Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal

To the Library!

In this blog post, I will be reviewing one of the top three journals that I selected from the last post in order to learn more about the Marketing field.

Journal of Marketing via Jake Gyles

All about the Journal of Marketing

Who are the authors?

The authors of the January 2016 edition are V. Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Ram Bezawada, Rishika Rishika, Ramkumar Janakiraman, P.K. Kannan, Saurabh Mishra, Sachin B. Modi, Woojung Chang, Steven A. Taylor, Bulent Menguc, Seigyoung Auh, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Yeon Sung Jung, Johannes Habel, Laura Marie Schons, Sascha Alavi, Jan Wieseke, Christopher R. Plouffe, Willy Bolander, Joseph A. Cote, and Bryan Hochstein (yeah there's a shit ton of authors in this issue).

To be honest, I have no clue who these people are. I don't know anything about the professionals in Marketing. I'll pick a few and see what they do, they better be interesting that's for sure.

Update, here's what I found after some online creeping of Joseph A. Cote and Jan Wieseke (Why'd I pick them? No clue just roll with it here). Joseph A. Cote, not Banks, is a Marketing big shot. He's the director of Marketing and Business Development at Branding for the People, so he's been around the block a few times. Jan Wieseke is actually a University professor for the Sales and Marketing Department for a University in Europe. These authors are no joke, and they seem to know their stuff.

The authors and speakers aren't really portrayed in the journal, they don't seem to have an apparent voice. I think this is because everyone has an input, so it'd be like all of the authors talking at once.

The intended audience for this issue is people involved in the Marketing field, that are looking into issues that could be challenged. The articles address Marketing principles that are popular, and they show research about how these ideas could be wrong. There doesn't seem to be a second audience, as it seems pretty straightforward to who this is for. One title challenges the "Customer is always right" idea, and leads into a read that may change your mind to think otherwise.

I can not get a read on the context of this journal. I don't know what to put here. It's as simple as the fact that this is a Marketing journal that is meant for Marketing personnel and that's it. There's no context. I have to go out of my way to find this work, it doesn't simply fall into the public's lap okay. It's a modern day text from January of this year. This is the only journal I know of that doesn't say where it's published from. This "context" doesn't affect the content, because I don't think people in Marketing give a damn if this book is published in Texas or Arizona or wherever. They care about the findings of the professors and that's it. It's like my shirts. I don't care where it's made, I like them for the look not the make.

The message of the journal is to show the newest trends or challenges in Marketing, as I've stated 89,000 times. It talks about theories like something called the Ambivalent affect, and then there's an article about customer orientation. The message is to inform, it's nothing more than that. It's not some key to life or something, it's simply Marketing.

THE PURPOSE OF THE JOURNAL IS TO INFORM ABOUT NEW PRINCIPLES IN MARKETING. If you haven't figured this out yet that's outstanding. Sorry about a salty post, it's been a rough day but you know what, this is my voice. This text is to inform the reader. Inform Inform Inform. There is nothing more than that. I can sit here and cite the titles of the articles to prove that since you don't believe me. Does the customer matter most? This is one article. It analyzes the old saying I mentioned earlier. Or the Effectiveness of Customer Participation. It's all the same.