptualized which based on a novel definition of service, and the SD logic began to overcome the constraints
Open Document