Choudhury2014 PDF

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]
On: 08 October 2014, At: 03:06

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Strategic Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsm20
CRM to social CRM: the integration

of new technologies into customer
relationship management
ab b
Musfiq Mannan Choudhury & Paul Harrigan
a
Department of Management Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka,
Bangladesh
b
UWA Business School, The University of Western Australia,
Crawley, Australia
Published online: 31 Jan 2014.
To cite this article: Musfiq Mannan Choudhury & Paul Harrigan (2014) CRM to social CRM: the
integration of new technologies into customer relationship management, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 22:2, 149-176, DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2013.876069
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876069
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2014
Vol. 22, No. 2, 149–176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876069
CRM to social CRM: the integration of new technologies into

customer relationship management
Musfiq Mannan Choudhurya* and Paul Harriganb
a
Department of Management Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh; bUWA Business
School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia
(Received 20 June 2013; accepted 17 October 2013)
Customer relationship management (CRM) is a continually evolving domain and now

Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 03:06 08 October 2014
social media technologies have revolutionized the way businesses and consumers
interact. Hence, the new dimension of social CRM focuses on customer engagement
domain, and now social media technologies have revolutionised the way businesses
and consumers interact. This paper focuses on social CRM and builds on a previous
CRM model proposed by Jayachandran et al. (2005), adopting the resource-based view
theory and the equity theory. This paper presents a new model for social CRM,
including a new construct of customer engagement initiatives and adaptations of other
constructs, to take cognisance of the impact of social media technologies on CRM.
Data were collected from a population of marketing practitioners using an online
survey technique and the model was tested using PLS-SEM. From a theoretical
perspective, the study contributes to an understanding of the change in communications
between the customer and the marketer, and focuses on interactive relationships with
customers. From a managerial perspective, businesses should utilise the rich customer
information generated through every customer engagement using social media, to drive
future marketing decisions.
Keywords: customer relationship management (CRM); social media technologies;
customer engagement initiatives; relational information processes; social CRM; partial
least squares
1. Introduction
Customer relationship management (CRM), underpinned by relationship marketing
principles, is an important research domain, which has experienced peaks and troughs of
interest, with both success and failure stories on the marketing and technology sides
(Payne & Frow, 2005). Copious previous research has modelled the use and impact of
technologies in CRM, but with the rise of social media more and more marketers are
realising that these technologies are actually powerful enablers to CRM.
Current social media technologies include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube,
Google (þ and Analytics) and many other peer-to-peer websites such as blogs, micro
blogs, wikis, podcasts, photo sharing, video sharing and social bookmarking (Kim & Ko,
2012). These tools are now extensively used by marketers and this is reinforced by
statistics showing that 80% of business executives consider social media as important for
marketing.1 On the other hand, Nielsen Company (2012) reported that 46% of online users
use social media when making purchase decisions online. Gartner projects around $34
billion by 2016.2 A survey found that around 80% of executives say that their
organizations used social media to understand markets (Deloitte University Press, 2013)
*Corresponding author. Email: musfiq@du.ac.bd
q 2014 Taylor & Francis

150 M.M. Choudhury and P. Harrigan
and 86% of companies are using social media for marketing of which 41% use social tolls
for communicating with customers (Forbes, 2013). In the USA, $2.1 billion was projected
for social media expenditures, rising to an anticipated $5 billion in 2016 (VanBoskirk,
Overby, & Takvorian, 2011).
Social media has become a domain for investment that has interested businesses,
recognising it as a method for maintaining durable relationships with their customers
(Trainor, 2012). Firms are now investing in resources that integrate social data into their
existing CRM systems making it possible to understand customers and simultaneously
cater to their best interests (VanBoskirk et al., 2011).
This paper builds on previous research of Jayachandran, Sharma, Kaufman, and
Raman (2005), adopting the resource-based view (RBV) theory and the equity theory with
the aim of developing a model where social media technologies represent new
relationships that lead to new implications. A new construct, customer engagement,
derived from the review of recent literature (e.g. Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013) has
been introduced into the model. Other constructs, such as the use of CRM technology and
relational information processes have been updated to respond to developments in CRM.
The paper’s contributions are as follows. First, the development of a model for social
CRM covering contemporary marketing theory and practice. Second, this study
contributes to the notion of collaborative relationships between marketers and customers.
Focusing on relational information processes, this paper underlines the importance of two-
way information sharing underpinned by engagement with customers. Third, and related
to ultimate customer relationship performance, the study shows that the use of social
media technologies to facilitate relational information processes positively impacts on
marketing performance.
2. Transformation of CRM to social CRM

The powerful impact of technology on CRM has led many to perceive CRM as a solely, or
predominantly, technological initiative, ignoring the marketing principles that actually
underpin it (Reinartz, Krafft, & Hoyer, 2004). With an advance in technology as an enabler,
CRM has had new life breathed into it by the Internet and has moved away from database
technologies and the more inward-facing systems of the 1980s. Organisations were able
reach out to customers via global, real-time mediums with new software packages, such as
PeopleSoft, Telemation, Oracle and Siebel becoming readily available. Even smaller
organisations were using simpler technologies such as websites, databases and email
packages to take advantage of the merging of the Internet and CRM (Boulding, Staelin,
Ehret, & Johnston, 2005; Harrigan, Ramsey, & Ibbotson, 2011). However, with these
traditional technologies, communication remained a one-way medium, where organisations
transferred their offline marketing approaches to an online platform, thereby not taking
advantage of the unique relational potential of the Internet (Shah & Murtaza, 2005). Today,
with the advent and embedded nature of advanced Web 2.0 used in social media
technologies, CRM has another opportunity to grow and prosper. The interactive and
relational properties of these new social media technologies make them perfectly suited to
CRM and its underlying relationship marketing principles (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
Traditionally, CRM is often considered as a combination of specific technological
solutions to existing organisational processes and culture with an aim of managing
customer relationships (Jayachandran et al., 2005; Payne & Frow, 2005; van Doorn et al.,
2010). Boulding et al. (2005, p. 157) define CRM as:
Journal of Strategic Marketing 151
. . . a strategy for the management of the dual creation of value, the intelligent use of data
and technology, the acquisition of customer knowledge and the diffusion of this knowledge
to the appropriate stakeholders, the development of appropriate (long-term) relationships
with specific customers and/or customer groups, and the integration of processes across the
many areas of the firm and across the network of firms that collaborate to generate customer
value.
The notion of CRM indicates that it is encompassed in the RBV perspective, in which
CRM is considered as technological resource consisting of tactical and operational
dimensions within the organisation, along with other strategic dimensions (such as
customer orientation and customer engagement) to achieve significant performance gains
(Borges, Hoppen, & Luce, 2009; Chang, Park, & Chaiy, 2010; Coltman, 2007). CRM
focuses mainly on systems that provide support for sales, marketing, analysis and data
integration (Jayachandran et al., 2005; Rapp, Trainor, & Agnihotri, 2010). Similarly,
earlier literature, prior to the advent of social media technologies, have not considered the
role of such innovations in CRM with relation to performance. Hence, the concept of
social CRM evolves with invention of new social media technologies in the early 2000.
Greenberg (2010, p. 414) defines social CRM as:
. . . a philosophy and a business strategy, supported by a system and a technology, designed to
engage the customer in a collaborative interaction that provides mutually beneficial value in a
trusted and transparent business environment.
This definition builds on the accepted notion of traditional CRM but is an elaboration, as it
includes social functions, processes and capabilities that consider the interaction between
customers and firms as well as customers and their friends, relatives and peers (Greenberg,
2010). Furthermore, this definition indicates new tools, technologies and processes exist to
facilitate interaction with customers (Zablah, Bellenger, & Johnston, 2004) with a goal of
long-term relationships with enhanced performance (Coltman, 2007). Hence, social CRM
focuses on customer engagement with two-way, interactive relationships with customers
where they are encouraged to co-create marketing efforts and even product offerings
(Rodriguez, Peterson, & Krishnan, 2012).
Social CRM also enables the identification of new markets and trends within them for
new market entry, development and orientation (Warfield, 2009). As individuals depend
more and more on the social media technologies for keeping connection with friends and
peers, it has become a domain for a plethora of information arising out of such interactions
for businesses. The customers who expect interactions among themselves in these
networks also expect similar level of interaction from their business counterparts (Rainie,
Purcellm, & Smith, 2011, in Trainor, 2012). The types and categories of interactions
become overwhelming as businesses introduce new techniques and capabilities for
capturing such information (Trainor, 2012). Researchers suggest that the use of CRM in
the social media domain introduces the potential for influencing firm performance, as more
customer engagement, interactions and sharing of information takes place in these
applications (Agnihotri, Rapp, Kothandaraman, & Singh, 2012; Brodie et al., 2011;
Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; van Doorn et al., 2010).
Drawing on the work of Jayachandran et al. (2005), this study has adopted the RBV
theory and the equity theory for understanding the role of new social media technologies
as part of CRM technology use and the relational information processes. A new
construct, ‘customer engagement initiatives’ has also been added to the original model;
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model. In the later sub-sections of this study, the
constructs of customer relationship orientation (CRO), CRM technology use, customer
engagement initiatives, relational information processes and customer relationship
H2
Customer
engagement
H6
Initiatives
H1 Customer
Customer Relationship
CRM
relationship Performance
technology use
Customer
Relational
information
H3 processes H5
H4
Figure 1. Conceptual model of CRM.

performance, as well as their inter-relationships within the model are discussed to

develop the hypotheses.
2.1 Theoretical background

Research into the social CRM perspective has its theoretical foundations based on RBV
theory (Keramati, Mehrabi, & Mojir, 2010; Rapp et al., 2010; Trainor, 2012) and on the
dynamic capabilities perspective (Maklan & Knox, 2009). This explains how firms use
resources and capabilities to achieve enhanced performance and attain competitive
advantage through using such resources effectively. The RBV illustrates how a firm uses a
bundle of resources to sustain and maintain a competitive advantage (Rapp et al., 2010).
This leads to an enhanced performance based on specific, valuable and unique resources
available within the firm (Keramati et al., 2010). These resources are the assets, knowledge
and processes that enable the firm to realise specific strategies that aim to improve
efficiency and effectiveness (Barney, 1991, in Rapp et al., 2010). On the other hand,
capabilities refer to developing a mix of resources (Zablah et al., 2004) that enable firms to
achieve superior performance (Day, 1994). This has been echoed in IT and marketing
literature on RBV theory, the concept that the firm’s assets and capabilities lead to achieve
performance (Wade & Hulland, 2004) with an ultimate effect of accomplishing
competitive advantage (Day, 1999; Keramati et al., 2010; Rapp et al., 2010).
On the other hand, the equity theory provides the basis for research in exploring how
relationship partners (e.g. customers and the organisations) exchange information and
contribute to achieving performance (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2007). The concept of
equity theory is based on the interpretations of social interactions, where the weighing out
of perceived inputs with the outputs is analysed, with an aim of harnessing the capability
of judgment for fairness in relationships (Adams, 1965). From the CRM perspective, the
inputs are usually customers’ time, expertise, experience, comments, views and
aspirations with firms and its products and services. Simultaneously, the outputs include
benefits in terms of perks, promotional information, campaigns, lower costs and the
associated quality of product and services (Wagner, Eggert, & Lindemann, 2010).
For the research context, this study uses the equity theory to develop the hypotheses H1,
H2, H3, H4, H5, and H6 illustrated in sections 3.2.1, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 to create value and
explain the interactions to achieve satisfaction amongst the parties for mutual interests. The
next section outlines the conceptual model, followed by details of the hypotheses.
3. Conceptual model
3.1 Customer relationship orientation
CRO is derived from the notion of market orientation (Conduit & Movondo, 2001; Rapp
et al., 2010). CRO focuses on the importance of external customers (Conduit & Movondo,
2001; Mohr-Jackson, 1991) whereas market orientation focuses on both internal and
external customers (Conduit & Movondo, 2001).
CRO in contemporary marketing theory is an important perspective of CRM and is
considered as a capability that enables firms to develop such behaviours that leads to an
understanding of the customer (Coltman, 2007; Ray, Muhanna, & Barney, 2005; Zablah
et al., 2004). This makes firms more focused on and more responsive to customers (Payne
& Frow, 2005). Building on assertions by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) assertion that
organisations should be market focused, rather than solely customer or competitor
focused, while drawing out the construct of CRO as a subset of market orientation
(Coltman, 2007; Jayachandran et al., 2005). There has been a great deal of previous
research investigating the mediating role of technology on CRO (e.g. Coltman, 2007;
Jayachandran et al., 2005; Rapp et al., 2010). Previous models have focused on the strong
enabling properties of technologies in the specific CRM areas of customer communication
and customer information management (e.g. Chen & Ching, 2007; Harrigan et al., 2011;
Jayachandran et al., 2005). However, such previous research took place before the
inception and pervasive growth of social media technologies, which have infiltrated and
very likely revolutionised these CRM processes (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
3.2 CRM technology use

In IT literature, a great deal of importance is put on the use of technology as a resource for
implementing CRM (Keramati et al., 2010; Rigby, Reichheld, & Schefter, 2002).
Radhakrishnana, Zub, and Groverc, (2008) proved empirically that IT affects operational
and management processes to create capabilities. Their studies concluded that IT is a
differential resource, which gives firms effectiveness in achieving performance. Social
media as a CRM technology is a new and dynamic domain and is considered and is
considered to be an IT resource from the RBV perspective used to attain performance
between the interactions and relationships existing between organisations and customers
(Kim & Ko, 2012). Social media is defined as the ‘group of Internet-based applications
that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the
creation and exchange of User-Generated Content’ (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61).
Social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn bring people together, to share stories,
photos, likes and dislikes. Wikis and social news sites like Delicious and Digg can raise the
profile of key blogs or sites through people sharing and recommending what they are
reading. Sites like TripAdvisor and Yelp, which provide information about consumer
decisions and behaviour, are based solely on peer recommendations. YouTube, as the
world’s second largest search engine, adds a multimedia angle to this dynamic, providing a
platform where consumers can upload and tag videos of anything, including good and bad
brand stories which can be quickly shared and become ‘viral’ (Harvard Business Review
[HBR], 2010; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Other social media technologies such as
publishing tools like TypePad and WordPress now give anyone the platform to
communicate with the world, while micro-blogging through Twitter spreads real-time
news, opinions, commentary, complaints and recommendations (HBR, 2010). All of these
technologies have experienced exponential growth in recent years, among both consumers
and marketers.
Traditionally, CRM technology has facilitated the collection, integration and analysis
of customer data, and subsequent communication to/with customers (Jayachandran et al.,
2005). CRM software packages such as Sage, Siebel, Oracle, Peoplesoft have provided
marketers with the tools to build deep insights about customers. Now, new start-ups have
been quick to take advantage of the traditional players’ hesitance in the social CRM arena,
with tools like Radian6, HootSuite, Sprout Social, Kick Apps, Sendling, Janra, Sprinklr
and Virtue being just a few of the many social CRM packages now available.3 These social
media ‘dashboards’ allow businesses to constantly monitor and engage with their range of
social media platforms from one place.4 In a recent HBR survey of 2100 organisations,
58% reported currently using social media channels and a further 21% reported
preparations to launch social media initiatives. It is clear that the potential for these
technologies in reaching out to customers and building informed and value-exchanging
relationships as part of CRM is unparalleled (Zhang, 2011). Also, this engagement and
empowerment, social media is a major source of data on customers that must be integrated
into CRM (Bijmolt et al., 2010; Harrigan et al., 2011; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010).
3.2.1 Customer relationship orientation and CRM technology use

Social media technologies facilitate a real-time, interactive two-way communication
between the customer and the organisation (Van Bruggen, Antia, Jap, Reinartz, & Pallas,
2010). In this way, technology is actually only enabling long established principles of
relationship marketing (e.g. Berry, 1983; Chen & Chiu, 2009; Grönroos, 1989). Not only
do organisations and customers become closer, but so do the people (customers)
themselves through the use of social networking sites, blogs, wikis, recommendation sites
and online communities (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Wuyts., Dekimpe, Gijsbrechts, &
Pieters, 2010). Associated with such interactions is the challenge and indeed opportunity
for marketers to manage this viral marketing through engaging with and empowering
customers, while not being seen to be interfering in customer-to-customer (C2C) social
interactions (Kumar et al., 2010; Van Bruggen et al., 2010). Customers can even become
marketers themselves, taking marketing communications and messages and making them
‘viral’ attracting comments and discussion at every step.
Despite the immense power of social media technologies to transform CRM processes
and to drive a CRO, this paper posits that organisations must first be philosophically and
strategically positioned with a CRO in order to best understand and then utilise social
media technologies to their full potential (Greenberg, 2010). Consequently, it can be
argued that CRM technology is only an enabler of an underlying CRO (Rapp et al., 2010).
Hence, it can be hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 1: Customer relationship orientation will have a positive association with
CRM technology use.
3.3 Customer engagement initiatives

Customer engagement is an extension of customer communication that social media
technologies have enabled. As van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 254) posit: ‘customer engagement
behaviors go beyond transactions, and may be specifically defined as a customer’s
behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from
motivational drivers’. Social media technologies have shifted customers from passive
recipients of marketing communications to highly active and engaged partners in value
creation (Baird & Parasnis, 2011; Hollebeek, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2004).
As with the equity theory perspective, there are two exchanging partners: the customer
and the business organisation. The exchange in social media takes the form of an
engagement of customers via the use of social media to ensure mutual benefits (Baird &
Parasnis, 2011; van Doorn et al., 2010). The specific ways that customers now engage with
organisations and marketers are varied, but range from writing reviews on websites like
Amazon and Opodo to testing new ‘beta’ products, or co-developing open source products
such as Moodle or Mozilla Firefox (Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 2010).
Research in Motion (RIM), Apple and IBM actively encourage customers to get involved
at every stage of the co-creation process. These customers input into the product and
service quality, becoming ambassadors for the organisation (Hoyer et al., 2010; van Doorn
et al., 2010). Social media has enabled customers that use social networks to create and
share content, as well as communicate and build relationships with each other (Gordon,
2010; Libai et al., 2010). From the equity theory perspective, there is sharing of ideas
(inputs of information and ideas from the customers) and an output in the forms of
messages about the business and its products and services (Donnerstein & Hatfield, 1982;
Wagner et al., 2010). More specifically, customers engage via social media to share
experiences with each other, to reach customer services and even to benefit from offers and
rewards (Brodie et al., 2011; Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2007).
Furthermore, some customers get involved in the co-creation of products and services
(Kumar et al., 2010; van Doorn et al., 2010). However, how customer engagement
initiatives are strategically and tactically enabled in the organisation and particular in
CRM, and how value can be created from them is less clear (Bijmolt et al, 2010; Mollen &
Wilson, 2010). Thus, there are major challenges for organisations that are open to social
CRM, but it is still realistic to hypothesise that:
Hypothesis 2: CRM technology use will have a positive association with customer
engagement initiatives.
3.4 Relational information processes

As part of the communication in CRM, relationship marketing leads to different
dimensions from the transactional marketing perspective where the business-customer
interaction takes place (Jayachandran et al., 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Adopting the
work of Jayachandran et al. (2005), the concept of relationship marketing was introduced
for exploring in detail the customer information processes in exchange relationships. The
exchange relationships are those that take place on the social media platform enabling of
sharing of ideas and thoughts between firms and customers.
The relational information processes comprises the dimensions of information
capture, information integration, information access and information use. Social media
technologies are a rich source of data for marketers where every ‘tweet’ with a ‘hashtag’
can be mined for valuable information and every Facebook ‘like’ and ‘comment’ can
also be analysed. This poses a challenge for marketers to gathering such a vast amount of
data from the plethora of online communities (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010), not to
mention analysing and interpreting it into a form of insight capable of driving future
decisions. This whole process is what is referred to as information capture. The CRM
software packages, mentioned earlier in this paper, which are ‘social’, are capable of
monitoring social media and reporting statistics around, for example, key word usage and
‘sentiment’ about a brand.5 However, part of the richness in social media data is its
qualitative nature and the potential for one-to-one engagement with customers (Dwyer,
2007).
3.4.1 Information integration

Once information has been collected by an organisation from their customers, the next
important task to undertake is information integration. Information integration requires
the assimilation of customer information from all interactions to develop a detailed picture
of each customer relationship into the utopia of a ‘single view of the customer’
(Jayachandran et al., 2005). Previous CRM systems were able to integrate offline data with
online data from websites and email interactions, but with the expansion of touch points to
include formal organisational and informal customer-led social media, the challenges of
information integration have multiplied (Marketing Week, 2011; HBR, 2010). There is no
set format for importing social data; rather, its strength comes from its qualitative, in-depth
nature. To counteract this problem, the software industry is developing new software tools
such as Sprout Social, to make it possible to integrate data from various social media
sources into a format, which can be quantified and generalized to a certain extent.6
However, research has shown that only 7% of marketers reported being able to integrate
their social media information into their overall CRM system (HBR, 2010).
3.4.2 Information access

Information access implies providing customer information in a usable and timely manner
to both customer-facing employees and strategic marketing decision makers
(Jayachandran et al., 2005). Depending on who owns the data and who owns the
modelling tools, this may be a complex process. Today, it tends to be IT departments who
run analytics on customer data, which has led to advantages such as speed and more
complex analyses but disadvantages such as a loss of customer focus and a lack of access
to the data (Bijmolt et al., 2010). To complicate things further, a third form of information
access is becoming more prevalent, where customers want direct access to data on
themselves and indeed wider customer interaction data (Bijmolt et al., 2010).
3.4.3 Information reciprocity

This is of course linked to information reciprocity. For example, the UK Government has
employed computer scientists to link their vast governmental data-sets to help them better
understand the population through a mydata7 scheme, hence the end of the National self-
reporting Census that has run since 1801. The parallel outcome of such a database is that
some linked data are being opened up to the general public.
3.4.4 Information use

Finally, information use refers to the actual usage of customer information within the
organisation by marketers (Chen & Ching, 2007). Customer information should feed back
into marketing decision-making at tactical and strategic levels, in areas such as market
segmentation and marketing communications (Jayachandran et al., 2005). Referring to the
earlier discussion on customer engagement initiatives, these should be directed and
informed by the information gathered on customers. Some metrics have been proposed by
Kumar et al. (2010) that are relevant to social media data and the link with customer
engagement. First is customer lifetime value (CLV), which is obviously an older measure
of the present value of future profits generated from a customer over his or her life of
business with the organisation. Second is customer referral value (CRV), which
determines how much of each customer’s value stems from his or her referrals of
new customers. Third is customer influencer value (CIV), which emphasises the value
of customers who share information, spread word-of-mouth (WOM) and assist other
customers. Finally, is customer knowledge value (CKV), which emphasises the value of
customers who possess an expert knowledge of a brand or a product and/or service and
who are able to both assist other customers, and indeed advise the organisation itself (Joshi
& Sharma, 2004). However, a major research study by the HBR (2010) found that while
more than half of organisations are using social media, only 25% said they could identify
where their most valuable customers are ‘talking’ about them. Furthermore, only 23% are
using any form of social media analytic tools. Thus, ‘measurement’ capabilities in social
media are still lacking among marketers (HBR, 2010).
To sum up, previous research by Jayachandran et al. (2005) has showed that CRM
technology plays a mediating role in the relational information processes affecting
customer relationship performance. From the above discussions, it does appear that one of
the facilitators of the relational information processes is the CRM technology. Therefore,
it can be hypothesised:
Hypothesis 3: CRM technology use will have a positive association with relational
information processes.
3.5 Customer relationship performance

The implementation of CRM can lead to performance benefits such as increased market
awareness, reduced costs, more effective and efficient marketing based on data-driven
decisions, increased customer retention and increased profit (Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick,
1998; Harrigan et al., 2011; Kim & Kim, 2009; Mithas, Krishnan, & Fornell, 2005).
If organisations with an underlying CRO are utilising CRM technologies that include
social media to enable customer engagement initiatives and relational information
processes, there is clear potential for enhanced customer relationship performance.
However, social media technologies have led to an extremely disruptive shift in marketing
philosophy that many organisations have yet to react to, and the environment in which
marketers are operating in is changing rapidly (Jiao, Alon, & Cui, 2011; Van Bruggen
et al., 2010). Such environmental dynamism requires organisations that implement CRM
technology to constantly adapt to changing customer behaviours and new social media
technologies (Coltman, 2007). While current popular tools such as Facebook and Twitter
may well be supplanted by others, the social nature of the Internet and thus of CRM is
likely to be irreversible (Hoyer et al., 2010).
Many firms acquire the same CRM technologies but do not achieve the same
performance or competitive advantage (Keramati et al., 2010). Research has indicated that
it is about how well technologies, such as social media, are integrated into CRM
processes. In essence, the use of CRM technology impacts on customer relationship
performance if it facilitates the two key processes, customer engagement initiatives and
relational information processes. Thus, it could be that the CRM technology itself, in the
form of a dedicated package that is able to integrate all data sources including social media
and customer engagement may have a direct impact on customer relationship
performance. Hence, it can be argued that:
Hypothesis 4: CRM technology use will have a positive association with customer
relationship performance.
However, previous research has emphasised that CRM technologies are merely
enablers to customer engagement initiatives and relational information processes
(Anderson, Fornell, & Mazvancheryl, 2004.; Gruca & Rego, 2005; Rego, Billett, &
Morgan, 2009). Technology enhances the flow of information about customers within
organisations (Hillebrand, Nijholt, & Nijssen, 2011). Focusing on relational information
processes, Google, the search engine giant, has been capable of diversifying and growing
so well due to its vast knowledge base on consumer behaviour online. For example,
Google launches new products in ‘beta’ format to begin with, and gives customers the
opportunity to feed back their thoughts. Dell, too, attempts to retrieve, disseminate and use
customer information through a website platform by which they develop products that are
particularly suitable to a variety of customers with varying requirements and tastes.
Staples and KB Toys track customer purchases and are able to provide special offers
through coupons and gift vouchers. Amazon.com is another example of an organisation
where customer information drives marketing decision-making. Of course, many other
organisations have been as successful in gathering, managing, analysing and using
customer data to drive their marketing. Now, though, social media will enable many more
organisations without traditional database marketing programs to access a larger amount
of rich data on their customers (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Hillebrand et al., 2011; Konus,
Verhoef, & Neslin, 2008). Therefore, it can be suggested that:
Hypothesis 5: Relational information processes will have a positive association with
customer relationship performance.
When customers are considered an integral part of organisational strategy, there is real
potential for the power of social media technologies to drive customer engagement
initiatives. Engaging with customers through social media is more powerful than
‘traditional’ one-way communication initiatives (Blattberg, Kim, & Neslin, 2008; Dwyer,
2007; Kumar et al., 2010). As Payne and Frow (2006) and Chen and Ching (2007) state,
the value creation process as a whole must be interactive and two-way. Thus, by engaging
with customers, organisations are better able to react to marketplace needs and even to
empower customers themselves to market for the organisation. Therefore, it can be
hypothesised that:
Hypothesis 6: Customer engagement initiatives will have a positive association with
customer relationship performance.
To conclude based on the hypotheses generated and the relationships discussed, the
model in Figure 1 can be proposed for the study.
4. Methodology of the study

The target population for this study included marketing practitioners at a relatively senior
level, including senior marketing managers, marketing executives, marketing directors
and marketing vice-presidents of organisations located in a major European financial
centre. A directory of 6000 organisations implementing CRM and the marketing contacts
within them was obtained from CorpData.
4.1 Survey instrument development

The measurement items for this study are shown in the Appendix. Most of the items were
borrowed from the previous research of Jayachandran et al. (2005), but new measures
were developed after an extensive review of existing literature. All the measurement items
were measured using a five-point Likert scale with ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’
as the anchors.
The scales for the construct, CRO, were borrowed from the study of Jayachandran
et al. (2005) apart from the last construct, CRO5. The construct CRO5 was developed
based on a review of the study of Sin, Tse, and Yim (2005). The five items for the construct
intended to capture whether relationship marketing principles were at a strategic or
philosophical level in an organisation, whether customer relationships were recognised as
valuable assets, whether customer retention was emphasised and, finally, whether there
was senior management support for CRM.
In order to understand what social CRM technologies are used by organisations, we
obtained a list of eight different social media technologies used commonly by
organisations from the study of Hennig-Thurau et al. (2010). There was also the option for
specifying any other CRM technology used by the respondents representing the
organisations. To avoid confusion with dedicated CRM technology and software systems,
we emphasised that we were investigating any technologies that were used by the
organisation to manage customer relationships, thereby including ad hoc social media

technologies. The CRM technology use (CRM_TECH) construct was also measured by
22 further items, which are mostly borrowed from the study of Jayachandran et al. (2005).
The customer engagement initiatives (CUS_ENG_INI) construct attempted to capture
communication with customers, understand how customers interact in online
communities, how organisations control and take part in the interaction with customers
using social media, and how mobile technologies enable such interaction between
customers and organisations. This new construct explicitly focused on how organisations
engage and interact with customers, and builds on previous studies that have focused on
more traditional, one-way communication processes (Anderson, 2005; Chen & Ching,
2007). Many of the items in this construct were developed based on a review of literature
derived from a special issue of the Journal of Service Research on customer engagement in
2010.
The relational information processes (REL_INF_PRO) construct was composed of
four sub-constructs, specifically information capture, information integration, information
access and information use, and is derived from the study of Jayachandran et al. (2005).
However, additional measurement items were sourced from a review of the studies of
Kumar et al. (2010), Bijmolt et al. (2010), Goldenberg (2008), Guenzi and Trolio (2007)
and Jayachandran et al. (2005). Information capture reflects the regular collection of
customer information from social media technologies. Information integration reflects
how the organisation integrates customer information from various sources, including
social media. Information access reflects the importance of customer information being
accessible to relevant employees throughout the organisation. Finally, information use is
concerned with how the information obtained from social media is used by the
organisation to drive marketing decisions.
Finally, the CRM relationship performance (CRP_Per) construct reflects the capacity
of the organisation, through integrating social media into CRM, to gain a competitive
advantage. The scales were adopted from the study of Jayachandran et al. (2005) and
measured environmental dynamism and competitive intensity.
To ensure internal consistency in the measures, a pilot study was conducted. Analysis
showed the Cronbach a scores and therefore what measurement items needed to be
discounted (per Pallant, 2007, pp. 96 –98). The measurement items were also evaluated by
knowledgeable experts and colleagues to enable refinement and modification. Some items
were discounted to achieve Cronbach a scores above 0.70 (per Pallant, 2007) and the final
items chosen for the study are shown in the Appendix.
4.2 Survey administration and sampling technique

As stated earlier in this paper, an online survey was used to collect data. Of the 6000
marketing practitioners on the list obtained from CorpData, 1000 were chosen randomly,
and were sent email invitations to take part in the survey. A prize incentive of $75 was
offered to encourage participation. One hundred sixty-seven responses were usable, which
represents a response rate of 16.7%. This is comparable to related research by Hillebrand
et al. (2011) who had a sample size of 117 responses and Jayachandran et al. (2005) who
had 172 responses.
5. Data analysis and findings

5.1 Descriptive statistics for CRM technology use
The findings related to the range of social media technologies in use are illustrated in
Figure 2.
It appears that most of the organisations were using a variety of social media
technologies to interact with customers. Most organisations utilised their own website for
CRM purposes (77%), but a significant number also drew on tools such as LinkedIn (64.8%),
Twitter (55.3%), Company Blogs (49.5%) and Facebook (44%). Other social media tools
such as YouTube, Mobile Apps and Employee Blogs were also relatively popular. This
corroborates recent industry research by Marketing Week (2011), the HBR (2010) and SAS.8
5.2 Multivariate data analysis

The conceptual model as shown in Figure 1 demonstrates inter-relationships between the
variables. Statisticians recommend that when interdependence between variables is to be
explored, an appropriate multivariate data analysis technique is structural equation
modelling (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In this study, partial least squares
based structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) is used. There are several reasons for
using PLS-SEM, which are discussed below.
To conduct the data analysis, SPSS 19.0 and SmartPLS 2.0 were used. SPSS 19.0 was
used to conduct the descriptive statistics for all the measurement items. There were some
Figure 2. Percentage frequency distribution of responses from respondents in respect of use of

social media technologies for CRM.
missing data, so the Extraction-Maximisation (EM) method was used to input the missing
values.9 The PLS-SEM algorithm was used in the analysis as it transforms non-normal
data to provide robust results (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Mooi, 2010). Second, since the sample
size is relatively small, PLS-SEM was considered to be an appropriate method (Hair et al.,
2010). Finally, PLS-SEM is suitable for coping with complex models (Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2011), which is the case for this study. To conduct PLS-SEM analysis,
the two-step approach for assessment of the measurement and the structural model
(as recommended by Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011) was used. This involved, inspection
of the reliability and validity of the measurement model, and assessment of the parameter
estimates taking into account their significance level and also considering the stability of
estimates using a cross-validation of the model.
Per Figure 1, the model tested is a reflective measurement model. The PLS-SEM
analysis was conducted using SmartPLS 2.0 using the bootstrapping option. Content
validity was ensured as the measurement items were evaluated by knowledgeable experts
to ensure that they captured the information that they were supposed to (Garson, 2011). The
Cronbach a scores should be at least 0.70 in exploratory research (Garson, 2011; Hair,
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). All scores were above 0.70, which indicated convergent
validity. To further test convergent validity, it was necessary to look into the composite
reliability scores. All scores were above 0.70 and most of them were above as shown in
Table 1. All of the average variance extracted (AVE) results were greater than 0.50, which
is also a reflection of convergent validity (per Garson, 2011). To assess discriminant
validity, Fornell and Lacker’s (1981) criterion was followed. Fornell and Lacker (1981)
state that a latent construct should share more variance with its assigned indicators than
with another latent variable in the structural model. Table 1 shows that all constructs had an
AVE that is higher than the squared correlations between the construct and all other study
constructs. Moreover, Chin, Marcolin, and Newsted (2003) state that the square root of the
AVE for each of the constructs should be greater than that construct’s correlations with the
other constructs. Table 1 shows that these criteria were met and discriminant validity was
ensured. Furthermore, exploratory factor analysis was conducted with VARIMAX rotation
on all the measurement items. The items loaded on the designated factors and most of the
factor loadings were above 0.7 and there were few cross-loadings. Hence, this also
indicated discriminant validity for the measurement items (per Pallant, 2007).
When a survey instrument is used for data collection to explain the relationship
between dependent and independent variables, it is necessary to look at whether there is
any common method bias (Hillebrand et al., 2011). Evidence of common method bias
Table 1. Reliability and discriminant validity tests.
Cronbach CRM_ CUS_ REL_

Construct CR a AVE CRM Tech CRO ENG_INI INF_PRO
CRM 0.8404 0.7824 0.6024 0.7761a 0.1074c 0.151 0.184 0.2655
CRM_Tech 0.9571 0.948 0.6325 0.3277b 0.7953 0.0088 0.5405 0.2729
CRO 0.9 0.8662 0.6456 0.3886 0.296 0.8034 0.1542 0.1807
CUS_ENG_INI 0.915 0.8997 0.6629 0.429 0.7352 0.3927 0.8142 0.4563
REL_INF_PRO 0.9221 0.9113 0.6056 0.5153 0.5224 0.4251 0.6755 0.7782
Note: CR ¼ composite reliability.
a
Square root of the AVE reported in the shades on the diagonal of the matrix.
b
Correlations of the latent constructs are reported in the lower matrix. Correlations of 0.20 and above are
significant at 95% interval.
c
Shared variances are reported in the upper half of the matrix.
exists when a general construct accounts for the majority of the covariance among all
constructs (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Consequently, when exploratory factor analysis is
conducted with un-rotated factor analysis on the survey items, it will emerge that one
factor accounts for the majority of the variance. SPSS 19.0 was used to conduct the factor
analysis. When the weightings were allowed to load on one factor, the single factor
accounted for 29.86% of the variance, which is less than the 50% threshold (Field, 2005).
Hence, there were no cases of common method bias, per Krishnan, Martin, and
Noorderhaven (2006), Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), Steensma,
Tihanyi, Lyles, and Dhanaraj (2005) and Aulakh and Gencturk (2000). Furthermore,
correlations between the different indicators of the same construct using same and
different methods were carried out. Results showed that the correlations were normal
(below 0.5) in both the same method data and in the cross method data, and therefore
further reinforced that common method variance is not a problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Having assessed and validated the measurement model, it is assumed that the measures
represent the constructs of interest. Next, it was necessary to evaluate the structural model.
The primary evaluation criterion was to look into the R 2 measures. The R 2 value for the
latent construct, CRM_per, was 0.278, which is nonetheless substantial as recommended by
Garson (2011) and within the range recommended by Vinzi, Chin, Henseler, and Wang
(2010).
Next, the path coefficients needed to be reported. The findings of the study are
provided in Table 2.
The graphical representation of the path estimates is shown in Figure 3 with the
variances (R 2) in the brackets.
For the structural model to have a good fit and to reflect a general correlation, it should
have the capability to accurately predict the scenario (Ringle et al., 2010). The most
common measure of predictive relevance is the Stone –Geisser’s Q 2 (Geisser, 1975;
Stone, 1974), which assumes that the model must be able to adequately predict each
endogenous latent construct’s indicators (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). Since, in this
study, a reflective measurement model has been used, the Q 2 value was determined by
using the blindfolding procedure of SmartPLS 2.0. The endogenous construct’s cross-
validated measure value (i.e. Q 2) is provided in Table 3. All the values were larger than
zero and the latent construct reflected predictive relevance.
6. Discussion
The results of the second step of the PLS-SEM analysis are summarised in Table 4. The
following section draws out inferences from these results and discusses how they link to
strong implication for theory and practice.
Table 2. Standard regression coefficients of the structural model.

Path relationship Path co-efficient T statisticsa
CRM_Tech ! CRM 0.0035 0.0311 (n.s.)
CRM_Tech ! CUS_ENG_INI 0.7352 18.4517
CRM_Tech ! REL_INF_PRO 0.5224 7.3749
CRO ! CRM_Tech 0.2960 4.7995
CUS_ENG_INI ! CRM 0.1464 1.0552 (n.s.)
REL_INF_PRO ! CRM 0.4146 3.3446
Note: n.s. ¼ t-values are non-significant (i.e. p . 0.05).
a
t-values are significant (i.e. p , 0.001).
Customer H6
H2 engagement 0.15 (n.s.)
0.74 initiatives (.62)
H1 Customer
Customer 0.30 relationship
CRM technology
relationship performance
use
orientation Relational H5
information 0.41
H3
processes (.35)
0.52
H4
0.0035 (n.s.)
Figure 3. Model for CRM with path estimates.

To contribute to the critical research domain that is CRM, this paper focused on the
topic of social CRM. The tendency in contemporary research into practical phenomena
like social media may sometimes be to neglect the theoretical underpinning of these
practical and managerial approaches. This study positioned social media technologies
within the theoretical domain of CRM, providing sound theoretical and practical
justifications. Building on a previous model of CRM, this paper seeks to make a both a
timely and significant contribution to CRM theory and practice. We added a new construct
of Customer engagement initiatives to recognise the shift in marketing – customer
communications and relationships to an interaction-based, even consumer-owned model
(e.g. Kumar et al., 2010). Other constructs such as CRO, CRM technology use and
relational information processes were updated to reflect the role of social media
technologies in CRM.
In general, the study supports the concept that social media technologies and CRM are
mutually beneficial, and thus, that social CRM is an approach that some organisations are
adopting successfully. The first hypothesis, that CRO will have a positive association with
CRM Technology use, is supported. This finding is important in that it corroborates
previous CRM-related findings, that from before the social media age, technology was
only an enabler of an underlying marketing philosophy and existent marketing processes
Table 3. Blindfolding results using SmartPLS 2.0.

Measurement items Cross-validated redundancy, Q 2
CRM_per 0.1271
CRM_Tech 0.0436
CUS_ENG_INI 0.2820
CWC 0.1680
Comp_intense 0.1089
Environ_dyn 0.6273
IC 0.3766
II 0.3519
IU 0.4662
MOCC 0.5733
OCC 0.5151
REL_INF_PRO 0.1351
SM_Data 0.5480
SM_Use 0.5181
Table 4. Results of the testing of the hypothesis.
Hypotheses Results
H1 Customer relationship orientation will have a Supported
positive association with CRM technology use
H2 CRM technology use will have a positive association Supported
with customer engagement initiatives
H3 CRM technology use will have a positive association Supported
with relational information processes
H4 CRM technology use will have a positive association Not Supported
with customer relationship performance
H5 Relational information processes will have a positive Supported
association with customer relationship performance
H6 Customer engagement initiatives will have a positive Not Supported
association with customer relationship performance
(Coltman, 2007; Payne & Frow, 2005). Thus, as revolutionary and disruptive as social
media technologies may be, an organisational philosophy and strategy that orients around
customers is still an important prerequisite for CRM technology adoption (Chen & Ching,
2007; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990).
The second hypothesis, that CRM technology use will have a positive association with
customer engagement initiatives, was also supported. Although the construct and the
relationship are new, this finding does support some previous thinking, particularly around
customer engagement in a special issue in the Journal of Service Research in 2010.
Authors here raised many thoughtful questions about the role of social media in facilitating
engagement between organisations and customers (Baird & Parasnis, 2011; Hollebeek,
2011). This study sought to answer some of these questions, and has done so by placing
customer engagement in the wider context of social CRM. The finding that social media
technologies, like Facebook, Twitter and other blogs are enabling marketers to engage
with customers is in itself a contribution to theory but it has also been an important
stepping stone contribution in our modelling of social CRM.
The third hypothesis, that the use of CRM technology will have a positive association
with relational information processes, is also supported. Thus, the two key processes of
CRM that were highlighted as customer engagement and managing information about
customers are both enabled by a range of social media technologies. This builds on
previous research that characterised the two key processes of CRM as customer
communication and customer information management (e.g. Chen & Ching, 2007;
Harrigan et al., 2011; Jayachandran et al., 2005). This paper’s contribution is that customer
communication is philosophically realigned as customer engagement to reflect the
increase in customer power and interaction between marketer and customer (HBR, 2010;
Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Van Bruggen et al., 2010). The second contribution is that
new, social media technologies are driving these two key processes in CRM.
The fourth hypothesis sought to investigate how new social media technologies
possess the capabilities to directly impact on customer relationship performance. This
hypothesis was an extension of a relationship proposed in previous CRM research, but was
rejected in this case. This finding is a useful reminder that, just as a CRO is an important
underpinning to the use of social CRM technologies, so are the key processes of customer
engagement initiatives and relational information processes in order to ensure
performance increases (Coltman, 2007; Payne & Frow, 2005; van Doorn et al., 2010).
The fifth hypothesis, that relational information processes will have a positive
association with customer relationship performance, was accepted. At this point, it is also
useful to note that the sixth and final hypothesis, that customer engagement initiatives will
have a positive association with customer relationship performance, was rejected. Looking
again at these two key processes of CRM, it is an important finding to report that relational
information processes do have an impact on performance. This does support previous
research, but makes a contribution to the integration of social media information sources
into the model. Other previous research that emphasises customer information as the
‘engine’ of CRM is supported (Payne & Frow, 2005). It seems that the inclusion of social
media information into CRM has not diminished this assertion; rather it has increased it
(Kumar et al., 2010). It should be noted that future research that investigates the precise
elements of information processes that influence performance is still necessary.
The rejection of the relationship between customer engagement initiatives and
performance is notable, where this process on its own is not enough to impact on
performance. Recent research by Hoyer et al. (2010) and Verhoef, Reinartz, and Krafft
(2010) has emphasised the importance of engaging with customers, and this study does not
weaken this position. Rather, it is put forward that the whole point of engaging with
customers is to gather information that is stored, analysed and then used to better inform
future customer engagements (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010; Kumar et al., 2010). Thus, the
importance of customer information in CRM is again underlined, corroborating much of
the previous research (e.g. Boulding et al., 2005; Coltman, 2007; Eid, 2007; Jayachandran
et al., 2005; Payne & Frow, 2005). Future research that investigates the interrelationships
between customer engagement and relational information process would add considerable
value to the current model.
6.1 Managerial implications

6.1.1 Strategic imperative
The first implication derived from this study is the emphasis of the long-standing position
that a marketing and customer orientation is vital to the successful integration of CRM
technologies, even new social media technologies. Without an understanding of the
customer-related processes, such as engagement initiatives and information processes,
these new social media technologies will flatter to deceive. Metrics such as ‘likes’ and the
amount of followers are not true CRM metrics, and this is the level at which many
marketers are currently working. Like any other business initiative, there must be a
strategy for handling social CRM data, whether that is to engage key customers, measure
satisfaction, increase loyalty or acquire new product ideas. Strategic adoption of social
CRM means a culture shift within the organisation, one that holds reputation and
transparency fear for many managers. However, such a shift has the potential to involve
marketers in millions of conversations between consumers (e.g. HBR, 2010): Market
research on a scale like this has never been seen before.
6.1.2 Engaging and learning

The second key concept to take-away for marketers is that engaging with customers must
be part of a 360-degree cycle where each ‘engagement’ is viewed as an opportunity to
learn more about customers. Thus, it is important to automatically and manually gather
data with each customer interaction via social media, and feed these data into CRM
software that enables an exponentially more effective and efficient series of ‘engagement’.
Currently, there are marketers who are extremely creative when it comes to developing
Facebook posts or YouTube videos that get people commenting, sharing or even creating
their own content. The challenge is to gather the data that are associated to CRM, such as
profiles of key contributors, content types and sharing sources, and then act on these data
to better engage with customers in the future and consequently improve relationships.
Whether the software currently exists to do this proficiently is questionable, but tools like
Hootsuite and Sprout Social, among others, are rapidly advancing to this point.
6.1.3 Collaboration
Another key implication is that, between customer engagement initiatives and relational
information processes, marketers should look for possibilities for co-creation of products
and services. Most businesses have key customers that have the potential to add value to an
organisation’s product/service design, customer service and marketing strategies. Social

media technology is a key medium whose relational properties can facilitate such value
co-creation. Open source tools like Twitonomy or Tweet Archivist enable marketers to
identify the most influential Twitter users discussing their brand, in a positive or negative
way. These are people with whom marketers should engage.
To conclude, what is clear is that, for those organisations seeking to enter the social
media playing field that are uncertain of what objectives to set and what approaches to take,
CRM is certainly an appropriate strategy on which to hang social media tools and tactics.
6.2 Research implications

This study makes a strong contribution to CRM and relationship marketing theory.
By focusing on a phenomenon that is contemporary in both society and marketing
practice, and linking it to an established theoretical domain, this paper bridges the gap
between theory and practice in marketing. By building significantly on robust previous
research, this paper succeeds in laying out a model of social CRM. This model, while not
re-inventing the wheel, advances CRM theory to a noteworthy point and a platform for
directed future research.
This paper proposes a model of social CRM (see Figure 3): A new construct, customer
engagement initiatives, has been introduced, measured and relationships proven. This
underlines the importance of collaboration between marketer and customer. Other
previously developed constructs, such as CRM technology use and relational information
processes, have been updated to respond to recent developments in CRM. This underlines
the importance of two-way information sharing between marketer and customer,
underpinned by engagement with customers. Overall, this paper illustrates that, through a
range of processes and relationships, social CRM leads to improved customer relationship
performance.
7. Limitations and future research directions

Future research needs into look into the heterogeneity of the observations; that is to see if
different groups exist within the sample and how they pose different results to the
parameter estimates. It would be interesting to investigate the impacts within the industry
sector, looking at the impacts of organisation size, number of employees, objective/
purpose of the business etc. on social CRM issues. This study did not categorise
organisations beyond the parameter of CRM implementation.
This study used marketing practitioners as respondents to the online survey as most
other studies have also done (Rapp et al., 2010). Per Baird and Parasnis (2011), there is
considerable difference in perception between why customers interact with companies in
social media and how businesses perceive the use of social media websites by customers.
Future research needs to look into the customer viewpoint. In addition, some level of
comparison between customer and marketing practitioner responses would be interesting.
Notes
1. Please see http://trends.e-strategyblog.com/2013/07/26/importance-of-social-business-by-
organizational-area/13044 (accessed 6 January 2014).
2. Please see http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2194675/Social-Media-Revenue-Forecast-to-
Hit-16.9-Billion-in-2012 (accessed 14 February 2013).
3. Please see http://www.toprankblog.com/ (accessed 18 November 2011).
4. Please see http://blog.hootsuite.com/company/ (accessed 18 November 2011).

5. Please see http://www.leapgo.com/blog/bid/84885/Sprout-Social-vs-Hootsuite-Social-Media-
Marketing-Tool-Comparison (accessed 15 November 2011).
6. Please see http://home.sproutsocial.com/social-media-crm/?gclid¼ CMbhwuvQ_qsCFY
ob4QodjTpukQ (accessed 21 October 2011).
7. Please see http://data.gov.uk/ (accessed 17 October 2011).
8. Please see www.SASKnowledgeCentre.com/for/PaulHarrigan189753190 (accessed 13 October
2011).
9. Please see http://www.helsinki.fi/, komulain/Tilastokirjat/IBM-SPSS-Missing-Values.pdf
(accessed 12 September 2011).
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62,
335– 343.
Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., Kothandaraman, P., & Singh, R. (2012). An emotion-based model of
salesperson ethical behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 243–257.
Anderson, P. H. (2005). Relationship marketing and brand involvement of professionals through
web-enhanced brand communities: The case of Coloplast. Industrial Marketing Management,
34, 39 – 51.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and shareholder
value. Journal of Marketing, 68, 172– 185.
Aulakh, P. S., & Gencturk, E. F. (2000). International principal-agent relationships: Control,
governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 521– 538.
Baird, C. H., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer relationship management.
Strategy & Leadership, 39, 30 – 37.
Berry, L. (1983). Relationship marketing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Bijmolt, T. H. A., Leeflang, P. S. H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B. G. S., Lemmens, A., &
Saffert, P. (2010). Analytics for customer engagement. Journal of Service Research, 13,
341– 356.
Blattberg, R. C., Kim, B., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Database marketing: Analyzing and managing
customers. New York, NY: Springer Science, Business Media, LLC.
Borges, M., Hoppen, N., & Luce, F. B. (2009). Information technology impact on market orientation
in e-business. Journal of Business Research, 62, 883– 890.
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. J. (2005). A customer relationship management
roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go. Journal of Marketing, 69,
155– 166.
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, 105– 114.
Chang, W., Park, J. E., & Chaiy, S. (2010). How does CRM technology transform into organizational
performance? A mediating role of marketing capability. Journal of Business Research, 63,
849– 855.
Chen, J., & Ching, R. K. H. (2007). The effects of information and communication technology on
customer relationship management and customer lock-in. International Journal of Electronic
Business, 5, 478–498.
Chen, Y., & Chiu, H. (2009). The effects of relational bonds on online customer satisfaction.
The Service Industries Journal, 29, 1581 –1595.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable
modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation
study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14,
189– 217.
Coltman, T. (2007). Why build a customer relationship management capability? Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, 16, 301– 320.
Conduit, J., & Mavondo, F. T. (2001). How critical is internal customer orientation to market
orientation? Journal of Business Research, 51, 11 – 24.
Day, G. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37 – 52.
Day, G. S. (1999). Misconceptions about market orientation. Journal of Market-Focused
Management, 4(1), 5 – 16.

Deloitte University Press. (2013). Social business study: Shifting out of first gear. Retrieved January
6, 2014, from http://dupress.com/articles/social-business-study/
Donnerstein, E., & Hatfield, E. (1982). Aggression and inequity. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen
(Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 309– 336). New York, London: Academic
Press.
Dwyer, P. (2007). Measuring the value of electronic word of mouth and its impact in consumer
communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 63 – 79.
Eid, R. (2007). Towards a successful CRM implementation in banks: An integrated model. The
Service Industries Journal, 27, 1021– 1039.
Forbes. (2013). Why businesses should listen to customers on social media. Retrieved January 6,
2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/ups/2013/08/08/why-businesses-should-listen-to-cus
tomers-on-social-media/
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39 – 50.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship
marketing. Harvard Business Review, 76, 42 –51.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications.
Garson, G. D. (2011). Partial least squares regression and path modeling (PLS). Retrieved October
10, 2011 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/pls.htm
Geisser, S. (1975). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61, 101– 107.
Goldenberg, B. J. (2008). CRM in real time: Empowering customer relationships. Medford, NJ:
Information Today Inc.
Gordon, R. (2010). Creating community-connection experiences. In A. Peck & E. Malthouse (Eds.),
Medill on media engagement. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Greenberg, P. (2010). The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 25, 410– 419.
Gre’goire, Y., Tripp, T. M., & Legoux, R (2009). When customer love turns into lasting hate: The
effects of relationship strength and time on customer revenge and avoidance. Journal of
Marketing, 73, 18 –32.
Grönroos, C. (1989). Defining marketing: A market-oriented approach. European Journal of
Marketing, 23, 52 –60.
Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal
of Marketing, 69, 115– 130.
Guenzi, P., & Troilo, G. (2007). The joint contribution of marketing and sales to the creation of
superior customer value. Journal of Business Research, 60, 98 – 107.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2007). Close encounters: Communication in
relationships (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139– 151.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2011). An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 40, 414– 433.
Harrigan, P., Ramsey, E., & Ibbotson, P. (2011). Critical factors underpinning the e-CRM activities
of SMEs. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(13/14), 1 –27.
Harvard Business Review. (2010). The new conversation: Taking social media from talk to action.
Retrieved January 13, 2012 from http://hbr.org/product/the-new-conversation-taking-social-
media-from-talk/an/10815-PDF-ENG
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., &
Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service
Research, 13, 311– 330.
Hillebrand, B., Nijholt, J. J., & Nijssen, E. J. (2011). Exploring CRM effectiveness: An institutional
theory perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 592– 608.
Hoffman, D. L., & Marek, F. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing? MIT
Sloan Management Review, 52, 41 – 49.
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus.
Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 7 – 8, 785– 807.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in
new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283– 296.
Jayachandran, S., Sharma, S., Kaufman, P., & Raman, P. (2005). The role of relational information
processes and technology use in customer relationship management. Journal of Marketing, 69,
177– 192.
Jiao, H., Alon, I., & Cui, Y. (2011). Environmental dynamism, innovation, and dynamic capabilities:
The case of China. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
Economy, 5, 131– 144.
Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on
new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68, 47 – 59.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities
of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59 – 68.
Keramati, A., Mehrabi, H., & Mojir, N. (2010). A process-oriented perspective on customer
relationship management and organizational performance: An empirical investigation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1170– 1185.
Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An
empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1480– 1486.
Kim, H., & Kim, Y. (2009). A CRM performance measurement framework: Its development process
and application. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 477– 489.
Konus, U., Verhoef, P. C., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Multichannel shopper segments and their
covariates. Journal of Retailing, 84, 398– 413.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research proposition, and
managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54\(2), 1a – 18.
Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance
performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49, 894– 917.
Kumar, V., Akzoy, L., Donkers, B., Wiesel, T., Venkatesan, R., & Tillmanns, S. (2010).
Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 297– 310.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M. S., Ruyter, K. D., Götz, O., Risselada, H., & Stephen, A. T. (2010).
Customer-to-customer interactions: Broadening the scope of word of mouth research. Journal of
Service Research, 13, 267– 282.
Maklan, S., & Knox, S. (2009). Dynamic capabilities: The missing link in CRM investments.
European Journal of Marketing, 43, 1392– 1410.
Marketing Week. (2011). Marketing perspectives 2012: Adapting to win with multichannel
marketing. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.sasknowledgecentre.com/download/
MW_MarketingPerspectives2012.pdf
Mithas, S., Krishnan, M. S., & Fornell, C. (2005). Why do customer relationship management
applications affect customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 69, 2012209.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20 –38.
Mohr-Jackson, I. (1991). Broadening the market orientation: An added focus on internal customers.
Human Resource Management, 30, 455– 467.
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer
experience: Reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research,
63, 919– 925.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications
for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
21, 42 – 62.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of market orientation on business profitability.
Nielsen Company. (2012). How digital influences how we shop around the world. Retrieved January
6, 2014, from http://fi.nielsen.com/site/documents/NielsenGlobalDigitalShoppingReportAugus
t2012.pdf
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS: Survival manual (3rd ed). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship management. Journal
of Marketing, 69, 167– 176.
Payne, A., & Frow, P. (2006). Customer relationship management: From strategy to implementation.
Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 135– 168.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69 – 82.
Radhakrishnana, A., Zub, X., & Groverc, V. (2008). A process-oriented perspective on differential
business value creation by information technology: An empirical investigation. Omega: The
International Journal of Management Science, 36, 1105–1125.
Rapp, A., Trainor, K. J., & Agnihotri, R. (2010). Performance implications of customer-linking
capabilities: Examining the complementary role of customer orientation and CRM technology.
Journal of Business Research, 63, 1229– 1236.
Ray, G., Muhanna, W. A., & Barney, J. B. (2005). Information technology and the performance of
the customer service process: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 29, 625– 652.
Rego, L. L., Billett, M. T., & Morgan, N. A. (2009). Consumer-based brand equity and firm risk.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management process: Its
measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 293–305.
Rigby, D. K., Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2002). Avoid the four perils of CRM. Harvard
Business Review, 80, 101–109.
Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. A. (2010). Response-based segmentation using finite mixture
partial least squares: Theoretical foundations and an application to American Customer Satisfaction
Index Data. Annals of Information Systems, [Special Issue on Data Mining], 8, 19–49.
Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R. M., & Krishnan, V. (2012). Social media’s influence on business-to-
business sales performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32, 365– 378.
Shah, J. R., & Murtaza, M. B. (2005). Effective customer relationship management through web
services. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46, 98 – 109.
Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., & Yim, F. H. K. (2005). CRM: Conceptualization and scale
development. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 1264– 1290.
Steensma, H. K., Tihanyi, L., Lyles, M. A., & Dhanaraj, C. (2005). The evolving value of foreign
partnerships in transitioning economies. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 213– 235.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111– 147.
Trainor, K. J. (2012). Relating social media technologies to performance: A capabilities-based
perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32, 317– 331.
VanBoskirk, S., Overby, C. S., & Takvorian, S. (2011). U.S. interactive marketing forecast, 2011 to
2016. Cambridge, MA: Forrester Research. Retrieved January 6, 2014, from www.forrester.
com/USþ Interactive þ Marketing þ Forecast þ 2011 þ To þ 2016/fulltext/-/E-RES59379?
docid ¼ 59379/
Van Bruggen, G. H., Antia, K. D., Jap, S. D., Reinartz, W. J., & Pallas, F. (2010). Managing
marketing channel multiplicity. Journal of Service Research, 13, 331– 340.
van Doorn, K. N. L., 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, 253– 266.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68\(1), 1a– 17.
Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in
customer management. Journal of Service Research, 13, 247– 252.
Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares:
Concepts, methods and applications. [Series: Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics]
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research:
Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28, 107– 142.
Wagner, S. M., Eggert, A., & Lindemann, E. (2010). Creating and appropriating value in
collaborative relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63, 840– 848.
Warfield, B. (2009). Webinar conducted by Bob Warfield, CEO of Helpstream A Social CRM
Manifesto: How to Succeed with the CRM Virtuous Cycle.

Wuyts, S. H. K., Dekimpe, M. G., Gijsbrechts, E., & Pieters, F. G. M. R. (2010). The connected
customer: The changing nature of consumer and business markets. New York, NY: Routledge.
Zablah, A. R., Bellenger, D. N., & Johnston, W. J. (2004). An evaluation of divergent perspectives
on customer relationship management: Towards a common understanding of an emerging
phenomenon. Industrial Marketing Management, 33, 475– 489.
Zhang, Z. (2011). Customer knowledge management and the strategies of social software. Business
Process Manufacturing Journal, 17, 82 – 106.
Appendix: Measurement items constituting the questionnaire for the study
Source(s) of Cronbach
Code applied survey items a
CRO Customer relationship orientation 0.85
CRO1 Our employees are encouraged to focus on Jayachandran et al.
customer relationships. (2005)
CRO2 In our organization, retaining customers is ”
considered to be a top priority.
CRO3 In our organization, customer relationships are ”
considered to be a valuable asset.
CRO4 Our senior management emphasizes the ”
importance of customer relationships.
CRO5 We work to customise our offerings to Sin et al. (2005)

individual customers
CRM_TECH CRM technology use 0.95
CTU Do you consider the following social media Hennig_Thurau 0.85
technologies to be part of CRM in your et al. (2010)
organization?
CTU1a Twitter ”
CTU1b YouTube ”
CTU1c Flickr ”
CTU1d LinkedIn ”
CTU1e Company Blogs ”
CTU1f Employee Blogs ”
CTU1 g Mobile ‘apps’ ”
CTU1 h Other social media (please specify) ”
SM_USE Social media enables our CRM system to . . . Jayachandran et al. 0.90
(2005)
CTU2a Support sales force in the field with customer ”
information
CTU2b Provide sales force with leads for cross sell/up ”
sell opportunities
CTU2c Support marketing planning and budgeting ”
CTU2d Analyse responses to marketing campaigns ”
CTU2e Customise our communication to customers ”
CTU2f Provide customers with access to a knowledge ”
base of solutions to commonly occurring
problems (e.g. frequently asked questions)
CTU2 g Enable forecast of customer preferences ”
CTU2 h Measure customer loyalty ”
CTU2i Calculate customer life time value ”
CTU2j Calculate customer retention rates ”
CTU2k Enable assessment of product profitability ”
CTU2 l Allow relevant employees access to unified ”
consumer data
CTU2 m We don’t see social media as useful for CRM ”
SM_Data Social media enables our CRM system to Jayachandran et al. 0.93
collect the following forms of data . . . (2005)
CTU3a General online customer data ”
CTU3b Customer demographics ”
CTU3c Customer psychographics (e.g. personality ”
traits)
(continued)
Appendix – Continued
CTU3d Customer lifestyle data (e.g. car & home ”
ownership)
CTU3e Customer interaction data ”
CTU3f Customer service data (complaints, returns, ”
etc.)
CTU3 g Customer contact information (record of ”
customer’s contact with multiple touch points)
CTU3 h Ad response data (customers arriving from ”
specific ads or other referrals)
CTU3i External data sources (e.g. competitor ”
information)
CUS_ENG_INI Customer engagement initiatives 0.94

CWC Communication with customers Jayachandran et al. 0.80
(2005)
CEI1a We enable our customers to have interactive ”
communications with us
CEI1b We provide our customers with multiple ways ”
to contact the organization
CEI1c We focus on communicating periodically with ”
our customers
CEI1d We maintain regular contact with our ”
customers
CEI1e We share and exchange, in a two-way manner, ”
information with our customers
CEI1f We involve and empower our customers in ”
marketing decision-making
OCC Online customer communities 0.88
CEI2a We build our own online communities with Anderson (2005)
our customers
CEI2b We participate in relevant customer-owned Hennig-Thurau
communities et al. (2010)
CEI2c There are major differences between our own Hennig-Thurau
and other communities et al. (2010)
CEI2d Our online customer communities are central Anderson (2005)
to our marketing
CEI2e Other relevant customer communities are Hennig-Thurau
central to our marketing et al. (2010)
CEI2f Managing the range of online media is a Van Bruggen et al.
challenge for us (2010)
CEI2 g The range of social media is actually a positive Van Bruggen et al.
thing for us (2010)
CEI2 h Online communities are a way of engaging Konus et al. (2008)
with customers
CEI2i Online communities can create loyal Konus et al. (2008)
customers
MOCC Management of online customer communities 0.92
CEI3a We try to control the conversation in online Nambisan and
customer communities Baron (2007)
CEI3b We monitor and act on interactions between Nambisan and
customers in these communities Baron (2007)
CEI3c Word-of-mouth is an important issue for us Gre’goire, Tripp,
online and Legoux (2009)
(continued)
CEI3d We proactively manage interactions in these Nambisan and
communities Baron (2007)
CEI3e We use these communities to promote Bijmolt et al.
ourselves to customers (2010); Hoyer et al.
(2010)
CEI3f Being transparent as a company is vital in Konus et al., 2008
these online communities
CEI3 g We use these communities to have Bijmolt et al.
conversations with our customers (2010); Hoyer et al.
(2010)
CEI3 h These communities allow us to involve Bijmolt et al.
customers in product/service development (2010); Hoyer et al.

(2010)
CEI3i Customers use these communities mainly to Gre’goire et al.
make positive comments and reviews (2009)
CEI3j Customers use these communities mainly to Gre’goire et al.
make negative comments and reviews (2009)
CEI3k We pick out those customers who are most Hoffman and
important to us and engage with them Marek (2010)
CEI3 l We have a strategic approach to managing Nambisan and
online communities Baron (2007)
CEI3 m We adopt an ad hoc approach to managing Nambisan and
these communities Baron (2007)
CEI3n We do track customers across media/channels Van Bruggen et al.
(2010)
MT Mobile technologies 0.60
CEI4a Mobile Internet use has revolutionised how we Hennig-Thurau
communicate with customers et al. (2010)
CEI4b We are utilising the extra potential they add to Hennig-Thurau
online communities et al. (2010)
CEI4c We engage with customers through mobile –
social ‘apps’
CEI4d We find too many challenges in engaging with Hennig-Thurau
mobile online communities et al. (2010)
REL_INF_PRO Relational information processes 0.90
IC Information capture 0.76
RIP1a We collect customer information about an –
on-going basis
RIP1b We collect customer information using –
external sources (such as market research
agencies, syndicated data sources and
consultants)
RIP1c We capture customer information from –
internal sources within the organization
RIP1d We collect customer information from online Kumar et al. (2010)
customer communities and the aforementioned
range of social media
RIP1e We use customer interactions to collect –
information
RIP1f We collect customer information from Bijmolt et al.
clickstream data (2010)
(continued)
RIP1 g We act on customer information about a real Goldenberg (2008)
time’ basis
II Information integration 0.78
RIP2a We integrate customer information from the –
various functions that interact with customers
(such as marketing, sales and customer
service)
RIP2b We integrate internal customer information –
with customer information from external
sources
RIP2c We integrate customer information from –
different communication channels (telephone,

mail, email, the Internet, fax, personal contact)
RIP2d Social media customer information is Bijmolt et al.
integrated just like other information (2010)
RIP2e We merge information collected from various –
sources for each customer
RIP2f The amount of customer information online is Bijmolt et al.
overwhelming (2010)
IA Information access 0.60
RIP3a Relevant employees find it easy to access –
required customer information
RIP3b Relevant employees can access required –
customer information even when other
departments/functional areas have collected it
RIP3c Relevant employees are provided the –
information required to manage customer
relationships
RIP3d Customer data/information is spread Bijmolt et al.
throughout our organization without clear (2010)
ownership
RIP3e The relationship between sales and marketing Guenzi and Troilo
is strained in our organization (2007)
RIP3f The type of analytics needed to produce Bijmolt et al.
actionable customer insight is beyond our (2010)
marketing team’s expertise
RIP3 g Our IT people run the analytics on our Bijmolt et al.
customer database (2010)
IU Information use 0.89
RIP4a We find it difficult to turn data into insight Bijmolt et al.
(2010)
RIP4b We use customer information as a basis for Bijmolt et al.
talking to/engaging with our customers (2010)
RIP4c We use customer information to develop –
customer profiles/segments
RIP4d We use customer information to assess –
customer retention behaviour
RIP4e We use customer information to identify –
appropriate channels to reach customers
RIP4f We use customer information to customise our –
offers
(continued)
RIP4 g We use customer information to assess the –
lifetime value of our customers
RIP4 h We use customer information to measure the Kumar et al. (2010)
value of each customer’s referrals to other
customers
RIP4i We use customer information to measure the Kumar et al. (2010)
amount of information sharing between our
customers
RIP4j We draw on some customers’ knowledge to Kumar et al. (2010)
learn about wider customer preferences
RIP4k We utilise this customer information from the Kumar et al. (2010)
outset of our product/service development

process
RIP4 l Customer information forms the basis of Bijmolt et al.
tactical marketing decision-making on an on- (2010)
going basis
RIP4 m Customer information forms the basis of Bijmolt et al.
strategic marketing decision-making on an on- (2010)
going basis
CRM_Per CRM relationship performance 0.77
CRP Environmental dynamism
CRP1a In our business, customers’ product Jayachandran et al. 0.79
preferences change substantially over time (2005)
CRP1b We are witnessing demand for our products ”
and services from customers who never bought
them before
CRP1c The technology in our industry is changing ”
rapidly
CRP1d Technological changes provide big ”
opportunities in our industry
CRP1e A large number of new product ideas have ”
been made possible through technological
breakthroughs in our industry
CUS_Sat In the most recent year, relative to your 0.73
competitors, has your business unit performed
well with respect to:
CRP2a Achieving customer satisfaction –
CRP2b Keeping current customers –
Comp_intense Competitive intensity 0.88
CRP3a Competition in our business is cut throat Jayachandran et al.
(2005)
CRP3b We are in a business with very aggressive ”
competitors
CRP3c Price competition in this business is severe ”
Note: The Cronbach a scores in bold are those for the variables and those not in bold are for the sub-variables.
These are estimates obtained after conducting the pilot study.

Choudhury2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Choudhury2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 03:06

Journal of Strategic Marketing

CRM to social CRM: the integration

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

CRM to social CRM: the integration of new technologies into

Customer relationship management (CRM) is a continually evolving domain and now

*Corresponding author. Email: musfiq@du.ac.bd

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

2. Transformation of CRM to social CRM

Figure 1. Conceptual model of CRM.

performance, as well as their inter-relationships within the model are discussed to

2.1 Theoretical background

3.2 CRM technology use

3.2.1 Customer relationship orientation and CRM technology use

3.3 Customer engagement initiatives

3.4 Relational information processes

3.4.1 Information integration

3.4.2 Information access

3.4.3 Information reciprocity

3.4.4 Information use

3.5 Customer relationship performance

4. Methodology of the study

4.1 Survey instrument development

organisation to manage customer relationships, thereby including ad hoc social media

4.2 Survey administration and sampling technique

5. Data analysis and findings

5.2 Multivariate data analysis

Figure 2. Percentage frequency distribution of responses from respondents in respect of use of

Table 1. Reliability and discriminant validity tests.

Cronbach CRM_ CUS_ REL_

Table 2. Standard regression coefficients of the structural model.

Figure 3. Model for CRM with path estimates.

Table 3. Blindfolding results using SmartPLS 2.0.

Table 4. Results of the testing of the hypothesis.

6.1 Managerial implications

6.1.2 Engaging and learning

organisation’s product/service design, customer service and marketing strategies. Social

6.2 Research implications

7. Limitations and future research directions

4. Please see http://blog.hootsuite.com/company/ (accessed 18 November 2011).

Management, 4(1), 5 – 16.

Manifesto: How to Succeed with the CRM Virtuous Cycle.

Appendix: Measurement items constituting the questionnaire for the study

CRO5 We work to customise our offerings to Sin et al. (2005)

CUS_ENG_INI Customer engagement initiatives 0.94

customers in product/service development (2010); Hoyer et al.

different communication channels (telephone,

outset of our product/service development

You might also like