Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://ww

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232906670 Customer Engagement ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF SERVICE RESEARCH · SEPTEMBER 2011 Impact Factor: 2.73 · DOI: 10.1177/1094670511411703 CITATIONS 120 READS 5,215 4 AUTHORS: Roderick J. Brodie University of Auckland 57 PUBLICATIONS 2,085 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Linda D. Hollebeek University of Auckland 18 PUBLICATIONS 617 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Biljana Juric University of Auckland 19 PUBLICATIONS 567 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Ana Ilic University of Auckland 4 PUBLICATIONS 334 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Linda D. Hollebeek Retrieved on: 02 March 2016 Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research Roderick J. Brodie1, Linda D. Hollebeek1, Biljana Juric ´1, and Ana Ilic ´1 Abstract In today’s highly dynamic and interactive business environment, the role of ‘‘customer engagement’’ (CE) in cocreating customer experience and value is receiving increasing attention from business practitioners and academics alike. Despite this interest, sys- tematic scholarly inquiry into the concept and its conceptual distinctiveness from other, associated relational concepts has been limited to date. This article explores the theoretical foundations of CE by drawing on relationship marketing theory and the service-dominant (S-D) logic. The analysis also examines the use of the term ‘‘engagement’’ in the social science, management, and marketing academic literatures, as well as in specific business practice applications. Five fundamental propositions (FPs) derived from this analysis are used to develop a general definition of CE, and distinguish the concept from other relational con- cepts, including ‘‘participation’’ and ‘‘involvement.’’ The five propositions are used in the development of a framework for future research, the undertaking of which would facilitate the subsequent refinement of the conceptual domain of CE. Overall, CE, based on its relational foundations of interactive experience and the cocreation of value, is shown to represent an important concept for research in marketing and service management. Keywords consumer to consumer, content analysis, customer relationship management, engagement, experience, relationship marketing, service-dominant logic Introduction While the notion of ‘‘engagement’’ in business relationships is not new, significant practitioner interest in the concept has developed in the last decade (e.g., Harvey 2005; Haven 2007). This interest is demonstrated by the number of business conferences, seminars, webinars, and roundtables on the topic of ‘‘customer-’’ and/or ‘‘consumer engagement.’’ The terms are also being given considerable attention by several consulting companies, including Nielsen Media Research, the Gallup Group, and IAG Research. Additionally, the Advertising Research Foundation, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, and the Association of National Advertisers are working on ways to define and measure customer engagement. It is suggested that within interactive, dynamic business environments, customer engagement (CE) represents a strate- gic imperative for generating enhanced corporate performance, including sales growth (Neff 2007), superior competitive advantage (Sedley 2008), and profitability (Voyles 2007). The rationale underlying these assertions is that engaged customers play a key role in viral marketing activity by providing referrals and/or recommendations for specific products, services, and/or brands to others. Engaged customers can also play an important role in new product/service development (Hoyer, et al 2010; Kothandaraman and Wilson 2001; Nambisan and Nambisan 2008), and in cocreating experience and value (Brakus, Schmitt, and Zarantello 2009; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). This interest in the CE concept observed in the business practice discourse, coupled with the recent increasing use of CE by marketing academics, has led the Marketing Science Institute to list CE as a key research priority for the period 2010-2012 (Marketing Science Institute [MSI] 2010). The term ‘‘engagement’’ has been used in a variety of aca- demic disciplines including sociology, political science, psy- chology, and organizational behavior in the last decade (e.g., Achterberg et al. 2003; Resnick 2001; Saks 2006). Within the academic marketing and service literature, very few academic articles used the terms ‘‘consumer engagement,’’ ‘‘customer engagement,’’ and/or ‘‘brand engagement’’ prior to 2005. Since then the terms are being increasingly used: 9 articles adopting one or more of these terms were identified in 2005, 20 articles in 2006, 18 articles in 2007, 28 articles in 2008, 61 articles in 1 The University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand Corresponding Author: Roderick J. Brodie, University of Auckland Business School, Auckland 1142, New Zealand Email: r.brodie@auckland.ac.nz Journal of Service Research 14(3) 252-271 ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1094670511411703 http://jsr.sagepub.com 2009, and 65 articles in 2010. Despite the growing popularity of the term ‘‘engagement,’’ few authors have attempted to define the concept, or examine how it differs from similar relational concepts, such as participation and involvement. Exceptions include Patterson, Yu, and de Ruyter (2006), Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan (2010), Hollebeek (2011), and Mollen and Wilson (2010), who define CE in terms of a psychological state. Bowden (2009a), by contrast, views CE as a psychological process, which drives customer loyalty. While these authors highlight different aspects of CE, relatively little attention is paid to the conceptual foundations underlying the concept. We suggest that the conceptual roots of CE may be explained by drawing ontheory addressing interactive experience and value cocreation within marketing relationships. Recently, Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008a) have formally articulated this perspective as the ‘‘service-dominant (S-D) logic’’ of marketing. This theore- tical lens offers ‘‘a transcending view of relationships,’’ which contrasts with a more traditional, transactional view of marketing relationships, labeled the ‘‘goods-dominant’’ perspective (Vargo 2009). This broader relational perspective recognizes that specific consumer behavior outcomes are generated by custom- ers’ particular interactive, value cocreative experiences with organizations and/or other stakeholders. The 2010 Journal of Service Research Special Issue titled ‘‘Customer Engagement’’ is of particular relevance to advancing engagement research in marketing. Van Doorn et al. (2010) address ‘‘customer engagement behaviors,’’ which result from motivational drivers including word-of-mouth activity, customer-to-customer (C2C) interactions and/or blogging activity. The authors suggest ‘‘customer engagement behaviors go beyond transactions’’ (cf. MSI 2010), and may be defined as ‘‘customers’ behavioral manifestations that have a brand- or firm-focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational driv- ers’’ (p. 254). Based on this rationale, the authors develop a theo- retical model linking customer engagement behaviors to specific customer-, firm-, and contextual antecedents and consequences. This article builds on the research published in the 2010 Jour- nal of Service Research Special Issue on CE. Its contribution lies in the provision of a broader and more rigorous theoretical anal- ysis of the CE concept in order to define its conceptual domain and provide a general definition. The article is divided into three main sections. The first section provides the theoretical founda- tions of engagement by examining the concept within the market- ing, social science, and management literatures. In the second section, five fundamental propositions (FPs) are developed, whichare used toarriveata generaldefinitionofCE. This general definition provides a conceptualization that is applicable across a range of situations, rather than limited to a particular situation. The final section derives a set of implications for future research. Conceptual Foundations of CE Exploring Theoretical Roots We draw on theory addressing marketing relationships and interactive service experience to examine the conceptual foundations of the emerging CE concept. This perspective of relationships and service management was first explored by the Nordic School three decades ago (Gro ¨nroos 2010; Gummesson 1994), although Vargo and Lusch’s (2004) seminal article pro- vides a more formal expression of this perspective, which the authors term the ‘‘service-dominant (S-D) logic.’’ The S-D logic, currently, is articulated using a set of 10 foundational premises depicting marketing relationships typified by custom- ers’ interactive, cocreative experiences with other stakeholders, including service personnel, firms, and/or other customers (Vargo and Lusch 2008a). Four of the foundational premises underlying the S-D logic are of particular relevance for determining the conceptual foundations underlying the emerging CE concept (Vargo and Lusch 2008a, p. 7). Premise 6 states ‘‘The customer is always a cocreator of value,’’ which highlights the interactive, cocreative nature of value creation between customers and/or other actors within service relationships. Further, Premise 9 states ‘‘All social and economic actors are resource integrators,’’ which implies the context of value creation to occur within networks. In justifying these premises, Vargo and Lusch (2008b, p. 32) state: ‘‘ . . . the service for service foundation of S-D logic provides the motivation for interaction and network development. That is, we serve—use our network of resources for others’ benefit (individually and collectively)—in order to obtain service from others. Service, as used in the S-D logic, identifies the logic of interactivity. (Italics added)’’ Moreover, Premise 10 states ‘‘Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary.’’ Specifi- cally, Premise 10 emphasizes the highly experiential, inher- ently subjective, and contextual nature of the value cocreation concept. This particular premise has its roots in the notion of the ‘‘experience economy’’ (Pine and Gilmore 1999), ‘‘service encounters,’’ and ‘‘servicescapes’’ (Bitner 1992). For example, Schembri (2006, p. 388) suggests that within the S-D logic, customers typically, act as ‘‘prosumers’’ in the way they create unique experiences; ‘‘therefore [they] are not merely recipients, nor co-producers as in the rationalistic sense, but cocreators of their service experience.’’ Finally Premise 8 states: ‘‘A service-centered view is inherently customer- oriented and relational,’’ which highlights the transcending, uploads/Geographie/ brodie-et-al-2011-jsr-pdf.pdf