focus in the 1950s. The characteristics of these three distinct eras in Pillsbury's evolution include: the production oriented era from 1869 -1930s – characterized by a 'focus on production processes'; the sales oriented era from the 1930s to the 1950s – characterized by investment in research to develop new products and advertising to persuade markets of product benefits and the marketing oriented era from the beginning of the 1950s – characterized by a focus on the customer's latent and existing needs. In addition, Keith hypothesized that a marketing control era was about to emerge. Although Keith's article explicitly documented Pillsbury's evolution, the article appears to suggest that the stages observed at Pillsbury constitute a normal evolutionary path (production→sales→marketing) for most large organizations. Marketing scholars quickly picked up on Keith's evolutionary stages for marketing organizations and it was integrated into marketing texts and became "'accepted wisdom. One content analysis of 25 introductory and advanced texts found that Keith's eras were reproduced in all but four. Keith's notion of distinct eras in the evolution of marketing practice has been widely criticized described as "hopelessly flawed".Gilbert, D. and Bailey, N., "The Development of Marketing: A Compendium of Historical Approaches," Quarterly Review of Marketing, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp 6-13 and reproduced in Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Vol. 2, Michael John Baker (ed), London, Routledge, 2001, pp 75-91 Specific criticisms of Keith's tripartite periodization include that: It ignores historical facts about business conditions It mis-states the nature of supply and demand It cites the growth of marketing institutions Systematic studies carried out since Keith's work have failed to replicate his periodization. Instead, other studies suggest that many companies exhibited a marketing orientation in the 19th century and that the business schools were teaching marketing decades before Pillsbury adopted a marketing-oriented approach. Jones and Richardson also investigated historical accounts of marketing practice and found evidence for both the sales and marketing era during the so-called production era and concluded that there was no 'marketing revolution.'Fullerton, E.A., "How Modern Is Modern Marketing? Marketing's Evolution and the Myth of the 'Production Era' ", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1988, pp. 108-125 Keith's eras have become known, somewhat cynically, as the standard chronology''. In spite of such criticisms, Keith's descriptions of the different eras continue to influence marketing thought. See also Pillsbury Doughboy Footnotes References N.S. Gill. Charles Alfred Pillsbury. Minneapolis.about.com Andrew