Stepping aside and moving on: a rejoinder to a rejoinder

Purpose This paper proposes a rejoinder to the O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy rejoinder to “Service dominant logic: a necessary step”, the commentary on their previous criticism of service‐dominant logic. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a critical analysis of O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's comments. Findings The paper finds that O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's comments are, according to their own admission, contrived, without regard to or familiarity with the body of work they criticise. The work they disparage includes not only its own but, by implication, that contributed by a large and growing number of scholars worldwide who find service‐dominant logic a useful, informed and informing orientation to the market and marketing. Research limitations/implications Scholars are encouraged to continue to collaborate and contribute to the development and advancement of service‐dominant logic as an ongoing, open‐source endeavour. Originality/value This paper suggests that, whereas serious debate and dialogue about service‐dominant logic, including that which is critical, are encouraged and are essential to meaningful advancement, it is probably best to disregard the less useful criticism contained in O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy's rejoinder, and move on to more serious work.