After numerous academic studies of marketing in the 20 century, the concept of marketing that once was view as a strictly business-oriented discipline, expended toward non-commercial entities (Kotler and Levy 1969 in Nicholas J. O’Shaughnessy 1990 p. 3). The possibility to expend the singular marketing field of study for profit and sales-oriented effectiveness to non-profit benefits started from marketing to be considered as more than just a business-oriented discipline; a discipline of science as many believed marketing is relevant to “the essential nature of the present era” (Dawson 1971 p.66). The reexamination of marketing concept brought up controversy which resulted to a debate between authors. David Luck explain to be opposed to its idea, restricting marketing to remain exclusively as a business’s activities for “market transaction” purposes (Luck 1969 in Hunt 2002, p. 9) reflecting Carman’s rigorous core definition of marketing; “exchange of value” (Carman in Nicholas J. O’Shaughnessy 1990 p. 3) which rather than “directed toward resolving issues of its social relevance” (Dawson 1971 p.68) marketing research has as priority to be “translated into sales and profit results” (Dawson 1971 p.71). The main reason of these opposition was from fear that it could bring marketers further concept’s complexity and paradox leading to increase irrelevance and unpracticality of marketing discipline (Luck 1969 in Dawson 1971 p.68; Dawson 1971 p.66). Kotler and Levy confronted these narrow and limited thinking arguing that central function of marketing “lies in a general idea of exchange” (Kotler and Levy 1969 in Hunt 2002, p.10).