Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
advantage of symmetric rather than asymmetric information, (5) a shift to conversation and
dialog as opposed to propaganda, (6) an understanding that the fi rm can only make and
follow through on value propositions rather than create or add value, (7) a shift in focus to
relational rather than transactional exchange, and (8) a shift to an emphasis on fi nancial
performance for information feedback and learning rather than a goal of profi t maximization.
(Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru 2010: 22)
Collectively, these eight shifts direct organizations to be more sensitive to customer needs and
wants, more adaptive to environment changes, and more capable of learning.
Granted, some of the specifi c ideas and propositions tackled by SDL are not necessarily new.
For instance, manufacturing strategy researchers have long pleaded for 'servitization' (Baines
et al
.
2009; Vandermerwe and Rada 1988; Voss 2005), i.e. 'the innovation of an organization's capabili-
ties and processes to shift from selling products to selling integrated products and services that
deliver value in use' (Baines
et al
. 2009: 547). They argue that an organization's service capabilities,
which allow it to add service components to goods manufacturing and create additional value
to customers, may help it gain a competitive edge over rivals focusing only on manufacturing
capabilities. A major contribution of SDL is it proposes a perspective bring related ideas together.
Since its introduction in 2004, SDL has found much resonance but also drawn criticisms. For
a new perspective still largely lacking empirical evidence, it is understandable some researchers
express criticism of SDL being just a smart way of repackaging or rebranding old ideas (Cova,
Ford and Salle 2009; Grönroos and Voima 2013). Some issues, such as fuzzy defi nitions and
misleading terminologies, or whether 'service' is the proper concept capturing the essence of the
new logic, have at least been partly addressed by Vargo and Lusch (2008a, 2008b). Some other
issues could only be resolved at the philosophical level after researchers agree upon fundamental
issues such as what defi nes service (Grönroos 2006, 2008). Still, key issues remain including the
testability (i.e. whether there is empirical evidence to support the logic and whether the logic is
testable at all), normative power (i.e. whether fi rms should adopt the SDL for better performance)
of SDL (Wright and Russell 2012), and the role of natural (operand) resources in an era of
resource scarcity (Campbell, O'Driscoll and Saren 2012).
Despite these criticisms, by raising some fundamental questions such as what resource is and
who defi nes value, SDL sparks attention to the inadequacy of the current marketing paradigm
and the need to break free from conventional mentality. As Cova, Ford, and Salle (2009: 572)
argue, 'SDL represents an opportunity for a huge amount of new work to be done once the
service orientation is taken.'
Implications for destination marketing
Destination marketing organizations (DMOs) are usually government or non-profi t organizations
engaging in public-private partnerships. Destination marketers hence need to practice a different
set of rules, wherein the concern for social equity transcends destination marketing (or marketing
in public sectors in general) from for-profi t, economic behaviour to a social function with
complicated political and sociological implications (Novatorov and Crompton 2001a, 2001b).
Unlike their private-sector counterparts who prioritize service as a key product differentiator
and/or competitive advantage, destination marketers need to focus more on satisfying many
disparate stakeholders with competing priorities in the marketing process, occasionally at the
expense of service quality and customer involvement. Adopting SDL has some important
implications to destination marketers and destination marketing research. For instance, although
tourism is not traditionally viewed as a knowledge-intensive industry, it becomes clear that the
