Coke's most successful marketing trick was a giant fluke. Even then, most of their success is probably in cornering the market, not just marketing. In large, many (most?) places sell it because they have an exclusive license that provides cups and supplies.

McDonald's is a funny one. They really don't seem any worse than most other fast food to me. I suspect they saw more expansion from their franchise methods than anything else, though.

Which is not to say the marketing isn't important. I just don't think it deserves the full victory.

I think you're doing a disservice to marketing - both of the elements you've mentioned actually fall under the marketing banner:

- Coke: their branding, market research, and consumer strategy got them where they are today. All are marketing functions.

- McDonald's: franchise go-to-market strategy, branding, consistency of product. All are marketing functions.

Whether or not paid advertising helped them is a whole different argument (and one I'd argue, as when 'tis the season, it's always the real thing...)

Then I contend that marketing is expanded to too large a term. And at that point, yes, it is responsible from everything including product strategy, but also worthless as a term. :(

Might as well debate that "business" is responsible.

Especially if the success is not repeatable. Which, most early practices of large companies today are not repeatable by smaller companies.

Marketing has always been defined by the 4P's: Product, Price, Place, and Promotion.

The "business" defines the problem-space and strategic direction (in these cases, food/drink), marketing defines how you address the space (specifics of the products from research and evaluation, market positioning, promotion to audiences), operations executes on the above (supply chain, training, maintenance), and then customer support feeds into all three of the above.

This GCSE Bitesize piece (revision material for UK exams students take at 16) outlines why marketing is more than simply advertising and promotion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/business/marketing...

Advertising is a subset of marketing, but marketing is a broad term, and is often mistakenly limited in how it's used in arguments (usually to belittle the role of it).

That still seems to broad of a definition. I get that it is taught to be concerned with the 4Ps, but those can clearly exist independent of a marketing department. Or any discernible marketing strategy.

Consider, as well, that the engineering department is also responsible for the Product. In large, they are also influential in the Price. Yet, I think it would also be unfair to give engineering full credit for a successful product. Even if it was well engineered or poorly marketed.

Which is to further my point that I was not trying to dismiss marketing as a valid area that a company should invest in. I just don't think it should deserve full credit for Coke and McDonald's existing. :)