Description:
PurposeThis paper is a rejoinder to Lusch and Vargo's defense of their service‐dominant logic paper against criticism.Design/methodology/approachThe paper responds to Lusch and Vargo's defense and criticism of the initial article primarily through examining the logic of their case.FindingsThe paper finds that both the charges and the arguments against the criticism have no merit.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper offers guidance as to the approach needed to advance the study of service marketing. This rejects the notion that viewing all businesses as service entities is a progressive approach but recommends a disjunctive definition of service, which would throw up service‐categories that needed to be studied in their own right if progress is to be made.Originality/valueThe paper suggests that Lusch and Vargo's S‐D‐dominant logic is unlikely to be practically fruitful while remaining theoretically limited.