Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase Shiri D. Vivek, Sharon E. Beatty, and Robert M. Morgan Using qualitative studies involving executives and customers, this study explores the nature and scope of customer engagement (CE), which is a vital component of relationship marketing. We define CE as the intensity of an individual’s participation in and connection with an organization’s offerings and/ or organizational activities, which either the customer or the organization initiate. We argue that it is composed of cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social elements. Finally, we offer a model of CE, in which the participation and involvement of current or potential customers serve as antecedents of CE, while value, trust, affective commitment, word of mouth, loyalty, and brand community involvement are potential consequences. In its 2006–2008 Research Priorities, the Marketing Science Institute (MSI) called for a better understanding of “engagement.” As “rapid changes in communications technology as well as globalization of markets are creating communities of customers and prospects rather than a multitude of isolated customers . . . companies are discovering new ways to create and sustain emotional connections with the brand . . . thus engaging customers through innovation and design” (MSI 2006, pp. 2, 4, emphasis added). Customer engagement (CE) continues to be a research priority of MSI in 2010–12. MSI considers CE “customers’ behavioral manifestation toward a brand or firm beyond purchase” (MSI 2010, p. 4). In our view, interest in engagement “beyond the purchase” suggests that researchers need to focus on individuals who interact with the brand, without necessarily purchasing it or planning on purchasing it, or on events and activities engaged in by the consumer that are not directly related to search, alternative evaluation, and decision making involving Shiri D. Vivek (Ph.D., University of Alabama), Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, College of Business, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, [email protected] Sharon E. Beatty (Ph.D., University of Oregon), Reese Phifer Professor of Marketing, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, [email protected] Robert M. Morgan (Ph.D., Texas Tech University), Professor of Marketing and Executive Director for Innovation Initiatives, Manderson Graduate School of Business, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, [email protected] brand choice. This focus would also include postpurchase activities of purchasers. Since the early 1980s, pioneers have proposed that relationship marketing (RM) involves “attracting” (Berry 1983, p. 25; Berry and Parasuraman 1991, p. 133) and “establishing” (Gronroos 1990; Morgan and Hunt 1994, p. 22) relationships while also enhancing, developing, retaining, or maintaining relationships. However, our exploration shows that the actual RM research focus in the past two decades has been aimed primarily at enhancing, retaining, and maintaining relationships with existing customers, with little attention given to attracting new customers. The interactions in such customer–company relationships are driven by the firm, and the outcomes of these interactions are measured in terms of the exchange of goods and services. Thus, we believe that incorporating CE within the RM literature will encourage more research that goes “beyond the purchase” and that is focused on customer (and noncustomer) experiences with the brand or product than we currently see in the area. Given that CE is a construct not yet fully developed in marketing, we first collate the growing body of literature on engagement in education and psychology; CE in practitioner literature, information systems, and marketing; and employee engagement in psychology and management. We then argue that CE is a component of RM, which is applicable to both offensive and defensive marketing strategies, The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the three anonymous reviewers. Without their constructive comments, this paper would not have taken its present shape. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 20, no. 2 (spring 2012), pp. 127–145. © 2012 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 1069-6679/2012 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201 128 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice aimed at attracting, building, maintaining, and enhancing relationships with potential and existing customers. The findings from several qualitative inquiries, including field interviews of executives and exploratory data from customers, aid in the development of an understanding and definition of the nature and scope of CE, including a 2 × 2 classification matrix identifying the foci of engagement. We finally provide a model of CE and relate it to other important constructs. BACKGROUND OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT We begin with a discussion of the existing conceptualizations of engagement and CE. The Appendix summarizes a selected set of existing literature on these constructs from the fields of psychology, management, information systems, marketing, education, and practitioner literature. As the Appendix shows, researchers and practitioners in a number of disciplines, including marketing, address engagement, but its domain and definition are far from consistent across these disciplines and researchers. In psychology, several researchers define engagement, either generally (Schaufeli et al. 2002) or in the context of work (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001), role (Watkins et al. 1991), or employment (Avery, McKay, and Wilson 2007). A review and synthesis of the elements of engagement in the last column of the Appendix table show that engagement is a cognitive, affective, behavioral, or social construct. Next, drawing from the Appendix, we briefly review the literature on employee work and role engagement, followed by the research on CE. Each description in the table is further classified in regard to these elements (i.e., cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social) to indicate the broad use of the construct of engagement in the literature. Engagement Work and role engagement has been primarily studied in psychology. Kahn (1990) was the first to apply the concept of engagement to work. Describing the behavior of engaged employees, he suggests that employees vary in their expression of selves in work roles. Those who perceive more supportive conditions for authentic expression tend to be “engaged.” However, Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter define work engagement as “persistent, positive affectivemotivational state of fulfillment” (2001, p. 417). Researchers characterize engagement in various subfields of psychology as involving vigor (energy and mental resilience), dedication (sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge), and absorption (concentration and engrossment) (Schaufeli et al. 2002); attention and absorption (Rothbard 2001); and the opposite of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter 2001). Kahn (1990) suggests three psychological conditions for employee engagement: meaningfulness (value of a work goal), psychological safety (ability to employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences), and availability (belief of resourcefulness to engage the self). As discussed above, researchers in the 1990s looked at work and role engagement and defined it as a state of mind that affects behavior. We now discuss the literature that focuses on the study of engagement in marketing. Customer Engagement From the Gallup CE11 metric (2001), the Economist Intelligence Unit report (2007), and the special issues of the Journal of Service Research and the Journal of Services Marketing on CE in 2010, the concept has evolved among practitioners as well as academics. A collection of definitions in Table 1 suggests that there are differing conceptualizations of the term customer engagement. Practitioners look at CE from the perspective of the organization and define it as activities facilitating “repeated interactions that strengthen the emotional, psychological or physical investment a customer has in a brand” (Sedley 2010, p. 7). But academics in information systems look at CE as the “intensity of customer participation with both representatives of the organization and with other customers in a collaborative knowledge exchange process” (Wagner and Majchrzak 2007, p. 20). A more recent framework of CE in marketing segments existing customers based on their transactional relationship with a brand (Bowden 2009). Bowden (2009) provided a conceptual framework of CE that, although focusing only on existing customers, suggests that customer–brand relationships and strategies for engaging customers might differ based on whether the customers are first-time or repeat purchasers. Considerable conceptual and descriptive work on engagement across various disciplines exists. However, there are gaps as to what engagement means to marketing and its stakeholders. It is evident from the review of the literature that no agreement exists as to the exact nature of engagement and its role in marketing. However, practitioners appear to relate it to building relationships with customers through programs aimed as getting individuals involved with and connected with their brand. Thus, next we address how CE can aid in filling the potential gaps in RM research priorities. Spring 2012 129 Table 1 Current and Expanded Domain of Relationship Marketing Current Research Emphasis of Relationship Marketing Focus Customer–organization relationships; retention of customers Basis of Value Exchange/goods and services Interactions Driven by organizations Outcomes Exchange-centric RELATIONSHIP MARKETING AND CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987, 1988) and, later, Fornell (1992) suggested that marketing strategies can be categorized as either offensive or defensive. Activities aimed at obtaining additional customers, encouraging brand switching, and increasing purchase frequency are offensive strategies, whereas those aimed at reducing customer exit and brand switching are defensive marketing strategies. In early conceptualizations of RM, researchers proposed that the domain of RM includes both offensive as well as defensive marketing activities, directed at “establishing, developing and maintaining successful relational exchanges” (Morgan and Hunt 1994, p. 22). Despite the initial broad conceptualization of RM as encompassing attracting new customers and retaining existing customers, subsequent RM research has been largely limited to the study of defensive activities aimed at enhancement and retention of existing customers in buyer–seller relationships based on exchange. To substantiate this point, we searched RM articles published from 2006 to 2011 in 20 marketing journals, identified as either top marketing journals (e.g., Journal of Marketing) or other journals most likely to address relationship topics (e.g., Journal of Relationship Marketing). Of the 140 empirical articles identified as relevant, only 12 included potential customers in their research. This clearly shows that although the pioneers of RM included attracting the customer as a goal of RM, subsequent research has largely ignored this aspect. The focus of research on defensive strategies has led to the neglect of the study and use of RM principles in offensive marketing strategies aimed at customer acquisition, even though the service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008) and the writings of Prahalad and Ramaswamy Relationship Marketing with Customer Engagement Incorporated (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000, 2003, 2004; Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008) Value configurations of customer and prospects, communities, as well as organizational networks; acquisition and reten‑ tion of consumers Use/experiences of existing or potential customers/process of co‑creation/phenomenology Driven by existing or potential customers, prospects, and potentials (as well as organizations) Experience-centric (exchange value determination is provisional upon experience) (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) emphasize the importance of experiences of both existing and potential customers and the resulting value configurations (Vargo and Lusch 2008). The approach of Vargo and Lusch and Prahalad and Ramaswamy suggests that RM research should address the experiences of both existing and potential customers, as well as the value configurations derived by these individuals and experiences. Based on the writings of different researchers, Table 1 indicates the focus, basis of value, interactions, and outcomes of the current research emphasis of RM versus RM with CE incorporated, which stresses the interactions with and experiences of both existing and potential customers, who subsequently derive value from these experiences and interactions. The service-dominant logic supports this perspective, within which lies the construct of CE. We expand further on these ideas below. The greater incorporation of CE into the RM literature will encourage researchers to consider some of the following aspects that need greater research attention. First, businesses spend billions of dollars on potential or future customers, aimed at extending the value of their brand. For instance, Microsoft and Apple provide computers to schools, creating goodwill and positive brand reinforcement. Clinique organizes makeup workshops, called “Attracted to Color,” twice a year to enable anyone who wishes to have an opportunity for one-on-one consultation with its makeup experts. These efforts aim to establish CE with the brand, whether or not a purchase is an immediate prospect. Second, many current programs are not purchase focused and instead focus simply on achieving engagement with all interested parties. For example, American Express, through the Members Project, urges card members “to dream up, and ultimately unite behind, one incredible idea. American 130 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Express will bring it to life with up to $5 million” (http:// socialroi.com/the-members-project-american-expressrallying-members-to-do-some-good-for-the-world.html). Third, existing and potential customers often interact among themselves. This interaction strongly influences their consumption decisions, given that other customers may be more influential than company advertising. For example, potential customers often read online reviews from other customers and product review Web sites (e.g., www. epinions.com) before buying a product. Fourth, CE within the RM research will allow for consideration of the opportunities provided by organizations for interactions among customers and prospects focused on helping them share experiences and solve one another’s problems, such as the baby birth or cancer seminars in many hospitals that bring patients together who are in similar life situations. The literature on customer communities addresses some of these issues, but the construct of CE as an important construct housed in the RM paradigm allows for a richer view of the interactions among organizations, organizational networks, and existing and potential customers, in what Vargo and Lusch (2008) call “value configurations.” This construct (1) should be based on the experiences of all individuals interacting with the brand, including possible customers (i.e., individuals interacting with the brand who are not yet in the decision-making stage), potential customers (those who may be considering the brand), or current customers (those who have purchased the brand), and (2) should capture the participation of these individuals within and outside the exchange situations. This is important because with CE incorporated within the RM literature, relationships are not just between buyers and sellers, but between any combination of (and among) potential and existing customers, noncustomers, society in general, their extended relationships, and sellers. It is through such engagement that trust, goodwill, and commitment are developed and, subsequently, relationships between individuals and brands are formed (regardless as to whether they are “purchasers” of the brand). For example, schoolchildren may become engaged with Apple or with Apple’s computers when the company provides schools with computers. CE meets the above requirements and thus can contribute to ensuring that RM research focuses on this broader domain. MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT To understand the views of managers in regard to CE, we conducted in-depth interviews with a series of executives. The data collection and analysis procedures for this explo- ration draw from grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 2007). The primary researcher initially obtained references from colleagues and personal contacts and later asked early interviewees for further referrals (i.e., snowball sampling). The primary researcher contacted the interviewees by phone or e‑mail and scheduled interviews at a date, time, and place convenient to the participants. Most of the interviews occurred in the respondents’ workplace. Twenty-seven executives were contacted, of which 18 (12 men and 6 women) agreed to be interviewed. These executives are drawn from a range of industries; represent either business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) relationships involving services, goods, and both online and offline contexts (such as marketing consulting, cosmetics, logistics, hospitality, and retail); and are at different hierarchical levels (supervisors, managers, senior managers, and vice presidents). They range in age from 29 to 67 years, and in experience from 6 to 27 years, and across multiple states. Given the exploratory nature of this study, convenience and snowball sampling techniques are appropriate (Ferber 1977). The researchers asked the interviewees two questions: 1. In your opinion, what is customer engagement? How would you define it? 2. At what point would you consider a customer “engaged” with your company? The researchers used several methods of analysis to arrive at the key findings from the interviews discussed in the next section. These techniques include text analysis of the notes taken during the interviews, coding of the interview transcripts, key word search, and comparison of themes identified by two independent researchers (with the third researcher acting as a judge in case of disagreements). The analysis increased our understanding of the elements of engagement strategy, the nature of engagement as seen by managers, and the expected outcomes of engagement initiatives. We briefly discuss these findings here. The term customer engagement is already popular in practice (Economist Intelligence Unit 2007; Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft 2010). The questions asked aimed to elicit the interviewees opinions as to the need for the construct and its meaning to them and their business. Emphasizing the affective element of CE, the respondents noted that engaging the customer is about building the relationship at multiple levels: If you have layers, multiple layers of the relationship . . . also having multiple touch points with the customer. (Group account executive, B2C, 13 years’ experience) Spring 2012 131 Other respondents’ statements support this view, suggesting that engagement involves having a relationship with the firm that is deeper than just making purchases (i.e., going beyond the purchase). Firms build such relationships by understanding the customer’s business (in a B2B context) and their needs (in a B2C context). Several interviewees brought out the full range of engagement dimensions (cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social) in their discussions: By having the relationship so strong with a client on a level outside of the day-to-day that if a competitor comes in that client is engaged with me as a person and has me as the face of the company or what we deliver. And my goal is to make sure that that client likes me on a genuine level. To me, aside from the obvious of continuously bringing and delivering of new and innovative ideas, I think that builds a definite engagement with my client. . . . I probably am the most informal person when it comes to building relationships. I go right to the personal side, and many times that actually helps. I have never lost any major business. (Account supervisor, B2B, 14 years’ experience) Customer engagement refers to the combination of behavioral responses with an emotional context. So the emotional context is confidence and trust, commitment, the behavioral context is action. So it’s looking or logging onto Web sites, continuing to transact, engaging in a dialog on an ongoing basis. It’s thinking about my brand. So of these, some are measurable, some are hard to measure. (Vice president, global loyalty, B2B, 7 years’ experience) Although relationships are two-way, underlining the social element of CE, often the organization takes the initiative to engage the customer. The individual customer may react in various ways to attempts at relationshipbuilding or engagement initiatives: Relationships require a t wo-way, they are very dynamic, but I would relate the concept of customer engagement to folks more on what you as an individual or a company could do to try to facilitate the building and the strengthening of those relationships. Again, recognizing that it’s a two-way avenue. (Vice president and group account director, B2C, 10 years’ experience) The interviews uncovered elements of a successful engagement strategy. The interviewees emphasized the need to be genuine in building strong rapport and a trusting relationship with the customer, often going beyond the obvious business relationship to produce deeper connections with and engagement by the customer. It is also important for the company to ensure that the client has a face for the company, which many firms do by appointing key account executives for larger accounts in B2B relationships. Executives suggest that putting value into each communication with the customer is important in producing successful engagement. Further, the initiatives have to be relevant to the customer to be successful. 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. Field interviews also confirmed that engaging the customer can lead to successful marketing outcomes, such as word of mouth, receiving value, loyalty, share of wallet, and cross-selling: They’ll be more proactive ambassadors of your brand. (Senior director, B2C, 25 years’ experience) Because they feel they are receiving value from you greater than they are giving. (Account general manager, B2B, 15 years’ experience) The importance of engaging customers is ensuring that ultimately you keep them longer, you encourage them to talk about your brand or product, and that the customer spends more across the range of goods and services that you offer. (Vice president, global loyalty, B2B, 7 years’ experience) Interviewees also suggest that organizations need to understand what behaviors and emotional responses they are seeking from the customer in order to translate that into value added to the bottom line. The quotation below suggests that although the term customer engagement is popularly used among practitioners, managers include not only existing but also potential customers in their thoughts on the topic: I could be very engaged in Maserati but I’m never going to buy one, it’s just too expensive. But I love the brand. I love the cars, so I am engaged, but that’s not creating value for that organization, other than I talk about that brand with car aficionado friends of mine. So, what does engagement mean to the organization in the broad context of creating value? (Vice president, global loyalty, B2B, 7 years’ experience) CUSTOMER-DRIVEN PERSPECTIVE OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT In a second exploratory study aimed at consumers, we conducted a two-pronged study. First, the primary researcher conducted two focus groups with senior undergraduate 132 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Table 2 Classification of the Foci of Customer Engagement Provider Initiated Customer Initiated Offerings Initiated Engagement initiated with offerings (brands, goods, or services) by organizations. Examples: brands, goods, services, movies, celebrities, thrift stores, Habitat for Humanity, museums, political candidates Engagement initiated with offerings by consumers. Examples: yard sales, flea markets, consumer auction Web sites, consumer donations Activities Initiated Engagement initiated with programs, events or activities (beyond the organization’s offering) by organizations. Examples: skill development programs for consumers (e.g., learning video making), baby birth or cancer seminars at hospitals, interactive activities on company Web site Engagement initiated with activities by consumers. Examples: shopping, photography, hobbies, blogging, cooking, traveling, music, gardening business students in a southeastern university as part of classroom activity. The researcher first introduced the idea of engagement to these groups. The researcher asked the individuals to think of something (e.g., a brand, product, or an activity) with which they felt engaged and why they felt this engagement. All personal experiences of engagement revolved around products, services, brands, activities, or personal relationships. As the discussion progressed, the researcher asked the first group to develop a statement that reflected their engagement. The researcher then asked a second group how well this statement reflected their idea of engagement. The second group suggested minor revisions in the statement. The final statement is “I enjoy _____ because _____.” Second, in a paper-and-pencil survey, the researcher asked 62 respondents to think of goods or services (such as iPod, makeup, hotels) or organized activities (such as beauty workshops, home improvement clinics) that they enjoyed being involved and engaged in. An example involving the use of an iPod was provided. Participants listed their own examples by completing the following sentence: “I enjoy _____ because _____.” In addition, they were asked to elaborate on how and why they felt engaged with this thing. Using convenience sampling, we collected 178 incidences of engagement from 62 participants from different backgrounds and ages to capture the whole range of foci of CE. Surveys were distributed and participation sought until the results stabilized and additional data provided no new information, as recommended in qualitative research (Corbin and Strauss 2007). The 62 participants include 36 senior undergraduate marketing students, 7 doctoral students, and 19 nonstudents. The student sample was obtained in classroom or seminar settings, and the nonstudents were contacted through e‑mail or in their homes. Twenty-eight respondents were female, and their ages ranged from 19 to 38. The responses were text analyzed to identify the foci of engagement. The obtained examples of the foci of engagement suggest a broad scope for CE. CE appears to be best explained by two dimensions—interaction with offerings versus more general activities and initiation by customer versus provider. Interactions with offerings involve a product or a strong brand that people use and seem to connect with; activities include those things that people might do and feel a strong emotional connection with, which may or may not involve a specific brand. The differentiation derives from what initiates the engagement. First, the offering (or product or brand) drives the customer to engage in an activity or interaction with the offering while in the second case, the activity drives the customer to the product or brand. Second, either the provider (or organization or firm) or the customer may initiate the interaction, recognizing that interactions are two-way, again with the focus being on the point of initiation. Based on these two dimensions, a 2 × 2 matrix provides the four derived categories of CE foci. Table 2 includes interactions with offerings, such as goods, services, and brands, where the organization or provider initiates the engagement. Most commonly found here are offerings that allow the customer to play an active role in creating a unique experience, or receiving intrinsic value from an offering. Besides high-technology products, simpler gadgets such as digital video recorders (DVRs), TiVo, and cell phones, and even knitting needles and sewing machines can be engaging for the customer because of they allow the customer to use his or her imagination and meet individual needs. Super-premium brands can engage individuals by their status value, just as philan- Spring 2012 133 thropic brands or political parties can engage people by their humanitarian or social value. Table 2 presents several other examples of provider-initiated offerings with which individuals interact. Table 2 also shows activities initiated by the provider, focused on programs or events that go beyond the firm’s offerings. This category derives heavily from customer participation in activities such as skill development and creative events with the firm, often on the Internet. A decade ago, Whirlpool urged homemakers to design an ideal refrigerator for themselves, just as Nokia recently invited customers to design a cell phone for themselves. In addition to innovation and new product development, customers may participate in events at malls and retail stores. Other examples include the “experiential in-home marketing events” (Trent 2008, p. 22) by customers of direct marketing businesses such as Tupperware and Avon or attendance at various company-sponsored seminars. The last column of Table 2 suggests that certain customer-initiated offerings engage other customers. Examples of customer-initiated offerings are yard sales and flea markets, which engage customers in large numbers and over time. Discussions with several regular visitors to such sales suggest that visiting garage sales or flea markets is like a ritual to them because they meet and socialize with other people and find things they do not need but would love to have. A similar form of engagement occurs with various online sites that are customer initiated (e.g., Schau, Muñiz, and Arnould 2009). Finally, Table 2 shows engaging activities initiated by customers, involving the use of goods, services, or organizations. A recurring example in this category is window shopping or browsing. Other examples include hobbies such as photography, gardening, and fishing. Further, these activities obviously involve firm offerings but the activity is the focus and initiation point and the use of a firm’s offering follows. Several businesses have recently started supporting such customer initiatives through sponsorships. For example, Home Depot runs weekly in-store and online home improvement clinics and workshops to support customers with home improvement projects. In several situations, however, these four categories may interrelate and overlap, especially as time passes. For example, when Coca-Cola initiates a Facebook page for its fans, fans quickly make use of the opportunity and generate a large amount of comments and content, thus moving quickly from provider initiated to consumer initiated (or engaged). Moreover, since user-generated content makes up the bulk of the CE initiative in this situation, and Coca-Cola remains in the background, the impression may be that it is a consumer initiative, although the company originated the page. The two-way interaction between providers and customers is, of course, at the heart of CE. Further, in situations of high enthusiasm, there may be little actionresponse time lag. In addition to the proposed two-dimensional classification, a number of additional ways to classify the foci of customers’ engagement emerged during our research investigation. The engaging offerings and activities might come from profit-making businesses (e.g., Sephora) or notfor-profit organizations (e.g., public libraries). Engagement might be in the presence or absence of other customers (e.g., interacting with other pregnant moms at baby birth seminars or creating playlists on the iPod), or online versus the real world (e.g., Apple lovers blogs versus Sephora beauty workshops). Customers might be engaged either at the organization’s premises (e.g., customized retail experiences) or in other than the organization’s premises (e.g., self-esteem workshops by Dove in a customer’s home). Organizations might engage customers directly or through third parties, as is common online. These contexts of engagement are only indicative of the scope of engagement and certainly do not exhaust the possibilities. A listing of these contexts suggests a consumption environment where the customer has transcended from the state of being a passive audience and welcomes opportunities for connecting with objects, events, people, and institutions. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT Before moving into how CE relates to other constructs, based on our literature review and exploratory work, we first define and delimit the nature of CE. CE is the intensity of an individual’s participation in and connection with an organization’s offerings or organizational activities, which either the customer or the organization initiates. The individuals may be current or potential customers. CE may be manifested cognitively, affectively, behaviorally, or socially. The cognitive and affective elements of CE incorporate the experiences and feelings of customers, and the behavioral and social elements capture the participation by current and potential customers, both within and outside of the exchange situations. CE involves the connection that individuals form with organizations, based on their experiences with the offerings and activities of the organization. Potential or current customers build experience-based relationships through intense participation with the brand by way of the unique experiences they have with the offerings and activities of the organization. 134 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Next, we discuss the relationship of CE with other important marketing constructs, differentiate it from other constructs, and present some propositions. Although the propositions are grounded in theory and literature, some are unavoidably speculative. Furthermore, the variables noted certainly do not exhaust all possibilities. We focus on this set because (1) marketing practitioners and academics have consistently deemed them important, and (2) we believe that CE is either affected by them or affects them in important ways. Specifically, we focus on customer participation and involvement as antecedents to CE, and value, trust, affective commitment, word of mouth, loyalty, and brand community involvement as consequences. The theoretical model appears in Figure 1. Our research emphasizes the centrality of participation from involved parties in engaging the customer. While participation is integral to CE, it is also distinct from CE and precedes it. Customer participation, defined as the degree to which the customer is involved in producing or delivering the service (Dabholkar 1990), engages the customer in an interactive situation that is of common interest to the firm as well as the customer. This interaction can produce higher levels of enthusiasm and subsequently greater engagement with the entity (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2006). For instance, building teddy bears at a Build-A-Bear Workshop or through their online site (where there were 7.8 million registered avatars in 2009; Ashby 2009) positively influences a customer’s interaction and subsequent engagement with the resulting product as well as the company. Therefore, we propose that customer participation can positively influence CE. MSI argues, “the brand engages prospects and customers by identifying itself with their common interests” (2006, p. 4), providing support for this idea. Thus, we propose the following: Proposition 1: An individual’s level of participation will be positively associated with the intensity of his or her focus of engagement. The construct of involvement is the “perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests” (Zaichkowsky 1985, p. 342). Involvement is a cognitive, affective, or motivational construct indicating state of mind (Smith and Godbey 1991) or perceived personal relevance, but it is not viewed as a behavior (Celsi and Olson 1988; Richins and Bloch 1986; Zaichkowsky 1985). Thus, its heightened level of interest and caring suggests that it is an antecedent to engagement. Involvement produces greater external search (Beatty and Smith 1987), greater depth of processing (Burnkrant and Sawyer 1983), more elaboration (Petty and Cacioppo 1986), and increases in product trials (Krugman 1965; Robertson 1976). Sephora and Clinique organize free beauty workshops aimed at providing consultation to anyone walking in. By providing opportunities for risk-free interaction, these companies enhance their relevance in the consumers’ minds, which is likely to lead to more engaged future customers. Such examples lead us to the following proposition: Proposition 2: An individual’s level of involvement will be positively associated with the intensity of his or her focus of engagement. As the theory of consumption values (Sheth, Newman, and Gross 1991) and the consumer values perspective (Holbrook 2006) suggest, consumers’ motivations toward engagement depends on the value they expect to receive from the experience. Values may be intrinsic or extrinsic. When the consumer appreciates an engagement initiative for its own sake “as a self-justifying end in itself” (Holbrook 2006, p. 715), he or she derives intrinsic value from it. But, if an initiative enables the individual to perform some activity better, he or she derives extrinsic value. Due to the active process of coproducing and participating in the design and production process (Garber, Hyatt, and Boya 2009), such as when customizing the iPhone to one’s needs, greater engagement will be associated with perceptions of greater value received, producing the following: Proposition 3: A highly engaged individual will derive both intrinsic and extrinsic value from his or her focus of engagement. CE also creates opportunities for interaction between marketers, consumers, and society, creating a macrolevel feedback loop (Garber, Hyatt, and Boya 2009). Reciprocal action theory suggests that one party will reciprocate actions taken by another party in a relationship because each party anticipates the possible guilt if the norm of reciprocity is violated (Li and Dant 1997). Thus, individuals will return good for good, in proportion to what they receive (Bagozzi 1995). The labor undertaken in association with a brand, be it the assembly of Ikea furniture, writing product reviews online, or attending a do-it-yourself workshop at Lowe’s, makes the consumer feel invested in a brand. Thus, based on our qualitative findings and the norm of reciprocity, as the customer perceives that he or she receives greater value from an offering or activity, the customer in turn becomes more involved and participates more with the offering or activity, producing a feedback loop. This discussion leads to the following proposition: Spring 2012 135 Figure 1 Theoretical Model of Customer Engagement Proposition 4: Increased value perceptions by the individual will be positively associated with his or her (a) participation and (b) involvement with the focus of engagement. According to Morgan and Hunt, trust exists “when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (1994, p. 23). In the evolutionary model of relational exchange, trust is important because it acts as a relational governance mechanism assuring partner reciprocity and nonopportunistic behavior (Ganesan 1994; Morgan and Hunt 1994). Research also indicates that positive interactions in extra-exchange relationship interactions contribute to trust in the exchange relationship (Ganesan 1994; Lambe, Spekman, and Hunt 2000; Parkhe 1993). Dove successfully engages customers (or potential customers) by inviting them to participate in its campaign for real beauty, just as American Express builds customer trust through its Members Project. Dove’s campaign aims to help in building the self-esteem of teenage girls. Similarly, American Express, through its Members Project, donates millions of dollars to projects voted on by potential or current customers. When firms engage customers, there is an opportunity for interactions that, if satisf ying, can lead to trust. Thus, higher engagement should produce more trust in the relationships because individuals will feel that the company cares about them and has their best interests at heart, which leads to our next proposition: Proposition 5: CE will be positively associated with an individual’s trust in the organization he or she associates with his or her focus of engagement. Affective commitment is “the psychological attachment of an exchange partner to the other and is based on feelings of identification, loyalty, and affiliation” (Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra 2002, p. 204). Bansal, Irving, and Taylor suggest that affective commitment is a “desire-based attachment” (2004, p. 236). Affective commitment reflects a psychological bond, such as that of Harley-Davidson motorcycle owners, with the company, which motivates the customer to remain in a relationship with an organization because he or she genuinely wants to be there. Higher levels of benefits that result from engagement with an organization’s offerings or activities will tend to produce greater affective commitment toward the firm (Bendapudi and Berry 1997). Therefore, we propose the following: Proposition 6: CE will be positively associated with an individual’s affective commitment toward the organization he or she associates with his or her focus of engagement. 136 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Organizations view word of mouth as a promotional tool (Bone 1995; Feick, Price, and Higie 1986). Favorable word of mouth may include “relating pleasant, vivid, or novel experiences; recommendations to others; and even conspicuous display” (Anderson 1998, p. 6). Brown et al. (2005) and Matos and Rossi (2008) argue that satisfied and committed customers are highly effective facilitators of positive word of mouth. Matos and Rossi (2008) also show that highly committed customers are more likely to provide positive word of mouth and act as an advocate of the brand, such as Amazon.com’s Kindle owners’ or Apple’s iPad or iPhone owners’ strong advocacy for their brand. Thus, when customers are highly engaged with a brand, they are more likely to pass along positive word of mouth and act as an advocate of the brand: Proposition 7: CE will be positively associated with an individual’s word-of-mouth activity in regard to the organization he or she associates with his or her focus of engagement. Brand loyalty is “the biased behavioral response expressed over time by some decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of set of such brands, as a function of evaluative psychological processes” (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978, pp. 80–81). This conceptualization of brand loyalty focuses on the psychological as well as the behavioral components of loyalty. CE is distinct from brand loyalty in that it does not make a comparative evaluation of brands, nor does it involve behavioral decision making with respect to a transaction or repurchase. The cognitive, affective, behavioral, and social components of CE are with respect to an experience and not an exchange. Thus, although CE is distinct from brand loyalty, the engaged individual builds a strong connection with the company or brand he or she associates with the engagement. This connection strengthens the psychological processes and increases the likelihood of a positive behavioral response toward the brand or organization (Jacoby and Chestnut 1978). CE strengthens the classic hierarchy-of-effects notion of loyalty proposed by Oliver (1999). Oliver proposed that consumers first process information to form beliefs, next use those beliefs to form attitudes, and then make behavioral decisions based on relative attitude strength. An engaged consumer is likely to transition faster on the belief-attitude-behavior continuum. Moreover, an engaged individual may develop more favorable attitudes toward a product, company, or brand he or she associates with the engagement, and consequently, may feel more loyalty to the entity. We therefore suggest that CE is as an antecedent to loyalty and offer the following proposition: Proposition 8: CE will be positively associated with an individual’s loyalty to the brand, organization, or offering he or she associates with his or her focus of engagement. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) note three core components of a community: (1) consciousness of kind, the intrinsic connection members feel toward one another and the collective sense of difference from those not in the community; (2) presence of shared rituals and traditions; and (3) a sense of moral responsibility to the community as a whole. Through the notion of shared understanding, shared concerns, and shared beliefs, “members feel part of a large unmet, but easily imagined community” (Muniz and O’Guinn 2001, p. 419). McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) suggest that the primary basis for the identification of brand communities is either brands or consumption activities. They see brand communities as customer-centric. In their model, the brand and the product are granted “community member status” (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002, p. 39), equivalent to the customer and the marketer. In brand communities “product adoption is necessary to become fully situated in the experience” (McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002, p. 41). However, in our view, ownership or purchase of a product or brand is not a prerequisite of engagement or even of community involvement. Exposure may come through seeing information on the company or brand, through various social media or through friends or family, using the brand in some form, perhaps borrowing it from someone, using it at work, leasing it, or in some way becoming aware of the brand and its imagery. Consider that a large percentage of Harley-Davidson “fans” are not owners of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle but simply identify with the free spirit imagery associated with the brand. Positive experiences that connect an individual to a brand and to others who are engaged with a brand will increase the likelihood of subsequent membership or involvement in a brand community. Therefore, Proposition 9: CE will be positively associated with greater brand community involvement with the brand that is the focus of his or her engagement. Based on our fieldwork and the analysis of the interviews, we suggest that groups of engaged customers strengthen brand communities that can further influence the design process in the firms. Such involvement creates a feedback Spring 2012 137 loop between brand communities and customer participation. When Harley-Davidson discovered that its fans were increasingly customizing their motorcycles after purchase, the company involved its customers in developing various custom accessories, and these customizations are still widely offered and used today. This research provides an initial model of CE, articulating important antecedents and consequences and clearly differenatiating it from many of these concepts, which are sometimes confused with CE itself. Proposition 10: Increased brand community involvement by the individual will be positively associated with his or her (a) participation and (b) involvement with the focus of engagement. Managers have been interested in CE for about a decade now. A large number of companies are providing platforms for customers to come together, but are not sure where or how to target their efforts. This paper suggests that researchers need to align their perception of the scope of engagement not only with existing customers but also with noncustomers and potential customers. It is critical for practitioners to realize that customers engage with a wide range of goods, services, and activities. All these foci of engagement are not necessarily high involvement; even low-involvement foci can be highly engaging to individuals. Furthermore, individuals, as well as organizations, can initiate these offerings and activities. Thus, there is a great opportunity for organizations to engage existing or potential customers by supporting customer-initiated engagement. Evidence of this is in the organizations’ support of customer-generated material on the Internet and sponsorships of customerinitiated events. However, participation from firms needs to go beyond mere sponsorships, and create easy opportunities for interactions with the customers. Organizations that merely finance an event and place a banner displaying the sponsorship will engage fewer individuals than those who are themselves present and participating in the event, co-creating the experience with those present. For example, JetBlue gets it. The company, employing 17 individuals in their social media department, has a Twitter feed, which has collected 1.6 million followers. Moreover, they have 150,000 more individuals signed up for their cheap deals feed and more than 440,000 friends on Facebook (Daley 2011). JetBlue uses these mechanisms to communicate and respond to customer issues more so than to advertise. For example, in 2010, a disgruntled flight attendant exited a parked JetBlue flight via the emergency slide causing a public relations situation for the company. To relieve the situation, the company created a funny blog. The first customer comment on the blog read, “I love you JetBlue.” That customer is engaged. Finally, smart firms recognize that customers expect instantaneous responses to their inquiries in today’s instantaneous world, not e‑mails that say, “we are too busy to respond to your e‑mail,” a similar response to one given by a major book retailer recently when its e‑business was RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS This research attempts to provide a comprehensive understanding of CE. We make several important contributions by combining the existing literature on engagement with a set of executives’ views of engagement, as well as a group of customers’ perceptions of what engages them. We focus on CE from the customers’ perspective to give organizations a better understanding of what engages customers. For example, our matrix provides an initial classification of the foci of engagement in marketing: provider versus customer initiated and offer versus activity oriented. Our analysis of the foci of engagement further suggests that customers engage not only with high-involvement offerings but also low-involvement offerings, as well as activities that either providers or customers initiate. Engagement strategies by organizations are an extension of developing relationships with customers (both current and potential). The initial conceptualization of RM and the recent work, ideas, and writings of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) and Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008) imply that the domain of RM should encompass a focus beyond purchase. Our conceptualization of CE contributes to the area by reemphasizing the importance of broadly understanding individuals’ interactions and connections with the brand or product and with each other relative to the brand, regardless of whether they are purchasing or even considering purchasing the brand. The cognitive and emotional element of CE incorporates experiences and feelings of individuals, irrespective of the exchange; and the behavioral and social elements capture the participation by individuals with the brand or product both within and outside of the exchange situations. This is important because in the evolving marketing paradigm, relationships are not just between buyers and sellers, but between any combination of (and among) prospects, potentials, society, buyers, and sellers. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 138 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice taking off. Shortly thereafter, the company was put up for sale but had no takers (Erman 2011). LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS Our research is, of course, not free of limitations, which introduce future research options. In this study, we use convenience and snowball samples to find executives and individuals willing to talk to us. Since our research is aimed at the development of an initial conceptualization of engagement and its related constructs, rather than establishing the strength or extent of this research area, convenience sampling is reasonable at this point (Ferber 1977). However, future research should explore the degree to which these results and propositions are reasonable and generalizable with a larger probability sample. In addition, marketers need to consider how to assess the value of “engaging” noncustomers or future customers. For example, how successful are the efforts of Microsoft or Apple at providing computers to schools? Do programs such as these generate engagement, positive attitudes, and potential brand purchases later in life? What is the return on investment on these programs? Can these programs be seen as manipulative and thus backfire? If so, how? How can researchers adequately measure these goodwill efforts? Should individuals be contacted at some interval after the engagement to ascertain attitudes or change in attitudes? When do potential customers see the engagement as high-handed or too blatant? How much should companies push the products and accessories on these would-be customers for trial usage? When do customers see the programs, such as the Clinique clinics, as simply ways to make them feel obligated to make a purchase? What are the negative connotations involved and how can marketers avoid these connotations? In order to enable practitioners to make full use of the construct and academics to continue exploring the construct, future research should develop a CE scale and test its applicability across contexts. Marketing strategies focused on engaging the individual, as well as the surveys used to measure the effectiveness of these strategies, tend to focus on engagement from the perspective of organizations, not customers. Future research should focus on understanding the elements of CE to help practitioners build customer-focused engagement strategies from a customer perspective. Research should ascertain which dimensions are most effective with which customer bases. In addition, how can firms use customer-initiated programs (such as customer blogs) effectively and profit- ably? As firms get more savvy with social media options, the range of ways to interact with the customer (e.g., with Twitter, LinkedIn, Foursquare, Facebook) and for customers to interact with one another relative to the brand are enormous and multilevel, but the challenges of doing that right are almost enormous. REFERENCES Anderson, Eugene W. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth,” Journal of Service Research, 1 (1), 5–17. Appelbaum, Alec (2001), “The Constant Customer,” Gallup Management Journal, June 17 (available at http://gmj.gallup.com/ content/745/Constant-Customer.aspx). Ashby, Alicia (2009), “10% of Build-A-Bear Store Customers Influenced by Virtual World,” Engage Digital, February 19 (available at www.engagedigital.com/blog/2009/02/19/10-ofbuildabear-store-customers-influenced-by-virtual-world/). Avery, Derek R., Patrick F. McKay, and David C. Wilson (2007), “Engaging the Aging Workforce: The Relationship Between Perceived Age Similarity, Satisfaction with Coworkers, and Employee Engagement,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1542–1556. Bagozzi, Richard P. (1995), “Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (4), 272–277. ———, and Utpal M. Dholakia (2006), “Antecedents and Purchase Consequences of Customer Participation in Small Group Brand Communities,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (1), 45–61. Bakker, Arnold B., Jari J. Hakanen, Evangelia Demerouti, and Despoina Xanthopoulou (2007), “Job Resources Boost Work Engagement, Particularly When Job Demands Are High,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (2), 274–284. Band, William, and John Guaspari (2003), “Creating the CustomerEngaged Organization,” Marketing Management Journal, 12 (4), 34–39. Bansal, Harvir S., P. Gregory Irving, and Shirley F. Taylor (2004), “A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), 234–250. Beatty, Sharon E., and Scott M. Smith (1987), “External Search Effort: An Investigation Across Several Product Categories,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (1), 83–95. Bendapudi, Neeli, and Leonard L. Berry (1997), “Customers’ Motivations for Maintaining Relationships with Service Providers,” Journal of Retailing, 73 (1), 15–37. Berry, Leonard L. (1983), “Relationship Marketing,” in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, Leonard L. Berry, G. Lynn Shostack, and Gregory Upah, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 25–28. ———, and A. Parasuraman (1991), Marketing Services, New York: Free Press. Bone, Paula F. (1995), “Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-Term and Long-Term Product Judgments,” Journal of Business Research, 32 (3), 213–223. Bowden, Jana Lay-Hwa (2009), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17 (1), 63–74. Spring 2012 139 Brown, Tom J., Thomas E. Barry, Peter A. Dacin, and Richard F. Gunst (2005), “Spreading the Word: Investigating Antecedents of Consumers’ Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing Context,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (2), 123–138. Burnkrant, Robert E., and Alan G. Sawyer (1983), “Effects of Involvement and Message Content on Information-Processing Intensity,” in Information Processing Research in Advertising, Richard J. Harris, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 43–64. Campanelli, Melissa (2007), “Engagement is the Next Phase in Marketing Communications: Experian Summit,” January 18 (available at www.dmnews.com/Engagemetn-is-nextphase-in-marketing-communications-Experian-summit/ article/94175/). Catteeuw, Frank, Eileen Flynn, and James Vonderhorst (2007), “Employee Engagement: Boosting Productivity in Turbulent Times,” Organizational Development Journal, 25 (Summer), 151–156. Celsi, Richard L., and Jerry C. Olson (1988), “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 210–224. Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss (2007), Qualitative Research, 3d ed., Los Angeles: Sage. Dabholkar, Pratibha A. (1990), “How to Improve Perceived Service Quality by Improving Customer Participation,” in Development in Marketing Science, B.J. Dunlap, ed., Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 483–487. Daley, Jason (2011), “How to Make Marketing Brilliance,” Entrepreneur, February, 48–53. Economist Intelligence Unit (2007), ‘‘Beyond Loyalty: Meeting the Challenge of Customer Engagement, Part I,’’ Economist (available at http://graphics.eiu.com/ebf/PDFs/ eiu_AdobeEngagementPt_I_wp.pdf). Erat, Pablo, Kevin C. Desouza, Anja Schäfer-Jugel, and Monika Kurzawa (2006), “Business Customer Communities and Knowledge Sharing: Exploratory Study of Critical Issues,” European Journal of Information Systems, 15 (5), 511–524. Erman, Boyd (2011), “Morning Meeting: No Buyers for Barnes & Noble,” The Globe and Mail, March 23 (available at www .theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/ streetwise/morning-meeting-no-buyers-for-barnes-noble/ article1952698/). Feick, Lawrence F., Linda L. Price, and Robin A Higie (1986), “People Who Use People: The Other Side of Opinion Leadership,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 301–305. Ferber, Robert C. (1977), “Research by Convenience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (4), 57–58. Fleming, John H., Curt Coffman, and James K. Harter (2005), “Manage Your Human Sigma,” Harvard Business Review, 83, 7 (July–August), 107–114. Fornell, Claes (1992), “A National Customer Satisfaction Barometer: The Swedish Experience,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (1), 6–21. ———, and Birger Wernerfelt (1987), “Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint Management: A Theoretical Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (November), 337–346. ———, and ——— (1988), “A Model for Customer Complaint Management: A Theoretical Analysis,” Marketing Science, 7 (3), 287–298. Fredericks, Jennifer A., Phyllis C. Blumenfeld, and Alison H. Paris (2004), “School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence,” Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59–109. Gallup Consulting (2001), “Customer Engagement: What’s Your Engagement Ratio?” Washington, DC (available at www .gallup.com/consulting/121901/Customer-EngagementOverview-Brochure.aspx). Ganesan, Shankar (1994), “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer–Seller Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 1–19. Garber, Lawrence L., Jr., Eva M. Hyatt, and Ünal Ö. Boya (2009), “The Collaborative Roles of the Designer, the Marketer, and the Consumer in Determining What Is Good Design,” Advertising & Society Review, 10 (1) (available at from http://muse .jhu.edu/journals/advertising_and_society_review/). Ghuneim, Mark (2008), “Terms of Engagement: Measuring the Active Consumer,” Wiredset, March 26 (available at http:// wiredset.com/2008/03/26/terms-of-engagement-measuringthe-active-consumer/). Gravenkemper, Steve (2007), “Building Community in Organizations: Principles of Engagement,” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59 (3), 203–208. Gronroos, Christian (1990), Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Guthrie, John T., and Kathleen E. Cox (2001), “Classroom Conditions for Motivation and Engagement in Reading,” Educational Psychology Review, 13 (3), 283–302. Hallberg, Ulrika E., and Wilmar B. Schaufeli (2006), “‘Same Same’ but Different? Can Work Engagement Be Discriminated from Job Involvement and Organizational Commitment?” European Psychologist, 11 (2), 119–127. Harris, Jodi (2006), “Consumer Engagement: What Does It Mean?” iMedia Connection, May 23 (available at www.imediacon nection.com/content/9729.imc/). Haven, Brian (2007), “Marketing’s New Key Metric: Engagement,” Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA, August 8 (available at www.adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/marketings_new_key_ metric_engagement.pdf). Heath, Robert (2007), “How Do We Predict Advertising Attention in Engagement?” Working Paper Series no. 2007.09, University of Bath School of Management (available at http://opus.bath .ac.uk/286/1/2007-09.pdf). Higgins, Tory E. (2006), “Value from Hedonic Experience and Engagement,” Psychological Review, 113 (3), 439–460. Holbrook, Morris B. (2006), “Consumption Experience, Customer Value, and Subjective Personal Introspection: An Illustrative Photographic Essay,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (6), 714–725. Jacoby, Jacob, and Robert W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Joshi, Ashwin, and Sanjay Sharma (2004), “Customer Knowledge Development: Antecedents and Impact on New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 47–59. Kahn, William A. (1990), “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work,” Academy of Management Journal, 33 (December), 692–724. Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 30 (4), 583–596. Kumar, V., Lerzan Aksoy, Bas Donkers, Rajkumar Venkatesan, Thorsten Wiesel, and Sebastian Tillmanns (2010), ‘‘Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer 140 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Engagement Value,” Journal of Ser vice Research, 13 (3), 297–310. Lambe, C. Jay, Robert E. Spekman, and Shelby D. Hunt (2000), “Interimistic Relational Exchange: Conceptualization and Propositional Development,” Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 28 (2), 212–225. Li, Zhan G., and Rajiv P. Dant (1997), “An Exploratory Study of Exclusive Dealing in Channel Relationships,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 201–213. Lutz, Susan L., John T. Guthrie, and Marcia H. Davis (2006), “Scaffolding for Engagement in Elementary School Reading Instruction,” Journal of Educational Research, 100 (1), 3–20. Marketing Science Institute (2006), 2006–2008 Research Priorities: A Guide to MSI Research Programs and Procedures, Cambridge, MA. ——— (2010), 2010–2012 Research Priorities, Cambridge, MA. Maslach, Christina, Wilmar Schaufeli, and Michael P. Leiter (2001), “Job Burnout,” Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422. Matos, Celso Augusto de, and Vargas Rossi (2008), “Word-ofMouth Communications in Marketing: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Antecedents and Moderators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (4), 578–596. May, Douglas R., Richard L. Gilson, and Lynn M. Harter (2004), “The Psychological Conditions of Meaningfulness, Safety and Availability and the Engagement of the Human Spirit at Work,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (March), 11–37. McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold F. Koenig (2002), “Building Brand Communities,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (January), 38–54. McEwen, William J. (2004), “Why Satisfaction Isn’t Satisfying,” Gallup Management Journal, November 11 (available at http://gmj.gallup.com/content/14023/why-satisfaction-isntsatisfying.aspx). Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby Hunt (1994), “The CommitmentTrust Theory of Relationship Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (July), 20–38. Muniz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn (2001), “Brand Community,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412–432. Nambisan, Satish (2002), “Designing Virtual Customer Environments for New Product Development: Toward a Theory,” Academy of Management Review, 27 (3), 392–413. Narayen, Shantanu (2007), “Shantanu Narayen Discusses Customer Engagement” (available at www.adobe.com/ engagement/q_and_a.html). Noland, James, and Robert A. Phillips (2010), “Stakeholder Engagement, Discourse Ethics and Strategic Management,” International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 39–49. Oliver, Richard L. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 33–44. Parkhe, Arvind (1993), “Strategic Alliance Structuring: A Game Theoretic and Transaction Cost Examination of Interfirm Cooperation,” Academy of Management Journal, 36 (4), 794–829. Pasikoff, Robert (2006), Predicting Market Success: New Ways to Measure Customer Loyalty and Engage Consumers with Your Brand, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer. Prahalad, C.K. (2004), “The Cocreation of Value,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 23. ———, and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2000), “Co-Opting Customer Competence,” Harvard Business Review, 78 (1), 79–88. ———, and ——— (2002), “The Co-Creation Connection,” Strategy and Business, 27 (2), 50–61. ———, and ——— (2003), “The New Frontier of Experience Innovation,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (4), 12–18. ———, and ——— (2004), “Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5–14. Preston, Rob ( 2007), “Engage with Customers, Don’t Just Humor Them,” InformationWeek, 1127 (February 26), 60. Resnick, Evan (2001), “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, 54 (2), 551–566. Richins, Marsha L., and Peter H. Bloch (1986), “After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 280–285. Rieger, Tom, and Craig Kamins (2006), “Are You Failing to Engage?” Gallup Management Journal, November 9 (available at http://gmj.gallup.com/content/25345/failing-engage.aspx). Roberts, Darryl R., and Thomas O. Davenport (2002), “Job Engagement: Why It’s Important and How to Improve It,” Employment Relations Today, 29 (3), 21–29. Robertson, Thomas S. (1976), “Low-Commitment Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Advertising Research, 16 (April), 19–24. Rothbard, Nancy P. (2001), “Enriching or Depleting? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and Family Roles,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (4), 655–684. Saks, Alan M. (2006), “Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600–619. Sawhney, Mohanbir, Gianmario Verona, and Emanuela Prandelli (2005), “Collaborating to Create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (4), 5–17. Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert M. Muñiz, Jr., and Eric J. Arnould (2009), “How Brand Community Practices Create Value,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 30–51. Schaufeli, Wilmar B., Isabel M. Martinez., Alexandra M. Pinto, Marisa Salanova, and Arnold B. Bakker (2002), “Burnout and Engagement in University Students: A Cross-National Study,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (5), 464–481. Sedley, Richard (2010), “4th Annual Online Customer Engagement Report 2010” (available at http://issuu.com/richardsedley/ docs/customer-engagement-report2010/). Sheth, Jagdish N., Bruce I. Newman, and Barbara L. Gross (1991), “Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values,” Journal of Business Research, 22 (2), 159–170. Smith, Stephen L.J., and Geoffrey C. Godbey (1991), “Leisure, Recreation and Tourism,” Annals of Tourism Research, 18 (3), 85–100. Trent, Ashley (2008), “Get the Party Started,” Marketing News (October 1), 22 (available at https://docs.google.com/viewer ?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketingpower.com%2F Calendar%2FDocuments%2F2009%2FHot%2520Topics %25202009%2F22_MN%252010%252001%252008%2520kb .pdf). van Doorn, Jenny, Katherine N. Lemon, Vikas Mittal, Stephan Nass, Doreén Pick, Peter Pirner, and Peter C. Verhoef (2010), “Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations Spring 2012 141 and Research Directions,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 253–266. Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (January), 1–17. ———, and ——— (2008), “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–10. Verhoef, Peter C., Philip Hans Franses, and Janny C. Hoekstra (2002), “The Effect of Relational Constructs on Customer Referrals and Number of Services Purchased from a Multiservice Provider: Does Age of Relationship Matter?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30 (3), 202–216. ———, Werner J. Reinartz, and Manfred Krafft (2010), “Customer Engagement as a New Perspective in Customer Management,” Journal of Service Research, 13 (3), 247–252. Wagner, Christian, and Ann Majchrzak (2007), “Enabling Customer-Centricity Using Wiki the Wiki Way,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 23 (3), 17–43. Watkins, C. Edward, Jr., Robert M. Tipton, Michaelene Manus, and Julie Hunton-Shoup (1991), “Role Relevance and Role Engagement in Contemporary School Psychology,” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 22 (4), 328–332. Whelan, Susan, and Markus Wohlfeil (2006), “Communicating Brands Through Engagement with ‘Lived’ Experiences,” Journal of Brand Management, 13 (4), 313–329. Winsor, John (2004), Beyond the Brand: Why Engaging the Right Customers Is Essential to Winning in Business, Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Trade Publishing. Zaichkowsky, Judith L. (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (3), 341–352. 142 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Appendix Summary Review of Relevant Engagement Literature Authors (Year) Study Definition of Engagement (Element Emphasized) Main Contributions Academic Literature—Marketing Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft (2010) van Doorn et al. (2010) Proposes that CE is an important development in customer management literature. Conceptualizes CE behaviors and their antecedents and consequences. Kumar et al. (2010) Goes beyond transactions to propose four components of CE value: customer lifetime value, customer referral value, customer influencer value, and customer knowledge value. Understanding of customer–brand relationships based on purchase frequency. Event marketing facilitates CE with the brand through informal dialogues and personal firsthand brand experiences. Virtual CE is customer-centric, active, two-way, and continuous, focuses on social and experiential knowledge, and has direct as well as mediated interactions with prospects and potential customers. Customer new product preferences evolve through CE with specific new product ideas. Firm–customer relationships are not bilateral; engagement leads to co‑creation of experience; dialogue, access and transparency to information; and risk assessment are building blocks for co‑creation of value. Engagement is a measure of the strength of a company’s relationships with customers. Bowden (2009) Whelan and Wohlfeil (2006) Sawhney, Verona, and Prandelli (2005) Joshi and Sharma (2004) Prahalad (2004) McEwen (2004) Winsor (2004) The most valuable feedback is gleaned from consumers when they are actually engaged in making purchasing decisions. (Behavioral) Behavioral manifestations with a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drives. (Behavioral) “Active interactions of a customer with a firm, with prospects and with other customers, whether they are transactional or non-transactional in nature” (p. 297). (Behavioral) (Behavioral) None (Social and behavioral) None None The extent to which customers form an emotional and rational bond with the brand. (Emotional, cognitive) None Academic Literature—Psychology Bakker et al. (2007) Gravenkemper (2007) Avery, McKay, and Wilson (2007) Higgins (2006) Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) Job resources boost work engagement, especially in situations when job demands are high. Six principles: communicate a compelling message; build a guiding coalition; create principle-based versus compliance-based guidelines for decisions and behaviors; identify early engagement indicators; generate continuous opportunities for dialogue; and plan assimilation strategies for new members and new leaders. Satisfaction with coworkers and perceived age similarity relates to engagement. Proposes certain implications of the contribution of engagement strength to value. Work engagement, job involvement, and organizational commitment are empirically distinct constructs and reflect different aspects of work attachment. None None Meaningful employee expression in work roles. (Cognitive, behavioral) None None Spring 2012 143 Authors (Year) Study Saks (2006) Distinguishes between job and organization engagement. May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) Meaningfulness is strongly related to engagement. Job enrichment and work role fit relate to meaningfulness; rewarding relationships to safety; and availability to resources available. Dimensions of engagement: vigor (high levels of energy and mental resilience), dedication (sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge), and absorption (being fully concentrated, happy, and deeply engrossed). Engagement promises to yield new perspectives on interventions to alleviate burnout. Schaufeli et al. (2002) Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) Rothbard (2001) Watkins et al. (1991) Kahn (1990) Definition of Engagement (Element Emphasized) Main Contributions Components of role engagement-attention and absorption. Relevance and engagement possess similarities in structure. Psychological conditions of personal engagement: (1) How meaningful is it for me to bring myself into this performance? (2) How safe is it to do so? (3) How available am I to do so? Consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance. (Emotional, cognitive) Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. (Cognitive) Work engagement is a persistent, positive, affectivemotivational state of fulfillment. (Cognitive, affective) (Cognitive) Role engagement is the degree to which various role behaviors are actually practiced or engaged in. (Behavioral) The simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others personal presence (cognitive and emotional) and active, full performances. Academic Literature- Information Systems Wagner and Majchrzak (2007) Erat et al. (2006) CE is enabled through community custodianship, goal alignment, value-adding processes, emergence of layers of participation, management and monitoring effort, and enabling technologies. Suggests customers should take the role of custodians. Discusses challenges in engaging customers online, the different roles customers can take. The intensity of customer participation with both representatives of the organization and with other customers in a collaborative knowledge exchange process. (Behavioral) “Engagement with customers calls for exchanging information and knowledge with customers and fostering exchanges between customers” (p. 511). (Behavioral) Academic Literature—Management Noland and Phillips (2010) Reports recent trends in the literature on stakeholder engagement. Ghuneim (2008) Emphasizes the value of engagement and its measurement. Catteeuw, Flynn, and Vonderhorst (2007) Implementation of employee engagement for organizational development at Johnson & Johnson. Suggests performance is the result of an interaction of employee engagement and CE; emotions inform both sides’ judgments and behavior more powerfully than rationality. Fleming, Coffman, and Harter (2005) A type of interaction that involves recognition and respect of common humanity and the ways in which the actions of each may affect the other. (Behavioral) A consumer-based measurement that regards interaction with an aspect of a brand or media property. (Behavioral) The degree to which employees are satisfied with their jobs, feel valued, and experience collaboration and trust. (Emotional) None 144 Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice Authors (Year) Study Nambisan (2002) Roberts and Davenport (2002) Definition of Engagement (Element Emphasized) Main Contributions Discusses four themes: interaction patterns, knowledge creation, customer motivation, and virtual community–new product development team integration. Increasing job engagement makes economic sense. None Job engagement is a person’s enthusiasm and involvement in the job. (Emotional) Practitioner Literature Narayen (2007) Haven (2007) Health of a company relies on the extent to which it creates meaningful and sustainable interactions. Proposes a four-component engagement metric: involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence. Sedley (2010) 4th Annual Online Customer Engagement Report 2010 Preston (2007) CE is deeper than just humoring customers or paying lip service to them. Level of attention and engagement are distinct, and the use of multimedia increases engagement. Multimedia engagement study measured six dimensions of engagement: inspirational, trustworthy, life enhancing, social interaction, ad attention/receptivity, and personal time out. Identifies the key characteristics of barriers companies face that prevent them from fully engaging their customer and employees. Introduces a loyalty-based customer-listening system for better marketing results. Heath (2007) Campanelli (2007) Rieger and Kamins (2006) Pasikoff (2006) Harris (2006) Report of iMedia Agency Summit on Engagement. Band and Guaspari (2003) Customer-engaged organization not only delivers superior results but also adapts and responds nimbly in a competitive environment. Gallup Consulting’s CE metric (CE11). Appelbaum (2001) PeopleMetrics (www.peoplemetrics.com) Wikipedia Engaged customers (1) promote the company or brand, (2) intend to return in the future, (3) go out of their way to do business with the company, and (4) feel passion, even love, for the brand and experience. Suggests CE is an online social phenomenon, where customer behavior revolves around product categories. Gives other definitions of CE, and discusses marketing practices. Creating meaningful and sustainable interactions. (Behavioral) The level of involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence an individual has with a brand over time. (Cognitive, affective, behavioral) Repeated interactions that strengthen the emotional, psychological, or physical investment a customer has in a brand. (Behavioral, affective) None Level of engagement is the amount of “feeling” going on when an advertisement is being processed. (Emotional) (Cognitive, affective, behavioral, social) CE is an emotional connection between the company and its customers. (Emotional) Psychologically based tendencies and expectations that determine marketplace behavior. (Cognitive, emotional) A way of thinking about today’s marketing and media from the perspective of today’s active consumer. (Does not address dimensions) None Fully engaged customers are emotionally attached and rationally loyal; they are your most valuable customers. (Emotional, cognitive) None Engagement of customers with one another, with a company or a brand. (Primarily behavioral) Spring 2012 145 Authors (Year) Study Main Contributions Definition of Engagement (Element Emphasized) Other Disciplines Lutz, Guthrie, and Davis (2006) Fredericks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) Assessed student learning engagement using a multidimensional coding scheme. Describes behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement and recommends studying engagement as a multifaceted construct. Resnick (2001) Conceptualizes engagement in the context of international relations. Guthrie and Cox (2001) Identifies important features of classroom context that foster reading engagement. School engagement has affective, cognitive, behavioral, and social elements. Positive affective reactions facilitating sense of connection (emotional), active participation in academic activities (behavioral), and mental investment in learning. (Cognitive) The attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue areas. None. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
© Copyright 2018