Over the years, the level of analytical rigor has risen in articles published in marketing academic journals. While, ceteris paribus, rigor is desirable, there is a growing sense that rigor has become a, if not the, goal for research in marketing. Consequently, other desirable characteristics, such as relevance, communicability, and simplicity, have been downplayed, to the detriment of the field of marketing. The authors explore this imbalance, setting forth the consequences of overemphasis on rigor for (1) the manuscript review process, (2) PhD programs, (3) hiring, and (4) the tenure and promotion review process. Two surveys of "successful" authors provide empirical support for the conjectures put forth. The authors then identify the causes for this trend and propose some directions to reestablish a better balance between rigor and relevance.