See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312378188

Critical Factors Impacting the Process of Customer

Engagement in Social Media: A Conceptual Framework

Conference Paper · January 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 223

2 authors:

Abdullah Sadaf Siraj

Jamia Hamdard University Jamia Hamdard University
7 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social entrepreneurship View project

Brand management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullah on 16 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Critical Factors Impacting the Process of Customer Engagement in Social Media: A
Conceptual Framework

1Abdullah*, Research Scholar, Department of Management Studies, Jamia Hamdard, New

Delhi, Pin-110062; Email: [email protected]; Tel. No. +91-9560340394.

2Dr. Sadaf Siraj, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Jamia Hamdard,
New Delhi, Pin-110062; Email: [email protected]; Tel. No. +91-9990575157.

*Corresponding Author.

Abstract

Traditionally, companies used to build the relationships with customers on the basis of incentives
or direct marketing. Today, customers are participating as co-creators and multipliers of brand
messages, which is creating viral effects and offering great opportunities for spreading word of
mouth especially in social media. Researchers suggested that firms must learn to converse with
customers and incorporate the effect of engagement behaviours in their analyses. So, it is
imperative to comprehend the factors such as motivational factors, demographic factors,
organizational factors and environmental factors which impact the process of customer
engagement in social media. Present study is an attempt to integrate all these factors in a
conceptual framework which enhances the understanding of concept for academicians and
practitioners to design their focused customer engagement strategies in social media.

Keywords: Customer Engagement, Marketing Strategy, Social CRM, Social Media.

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, companies developed the relationships with customers based on incentives or

direct marketing. Kumar et al. (2010) pointed out that firms are no more in need to approach
client portfolio management using short-term transactional criteria, so the authors suggested that
firms must learn to converse with customers and incorporate the effect of engagement
behaviours in their studies. In present scenario, customers can actively participate as co-creators
and marketers of brand messages in social media, which allows viral effects and provides
opportunities for marketing through word of mouth (Kozinets et al., 2010). These engaged
consumers are not only ‘satisfied’ or ‘loyal,’ but they are also emotionally attached with brands
or its service (Appelbaum, 2001) and actively recommends its products and services to others
(Gilmore & Pine, 1999; Roberts & Alpert, 2010). Hence, to have such effects, businesses must
leave a memorable experience in the minds of their consumers (Torres et al., 2014b). Cambra et
al. (2013) suggested that understanding of needs and expectations of consumers, and so greater
customer satisfaction can be achieved through company–customer interactions. All these
consumer-to-firm interactions and consumer-to-consumer connections regarding the brand come
under the concept of customer engagement. These consumer-to-firm interactions and consumer-
to-consumer communications can be facilitated through social media channels, discussion
forums, chat rooms, email, bulletin boards, blogs etc. (Brodie et al., 2013).

Customer brand engagement can be defined as ‘the level of an individual customer’s

motivational, brand-related and context-dependent state of mind characterised by specific levels
of cognitive, emotional and behavioural activity in direct brand interactions’ (Hollebeek, 2011).
In a customer engagement survey, EConsultancy (2008) found that 90% of firms expressed the
need of online customer engagement as ‘essential’ or ‘important’ for them. According to various
studies (e.g. McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002), social interactions between brand
community members greatly influence relationship and attitude of consumers towards the brand.
So, Starbucks has made customer engagement as the core of their customer strategy (Belicove,
2010). Hence, Marketing Science Institute contemplated customer engagement as one of the
most important research priority for the period 2010-12 (MSI, 2010). Since customers can also
be disengaged (Bowden et al., 2015), it is imperative to comprehend the factors which impact
customer engagement in social media so that focused marketing strategies can be designed to
engage the customers in social media. Hence, present study is an attempt to integrate all the
factors which impact the process of customer engagement in social media.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

Various factors which impact the process of customer engagement in social media (See Figure 1)
can be explained as follows:
 Demographic Variables
Motivational Factors
-Gender
-Age
Satisfaction
-Occupation
Trust P1
Commitment
Loyalty P3
P6
Customer Engagement Social CRM
Behavior in Social Media
Social Benefits
Economic Benefits
P2 P5
Practical Benefits P4 Environmental
Factors
Entertainment Benefits
Organizational/Firm-based Factors Economic
Information Benefits
Technological
Service Dominant Logic Perspective
Social/Cultural

Management Strategies Political/Legal

-Generic Service Standard

-Content Strategy
-Strategic Elements
-Employee Engagement
Figure 1: Factors Impacting the Process
of Customer Engagement in Social Media Market Orientation

Relationship Marketing
 MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT IN BRAND
COMMUNITIES

Engagement in brand communities is possible through the inner motivation of a consumer for
interaction and communication with other members in the brand community (Algesheimer et
al., 2005). Consumers see the social page as a communication channel to convey their queries
and suggestions to the firm and expect to receive recognition and response by the firm in
return (Zaglia, 2013). Factors that lead to customer engagement include customer satisfaction
(Anderson & Mittal, 2000; Palmatier et al., 2006), trust (De Matos & Rossi, 2008) and brand
commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Van Doorn et al., 2010). McAlexander et al.
(2002) also considered loyalty as a fundamental reason for joining social media brand
community because consumers like the brand and they feel loyal to it. Hence, we assume that
satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty positively motivate the customer engagement in
social media.

Proposition 1: Satisfaction, trust, commitment and loyalty are positively associated with
customer engagement in social media.

Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) reported eight specific factors, which motivate consumers to
engage with online communities, including (1) Venting negative feelings, (2) Concern for
other consumers, (3) Self-enhancement, (4) Advice-seeking, (5) Social benefits, (6)
Economic benefits, (7) Platform assistance, and (8) Helping the company. The key
motivational factors for participation in brand communities are passion for the brand,
enthusiasm to acquire and improve skills, social relations with other members, reception of
information as per specific needs of members, entertainment, and enhancement of one's social
position (Zaglia, 2013).

According to studies, (e.g. Figallo, 1998; Brodie et al., 2011) consumers are motivated to get
engaged in online communities by the benefits received through two way interactive
communications and because of their wish to learn more about a brand, product and receive
help, their need to belong to a community and an opportunity to convey their emotions and
present themselves. According to various other research studies, benefits which motivate the
consumers to get engaged in online communities are practical benefits, social enhancement,
entertainment benefits, information benefits (e.g., Zaglia, 2013; Casaló et al., 2010;
Gummerus et al., 2012; Dholakia et al., 2004), reputation, enhanced knowledge, economic
benefits and social benefits (e.g., Gwinner et al., 1998; Fu¨ller, 2010; Nambisan & Baron,
2009; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014).

Practical benefits include informational and instrumental benefits (Dholakia et al., 2004) and
can be achievable through social media brand communities. Social media brand communities
allow consumer feedbacks and questions, which leads to informational benefits. Casaló et al.
(2010) also speculated that consumers would become more knowledgeable and aware of the
provider’s offering by participating in an online community and thereby gain information
benefits but he did not test this speculation made by him. Gwinner et al. (1998) stated that
social benefits are derived from interaction between the firm and consumer and denote
recognition or even friendship. Dholakia et al. (2004) stated that entertainment benefits
emerge from relaxation and fun, could motivate brand community participation. According
to, Gwinner et al. (1998) economic benefits refer to discounts offered by the firms to join
brand communities and time savings, or to take part in raffles and competitions. Among these
benefits, Social benefits most strongly influence the consumers because it emphasized the
interactive, two-way nature of the consumer engagement concept (Figallo, 1998; Oldenburg,
1999).

Proposition 2: Social benefits, Economic benefits, Practical benefits, Entertainment benefits,

Information benefits are positively associated with customer engagement in social media.

IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS

Impact of demographics on customer engagement and social media usage can be explained as
follows:

Impact of Demographics on Customer Engagement

There are very few studies exist in the literature which clearly highlighted the impact of
demographics on customer engagement. Arora et al. (2015) studied the impact of four
clustered constructs (interaction, participation, following a brand and purchase) observed on
customer satisfaction, trust, loyalty and word of mouth. They found Age, gender, occupation
and education to be the moderating variables.

Impact of gender on customer engagement: As far as gender is concerned, Iacobucci and

Ostrom (1993) provided evidence on the basis of their experiments that women may be more
sensitive to relational aspects of a service encounter than men who seem to be more receptive
to the core aspects. Oh et al. (2002) also suggested that men and women differ in terms of
their evaluation of product and service consumption. According to a study conducted by
Torres et al. (2014a) in tourism industry, Men and women agreed on most aspects of the
service experience that led them to feel delighted but there were other aspects of the delight
experience which varied by gender. Men expressed delight with the satisfaction of their
esteem needs met by efficient and timely service, as well as the provision of complimentary
amenities and upgrades and gave emphasis on the concept of value far more than women.

In contrast, women’s delightful experiences were typically associated with friendliness and
professionalism. Women demonstrated a greater preference for some of the intangible aspects
of the service experience; more related to the overall care and concern for the hotel guests
and seemed to be more holistic and emotional in nature. On the basis of above, we can
propose that customer engagement strategies impact women more than men (Torres et al.,
2014a).

Impact of age on customer engagement: As far as age is concerned, Study conducted by

Patterson (2007) showed that more mature age groups (35‐54 and over 55 years) display
substantially more loyal behavior (which is among the constructs of customer engagement)
than younger age groups (18‐24, and 25‐34 years) in a services context. Arora et al. (2015)
revealed that customers in the age group of 18-35 years are engaged majorly through online
media; however, customers in the age group of 36-55 years majorly use traditional media of
newspaper and television to engage with the brand.

Impact of demographics on social media usage

Among the various demographics, existing literature highlights the impact of gender, age,
occupation and culture as follows:

Impact of gender on social media usage: Research studies proved that males feel more
comfortable with technology than females (Collis, 1985; Shashaani, 1994). In the past
decade, some studies have indicated a decreasing gender gap (Van Dijk & Hacker, 2003;
Volman et al., 2005) while others show a continuing divide (Colley & Comber, 2003).
Through an empirical study, Ruleman (2012) revealed that female students outnumbered
males for Facebook use and they were most likely to text while studying.

Allen (2008) revealed that men were using SNS for the purpose of business related activities
but females were using SNS for keeping in touch with others and for socializing purposes
only. Barker (2009) highlighted that females were more likely to use SNS for relational
purposes whereas males used SNS to make new friends and enhance their peers over the
network. Goel and Chiplukar (2013) suggested that demographic factors played crucial role
in determining the sternness of a negative comment since negative comment posted by a male
has a far more pressing impact than those posted by a female. Since, the proportion of
comments posted by males were relatively larger and as its impact is much higher, so, it need
more attention for the dissemination of information.

Impact of age on social media usage: Pew report on adult use of social media revealed
women and users under 30 were the most avid social networkers (Madden & Zickuhr, 2011).
Madden discussed the rapid growth of social media in older Americans. Between April 2009
and May 2010, the number of social media users ages 50-64 grew by 88 percent and by 100
percent for ages 65 or more. Growth rate for the younger population, ages 18-29, only
increased by 13 percent (Madden, 2010). Although the actual numbers in the various studies
vary, they do verify the increasing use of social media particularly in older age groups. In an
empirical study, Ruleman (2012) found the contradiction with the popular conception that
technology use decreases with age; since, some of his survey responses placed the oldest
faculty (61+ years) ahead of the middle faculty (45-60 years) and their answers were
sometimes very close to the youngest faculty group (31-44 years).

Goel and Chiplukar (2013) revealed that age of the reviewer or the commenter had impact on
the austerity of a negative comment. Hence, impact increases with the age of the reviewer.
So, if a reviewer has put highly negative comments but is only a teenager, his opinion may
not be given much weight by the readers and the viewers. Hence, its impact and response
score is undermined.

Impact of occupation on social media usage: Students were more likely to utilize multiple
technologies while studying. There was some tendency for faculty to be more involved in the
‘academically’ oriented social media and technology such as using the library web site and
RSS feeds and students more involved in ‘entertainment’ media such as music, videos, games
and Facebook. Students in the particular age groups consistently used the technologies more
than the same faculty age group (Ruleman, 2012).

Proposition 3: Demographic variables (such as gender, age, occupation) moderate the

impact of motivational factors on customer engagement in social media.
 IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL/FIRM-BASED FACTORS

There are various firm-based factors which impact the process of customer engagement as
well as social media usage. Hence, for the process of customer engagement in social media
these factors can be explained as follows:

Impact of service dominant (S-D) logic perspective

According to literature, apart from satisfaction, consumers expected to be integral

participants in the co-creation of basic services which reflected a major shift from goods
dominant logic (G-D) to service-dominant (S-D) logic perspective by the firms and this trend
clearly shows that firms realised the emerging scope of consumer engagement (Brodie et al.,
2011; Van Doorn et al., 2010; FitzPatrick et al., 2013; Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer,
2012; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Hence, Service Dominant (SD) Logic perspective helps to
involve in the co-creation of services thereby encourages engagement among the customers.
Ottenbacher and Harrington (2010) revealed four key strategies for success of service
performance as ensured service quality, market assessment, innovation process management
and organisational structure that would ultimately facilitate the firms in creativeness,
employee empowerment and behaviour based evaluation.

Impact of management strategies of an organization on customer engagement

Management strategies of a business firm can impact customer engagement in positive as

well as negative ways. Hence, while designing the management strategies, it should be
carefully noted that it motivate customer engagement in a positive way. Various
organisational factors such as firm’s strategy, management structure, culture and technology
has been acknowledged as the antecedents of consumer engagement as they influence and
impact customer engagement in several ways. (Kristensson et al., 2008; Payne et al., 2008;
Shaw et al., 2011). Some of which are discussed as follows:

Impact of generic service standards: Generic service standards defined by the firm are
barriers to customer engagement (Chathoth et al., 2014) because these standards are well
defined at global level and rigid in nature. Contrary to this, customers want flexibility in the
service standards according to their needs and requirements and unable communicate and
engage with the firm due to difficult procedures. Hence, Chathoth et al. (2014) suggested that
geographic contexts which lead to different requirements and expectations of customers are
barriers to customer engagement. Vivek et al. (2012) also suggested that the customer will
only be engaged if the initiatives are designed with the customer’s needs in mind and
presented with a genuine emphasis on their relevancy to the customer. This relevancy can
only occur if the company understands the client’s business or the customer’s needs well.

Impact of content strategy: Earlier studies like Graber (1989) revealed that the future course
of engagement between the community members and the brand would depend on the
relevance of the content posted and shared by the firms which would perceived as specific
content by the users. According to the modern concept, content strategy can be defined as,
‘practice of planning for the creation, delivery and governance of useful, usable content’
(Halvorson, 2010). Various conceptualizations of brand community had emphasized that it
was not just a community of people collected around a brand but social interactions among
the community members were essential (Godes et al., 2005; Dholakia & Algesheimer, 2009).
It is evident that social media platforms like Facebook are hedonistic in nature (Pillai &
Mukherjee, 2011); hence, community members would engage only if relevant and
informative content is provided to them during their interaction with the brand. So, In order
to facilitate and sustain social interactions among the brand community members, brands
need to engage customers with the help of relevant and interesting content (Chauhan & Pillai,
2013).

Impact of strategic elements to engage customers: There should be different strategies to

engage the repeat purchasers and new customers because they have affective commitment
and calculative commitment respectively (Bowden, 2009). Hence, cost, quality and features
can be highlighted to attract and engage the new customers while delighted experience of joy,
thrill and exhilaration can also be highlighted for repeat purchasers to engage with the brand.
Roberts and Alpert (2010) proposed four key strategic elements that should be incorporated
by the firms to engage customers. These elements are usually present in most organisations
and the individual benefits of these elements are well defined. These elements are: (1) Brand;
(2) Internal culture; (3) Customer experience; and (4) Customer value proposition. First,
Brand should always consistently communicate the value proposition. Second, internal
culture is a key enabler in delivering a unique value proposition and delightful customer
experience via engaged employees.

Impact of employee engagement on the process of customer engagement: Interest in the

concept of employee engagement in the literature of organizational behaviour has increased
recently with reports that a substantial fraction of the employees remain disengaged, or at
least partly disengaged from their working place leading to what some have termed an
engagement gap that is costing U.S. businesses $300 billion per year in lost productivity
(Saks, 2006). Hence, Frank et al. (2004) proposed when employee are providing extra effort
in i.e. time, brainpower or energy, it can be reflected as engagement. Saks (2006) defined
‘employee engagement’ as ‘the amount of cognitive, emotional and physical resources an
individual is prepared to devote in the performance of one’s work roles’, and is supposed to
be depend on the economic and socio-emotional factors. Buckingham (2008) regarded
employees as the consumers of an employer brand, thus rendering potential applicability of
extending the employee-engagement notion into consumer purview. In the literature of
organisational behaviour, Employee engagement has been found to build heightened morale,
solidarity, work satisfaction, organisational commitment, organizational citizenship
behaviours, customer evaluations, reduced absenteeism, and therefore enhanced financial
performance (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2005; Saks, 2006).

Plé and Cáceres (2010) suggested that employees might not have the required skills and
knowledge in order to engage in value-creating activities if they did not receive proper
training. Hence, proper training should be provided to the employees to develop the required
skills and knowledge for the proper engagement of employees. An engaged employee
recognizes clear idea about firm’s strategy and direction and is personally committed to
making it a success (LaMalfa, 2008). Roberts and Alpert (2010) suggested that strategic
linkage should be developed between engaged employees and engaged customers for the
achievement of long-term growth. Employee engagement is claimed to be positively related
to attitudes, intentions and behaviour of employees (Saks, 2006) and business results such as
job satisfaction, low absenteeism, high organizational commitment and performance
(Salanova et al., 2005). When employees are highly engaged, they perform well with
customers and therefore, leading to customer satisfaction (Salanova et al., 2005). This is
supported by Harter et al. (2002), who pointed out the positive relationship between high
levels of employee engagement and increased ‘customer satisfaction’ & ‘loyalty’. Since, we
know that satisfaction and loyalty are the important constructs of customer engagement as
highlighted by Brodie et al. (2013). So, we inferred that employee engagement is positively
related to the process of customer engagement.
Impact of market orientation

According to literature, Market orientation consists three activities: (1) Generating market
intelligence on customer needs. (2) Dissemination of the intelligence across departments. (3)
Responsiveness of all the departments in the firm to it (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Since,
Generating market intelligence and responding to varying customer needs through engaged
employees helps the firm to build intimate long-term relationships with consumers (Sashi,
2012). Hence, market orientation helps the consumers to participate in value adding activities
of the firm as co-creators of value, which ultimately builds the foundation for customer
engagement.

Impact of relationship marketing through social media brand communities

According to researchers, relationship marketing involves ‘attracting’ (Berry 1983; Berry &
Parasuraman, 1991) and ‘establishing’ (Gronroos, 1990; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) relationships
of consumers with the firm and include enhancing, developing, and retaining relationships.
Hence, Vivek et al. (2012) argued that customer engagement is a component of relationship
marketing meant to attract, build, maintain, and enhance the relationship of the firm with
potential and as well as existing customers for the purpose of both offensive and defensive
marketing strategies.

In current business scenario, companies are now supporting online social media brand
communities to create and maintain the relationships with customers, because its’ most
important advantage is an increasing brand loyalty (McAlexander et al., 2002). Muniz and
O'Guinn (2001) defined brand community as ‘a specialized, non-geographically bound
community, based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a brand’.
Muniz and Schau (2005) viewed online communities as computer-mediated social spaces that
allowed groups to form and be sustained primarily through ongoing communication process.
De Valck et al. (2009) described social networks as virtual communities of consumption
featuring characteristics like high consumer knowledge and companionship and therefore,
influence consumer behaviour.

Culshaw (2008) argued that customers can easily switch from one brand to another, and the
brands, promotions and prices can be easily duplicated, the customers can be seduced by the
competition, however, the relationships build between the two parties can’t be copied since
relationships within the online brand communities are based on trust and commitment. These
brand communities cater the need for specific population with similar interests as people
gather here to communicate, exchange contact details, build relations, and share and discuss
ideas (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008). Hence, building and nurturing brand community
would enhance collaborative value creation between the consumers and firm (Schau et al.,
2009). Sharing of interests and ideas by brand community members produce affinity, may
create a bond (De Valck et al., 2009), and generate consumer feelings of empowerment
(Cova & Pace, 2006). These qualities, coupled with the level of perceived credibility of
specific consumer evaluations, make the virtual brand community a powerful, interactive
engagement platform for consumer-to-consumer (C2C) recommendations (Sawhney et al.,
2005).

Proposition 4: Organizational/Firm-based factors are positively associated with customer

engagement in social media.

IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Van Doorn et al. (2010) suggests that various context-based factors such as political/legal,
economic, social and technological factors (P.E.S.T.) affect customer engagement behavior.
Bolton et al. (2013) also suggests that environmental factors (such as economic,
technological, cultural, and legal/political) are the antecedents for social media usage by
generation Y born between 1981 and 1999. Hence, it can be generalized that environmental
factors impact the process of customer engagement in social media. Here, we propose that
these environmental factors work as moderating variables for organizational/firm-based
factors. These environmental factors can be explained as follows:

Economic Environment

During the financial crisis of 2007–08, the negative press about the financial industry resulted
in writing/blogging by many consumers about their negative experiences, due to which image
of the financial sector was even more severely damaged. If a brand is highly criticized in the
media, loyal customers may engage in refining actions such as starting a website to
counteract negative press toward the brand (Van Doorn et al., 2010). Since, budget
restrictions during economic downturn will decrease the expenditures of consumers, and on
software or hardware system that provides access to social media. However, a country’s
economic environment can affect the use of social media due to its impact on disposable
income and employment conditions which ultimately increase consumer confidence.
(Kreutzer, 2009; Lenhart et al., 2010).
Technological Environment

Technological environment can significantly influence internet and social media use and so
the customer engagement. Government’s efforts in South Korea listed the country among
most technically advanced countries in broadband connections and internet usage (Chung,
2008). Similarly, in Brazil, LAN-houses sponsored by government provide internet access to
the underprivileged people (Horst, 2011). A widespread social network in South Africa is
used to teach mathematics (through distance-learning mode) to children in far remote areas
(Pyramid Research, 2010).

Consumer engagement behaviours can be greatly impact by consumer information

environments (Van Doorn et al., 2010), and lack of communication between the firm & the
managers in managing the risk perception of consumers regarding information exchange with
firms and absence of consumer interaction platforms are barriers to customer engagement
(Chathoth et al., 2014). Hence, Firms can also facilitate consumer engagement behaviour
through effective platforms of information exchange and interaction (Baron & Warnaby,
2011; Dholakia et al., 2009) and by rewarding their consumers for their contributions
(Fu¨ller, 2010; Kumar et al., 2010; Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014).

Social/Cultural Environment

Tsai and Men (2014) found that social media dependency, para-social interaction with the
representatives of brand community pages, and brand community identification were positive
predictors of consumer engagement with brand communities in social media in two countries
China and USA. Hence, they suggested that mechanism of consumer-brand engagement on
SNSs is same in China and USA. However, there are various cross-cultural differences
between Chinese and US people regarding discussion of topics in online forums (Fong &
Burton, 2008). Hence, the nature and intensity of customer engagement and social media
usage can also be influenced by cultural context.

The proportion of ‘socially close others’ in Koreans’ social networks is significantly higher
than in Americans’ social networks (70% versus 24%) (Bolton et al., 2013). Leng et al.
(2011) also carried out a research in Malaysia and found that the perception of the users
mainly depends upon the ease of use and usefulness of SNS which further enhances the
intrinsic motivations of the users which leads to the adoption of SNS by the users of different
communities and intrinsically motivated people spend more time and effort on the tasks over
SNS. Sharma and Verma (2013) revealed that African students visited Social Networking
Sites for posting and commenting on others ideas more than the Indians and they tend to
spend most of their time for new content creation on SNS.

Political/Legal Environment

Government policies can also significantly affect the usage of social media. In Singapore,
information is available outside official channels which increased online political discussions,
but these discussions are not able to change offline political activities due to restrictions
(Skoric et al., 2009). China, which has strict internet regulations, is looking for its citizens
that they have complete internet access to ‘correct’ information. But, there is possibility for
expression as long as citizens employ a degree of self-censorship (Chung, 2008). In India,
Supreme Court of India struck down controversial Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act on 24th March 2015 which allowed police to arrest people for comments on
social networks and other internet sites. The law was first challenged by a law student after
two young women were arrested in November 2012 in Mumbai for comments on Facebook
following the death of politician Bal Thackeray (BBC News, 2015).

Proposition 5: Environmental Factors (Political/legal, Economic, Social/Cultural and

Technological) moderate the impact of organizational/firm-based factors on customer
engagement in social media.

IMPACT OF SOCIAL CRM ON THE PROCESS OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT

Integration of CRM with social media has added new dimensions in the concept of CRM,
which consequently incorporate a two-way online approach to control the customer
relationships. This new perspective has evolved the term ‘Social CRM’ (Greenberg, 2010)
and ‘CRM 2.0’ in marketing (Andzulis et al., 2012; Dutot, 2013). Since, Baird and Parasnis
(2011) defines Social CRM as, ‘A novel concept that unites social media technology with
customer relationship management and functioning as a compelling approach to enhancing
customer engagement’, it impacts customer engagement in a positive way.

Difference between traditional CRM and social CRM

Traditional CRM focused on management solutions for dealing with customers through
traditional communication channels i.e. official websites of companies, call centres, and brick
and mortar locations. On the other hand, Social CRM encompassed the dynamic community
of customers who communicate through social media in which control of the relationship has
transferred to consumers, who have ability to influence other people in their social network
(Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Traditional model of CRM assumed that customers are passive
who used to respond to a company's actions primarily through their purchasing behaviour but
Malthouse et al. (2013) proposed that social media affected CRM by allowing customers to
become active participants in relationship i.e. in content generation and in this way
consumers are engaging with the firm.

Role of social CRM in the process of customer engagement

A Social CRM approach move social media programs from the domain of a single function
(e.g., marketing) to a cross-functional network of integrated brand communities with
customer-facing responsibilities. This integrated approach facilitates the sharing of customer
insights captured from unstructured data through multiple social media channels, as well as
structured data from traditional channels. These insights enable the firms to improve the
customer experience and can result in the development of innovative new models for
customer engagement (Baird & Parasnis, 2011). Hence, social CRM gives emphasis on two-
way interactions with consumers and to encourage the consumers for co-creating marketing
efforts and even product offerings (Rodriguez et al., 2012).

Malthouse et al. (2013) suggested that social media activities produce the level of
engagement; and these levels of engagement (Lower level and higher level both) affect and
affected by traditional CRM activities (i.e. acquisition, maintenance and termination); and
therefore, a company can develop its social-CRM strategies based on customer engagement
and these three components of CRM. Dutot (2013) proposed that CRM strategy based on
social media would ultimately enhance the engagement of consumers. Dutot (2013) also
mentioned that SCRM would generate benefits through a four-step process: engaging
prospects and customers, conducting conversion (winning new customers), retaining
customers and developing customer value. Woodcock et al. (2011) also stated that social
CRM gives support to entire customer management strategy and it also increases awareness
and engagement among customers, and so, it thereby increase sales and decrease costs. Social
CRM has the potential to stimulate firm performance by interactions and sharing of
information among consumers as a result of customer engagement in social media (Agnihotri
et al., 2012; Brodie et al., 2011).

Proposition 6: Social CRM process facilitate customer engagement in social media and vice
versa.

CONCLUSION/DISCUSSION
This study provides an important addition in current literature on customer engagement by
proposing the conceptual framework incorporating all the factors which influence the process
of customer engagement in social media networks. In addition to theoretical contributions,
this study also provides a number of managerial implications. First, by providing an
integrated conceptual framework in social media, it provides managers a greater
understanding of the highlighted factors and helps in the formulation of focused strategies
and tactics of customer engagement in social media. Schau et al. (2009) highlighted that
brand communities in social networks create value for consumers as well as marketers. For
consumers, Kumar et al. (2010) suggested four elements of customer engagement value as
customer referral value (CRV), customer influencer value (CIV), customer knowledge value
(CKV) and customer lifetime value (CLV). Hence, these factors can be crucial to improve the
customer lifetime value (CLV) of a firm. Since, customers can also be disengaged (Bowden
et al., 2015) and generate negative value fusion due to the negative experiences face by the
consumers (Larivière et al., 2013). This study highlights the different factors which can be
critical to motivate the consumers for engagement in social media and reduce negative effect
of various factors by hearing and solving the queries of consumers in social media along with
some webcare actions (Van Noort & Willemsen, 2012) in the form of returns, replacements
etc. Firms should make the marketing strategies in social media which develop satisfaction,
trust, commitment and loyalty among consumers. Firms should also enhance economic,
social, practical, information and entertainment benefits for their consumers in social media.
While making marketing strategies in social media, firms should also consider demographic
factors and environmental factors for the target group.

FURTHER RESEARCH

We have developed an integrated framework for various factors of customer engagement in

social media. Qualitative analysis and empirical research can be further conducted for the
validity and testing of propositions. As the researchers suggests that customer engagement is
a cyclic process (Brodie et al., 2011; Sashi, 2012), empirical research can be conducted to
find out impact of these factors on pre-purchase engagement and post-purchase engagement.
Researchers may also wish to investigate the impact of these factors on the four elements of
customer engagement value (Kumar et al., 2010) i.e. CRV, CIV, CKV and CLV.
 REFERENCES

 Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., Kothandaraman, P., & Singh, R. K. (2012). An emotion-based
model of salesperson ethical behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), 243-257.
 Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34.
 Allen, R. (2008, November 13). Factors influencing the usage of social networking
websites amongst young, professional South Africans. Research project submitted to the
Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria. Retrieved April 4, 2015,
from
http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/23305/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1&isAl
lowed=y.
 Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the satisfaction-profit chain. Journal
of Service Research, 3(2), 107-120.
 Andzulis, J. M., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. (2012). A review of social media and
implications for the sales process. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
32(3), 305-316.
 Arora, V. N., Suri, J., & Singh, J. (2015). An Exploratory Study on Customer Engagement:
A Qualitative Approach. In Proceedings of the 6th IIMA Conference on Marketing in
Emerging Economies, IIM Ahmedabad, 622-626.
 Appelbaum, A. (2001, June 17). The Constant Customer. Retrieved from
http://gmj.gallup.com/content/745/constant-customer.aspx
 Baird, C. H., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to Social CRM: reinventing the
customer relationship. Strategy & Leadership, 39(6), 27-34.
 Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence
of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
12(2), 209-213.
 Baron, S., & Warnaby, G. (2011). Individual Customers’ use and Integration of resources:
Empirical Findings and organizational implications in the context of value co-creation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 40 (2), 211-218.
 BBC News (2015, March 24). Section 66A: India court strikes down 'Facebook' arrest law.
Retrieved July 20, 2015, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32029369
 Belicove, M. (2010). How Starbucks Builds Meaningful Customer Engagement via Social
Media. [Openforum]. Retrieved from https://www.americanexpress.com/us/small-
 business/openforum/articles/how-starbucks-builds-meaningful-customer-engagement-via-
social-media-1/
 Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship Marketing. In L. L. Berry, G. L. Shostack, & G. Upah
(Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing (pp. 25-28), American Marketing
Association.
 Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing Services, New York: Free Press.
 Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., ...
& Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review
and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245-267.
 Bowden, J. L. (2009). The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63-74.
 Bowden, J. L., Gabbott, M., & Naumann, K. (2015). Service relationships and the customer
disengagement–engagement conundrum. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(7-8),
774-806.
 Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer Engagement:
Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions & Implications for Research in Service
Marketing. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.
 Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer Engagement in a Virtual
Brand Community: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-
114.
 Buckingham, I. (2008). Brand engagement: How employees make or break brands.
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave/Macmillan.
 Cambra-Fierro, J. J., Melero-Polo, I., & Vázquez-Carrasco, R. (2013). Customer
engagement: Innovation in non-technical marketing processes. Innovation: Management,
Policy & Practice, 15(3), 326-336.
 Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of
consumer participation in on-line communities: The case of the travel sector.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(2), 137-167.
 Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Altinay, L., Chan, E. S. W., Harrington R., & Okumus, F.
(2014). Barriers affecting organisational adoption of higher order customer engagement
in tourism service interactions. Tourism Management, 42, 181-193.
 Chauhan, K., & Pillai, A. (2013). Role of content strategy in social media brand
communities: a case of higher education institutes in India. Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 22(1), 40-51.
 Chung, J. (2008). Comparing Online Activities in China and South Korea: The Internet and
the Political Regime. Asian Survey, 48(5), 727-751.
 Collis, B. (1985). Sex Differences in Secondary School Students' Attitudes toward
Computers. Computing Teacher, 12(7), 33-36.
 Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: new forms of
customer empowerment-the case “My Nutella The Community”. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(9/10), 1087-1105.
 Culshaw, G. (2008). Strengthen customer relations and drive brand loyalty. ADMAP,
43(499) 32-34.
 De Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing:
a meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 36(4), 578-596.
 De Valck, K., Van Bruggen, G. H., & Wierenga, B. (2009). Virtual communities: A
marketing perspective. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 185-203.
 Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., & Pearo, L.K. (2004). A social influence model of
consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241-263.
 Dholakia, U. M., & Algesheimer, R. (2009). Brand community. Retrieved November 15,
2014 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1444833
 Dholakia, U. M., Blazevic, V., Wiertz, C., & Algesheimer, R. (2009). Communal Service
Delivery: How Customers Benefit From Participation in Firm-hosted Virtual P3
Communities. Journal of Service Research, 12(2), 208-226.
 Dutot, V. (2013). A New Strategy for Customer Engagement: How Do French Firms Use
Social CRM? International Business Research, 6(9), 54-67.
 EConsultancy. (2008). Online customer engagement report 2008. Retrieved November 15,
2014, from http://econsultancy.com/reports/online-customer-engagement-report-2008
 Figallo, C. (1998). Hosting Web Communities: Building Relationships, Increasing
Customer Loyalty, and Maintaining a Competitive Edge. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
 FitzPatrick, M., Davey, J., Muller, L., & Davey, H. (2013). Value-creation assets in tourism
management: applying marketing’s service-dominant logic in the hotel industry. Tourism
Management, 36(1), 86-98.
 Fong, J., & Burton, S. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of electronic word-of-mouth
and country-of-origin effects. Journal of Business Research, 61(3), 233-242.
 Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R.P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and
engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.
 Fu¨ller, J. (2010). Refining Virtual Co-creation from a Consumer Perspective. California
Management Review, 52(2), 98-122.
 Gilmore, J., & Pine, J. (1999). The Experience Economy: work is theatre and every
business a stage.
 Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and
Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
 Godes, D., Mayzlin, D., Chen, Y., Das, S., Dellarocas, C., Pfeiffer, B., Libai, B., Sen, S.,
Shi, M., & Verlegh, P. (2005). The firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing
Letters, 16(3-4), 415-428.
 Goel, P. A., & Chiplukar, K. D. (2013). Social Media Analytics: An Effective Tool to
Customer Relationship Management, ICRM-2013 Conference Proceedings, IIT Delhi,
New Delhi.
 Graber, D.A. (1989). Content and Meaning What's It All About. The American Behavioral
Scientist, 33(2), 144-152.
 Greenberg, P. (2010). The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 25(6), 410-419.
 Grissemann, U., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2012). Consumer co-creation of travel services:
the role of company support and consumer satisfaction with the co-creation performance.
Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483-1492.
 Gronroos, C. (1990). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth
in Service Competition, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
 Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlstro¨m M. (2012). Customer engagement in
a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857-877.
 Gwinner, K. P., Gremler, D. D., & Bitner, M. J. (1998). Relational benefits in services
industries: the customer’s perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
26(2), 101-114.
 Halvorson, K. (2010). Content Strategy for the Web, New Riders, Berkeley, CA.
 Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.
 Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-
of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the Internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38-52.
 Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring the
Loyalty Nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 785-807.
 Horst, H. A. (2011). Free, social, and inclusive: Appropriation and resistance of new media
technologies in Brazil. International Journal of Communications, 5(6), 437-462.
 Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993). Gender differences in the impact of core and relational
aspects of services on the evaluation of service encounters. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 2(3), 257-286.
 Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The Role of Customer Engagement Behavior in
Value Co-Creation: A Service System Perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3),
247-261.
 Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70.
 Kozinets, R.V., De Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked
narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of
Marketing, 74(2), 71-89.
 Kreutzer, T. (2009). Generation Mobile: Online and Digital Media Usage on Mobile
Phones Among Low-Income Urban Youths in South Africa, Centre for Film and Media
Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, available at:
www.tinokreutzer.org/mobile
 Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value.
Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297-310.
 Kristensson, P., Johansson, N., & Matthing, J. (2008). Key strategies for the successful
involvement of consumers in the co-creation of new technology based services.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 474-491.
 LaMalfa, K. (2008). The positive economics of customer engagement. Retrieved November
23, 2014, from
http://www.allegiance.com/documents/Allegiance_Economics_of_Customer_Engagemen
t_4.pdf
 Larivière, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E. C., van Birgelen, M., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W. H., &
Huang, M. H. (2013). Value fusion: the blending of consumer and firm value in the
distinct context of mobile technologies and social media. Journal of Service Management,
24(3), 268-293.
 Leng, G. S., Lada, S., Muhammad, M. Z., Ibrahim, A. A. H. A., & Amboala, T. (2011). An
exploration of social networking sites (SNS) adoption in Malaysia using technology
acceptance model (TAM), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(2), 1-27.
 Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A. and Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media and Mobile
Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project,
Washington, DC.
 Madden, M. (2010, August 27). Older Adults and Social Media. Pew Research Center,
Retrieved April 4, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/08/27/older-adults-and-
social-media/
 Madden, M., & Zickuhr, K. (2011, August 26). 65% of online adults use social networking
sites. Pew Research Center, Retrieved April 4, 2015, from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/08/26/65-of-online-adults-use-social-networking-sites/
 Malthouse, E. C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., & Zhang, M. (2013). Managing
Customer Relationships in the Social Media Era: Introducing the Social CRM House. s,
27(4), 270-280.
 McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community.
Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.
 Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
 Muniz Jr, A. M., & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(4), 412-432.
 Muniz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2005). Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand
community. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 737-747.
 MSI (2010), 2010-2012 Research Priorities. Marketing Science Institute. Boston, MA.
 Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of
Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 26(4), 388-406.
 Oh, H., Parks, S., & Demicco, F. (2002). Age and gender-based market segmentation: a
structural understanding. International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration, 3(1), 1-20.
 Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair
salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. 3rd Ed., Marlowe, New York.
 Ottenbacher, M., & Harrington, R. J. (2010). A study of innovative versus incremental new
service developments: different strategies for achieving success. Journal of Services
Marketing, 24(1), 3-15.
 Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the
effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
136-153.
 Patterson, P. G. (2007). Demographic correlates of loyalty in a service context. Journal of
Services Marketing, 21(2), 112-121.
 Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83-96.
 Pillai, A., & Mukherjee, J. (2011). User acceptance of hedonic versus utilitarian social
networking web sites. Journal of Indian Business Research, 3(3), 180-191.
 Plé, L., & Cáceres, R. C. (2010). Not always co-creation: introducing interactional co-
destruction of value in service-dominant logic. The Journal of Services Marketing, 24(6),
430-437.
 Pyramid Research (2010). The impact of mobile services in Nigeria: how mobile
technologies are transforming economic and social activities. Available at:
http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/Documents/Document/Document/3913
 Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and
gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychology & Behavior,
11(2), 169-174.
 Roberts, C., & Alpert, F. (2010). Total customer engagement: designing and aligning key
strategic elements to achieve growth. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(3),
198-209.
 Ruleman, A. B. (2012). Social media at the university: a demographic comparison. New
Library World, 113(7/8), 316-332.
 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
 Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiro´, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217-1227.
 Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media.
Management Decision, 50(2), 253-272.
 Sawhney, M., Verona, G., & Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a
Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 19(4), 4-17.
 Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30-51.
 Sharma, R., & Verma, R. (2013). Social Network Usage across Cultures: A Study of Indian
and African Ethnicities. ICRM-2013 Conference Proceedings, IIT Delhi, New Delhi.
 Shashaani, L. (1994). Gender-differences in computer experience and its influence on
computer attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11(4), 347-367.
 Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its
implications for tourism management: examples from the hotel industry. Tourism
Management, 32(2), 207-214.
 Skoric, M. M., Ying, D., & Ng, Y. (2009). Bowling online, not alone: Online social capital
and political participation in Singapore. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,
14(2), 414-433.
 Torres, E. N., Fu, X., & Lehto, X. (2014a). Are there gender differences in what drives
customer delight? Tourism Review, 69(4), 297-309.
 Torres, E. N., Fu, X., & Lehto, X. (2014b). Examining key drivers of customer delight in a
hotel experience: a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 36, 255-262.
 Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2014). Consumer engagement with brands on social network
sites: A cross-cultural comparison of China and the USA. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2014.942678.
  Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic
phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315-326.
 Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C.
(2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions.
Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253-266.
 Van Noort, G., & Willemsen, L. M. (2012). Online damage control: The effects of
proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in consumer-generated and brand-
generated platforms. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(3), 131-140.
 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
 Vivek, D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer Engagement: Exploring
customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
20(2), 127-145.
 Volman, M., Van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., & Kuiper, E. (2005). New technologies, new
differences. Gender and ethnic differences in pupils' use of ICT in primary and secondary
education. Computers & Education, 45(1), 35-55.
 Woodcock, N., Green, A., & Starkey, M. (2011). Social CRM as a business strategy.
Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 18(1), 50-64.
 Zaglia, M. E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of Business
Research, 66(2), 216-223.

View publication stats