Advancing Social Media Driven Sales Research:

Establishing Conceptual Foundations for B-to-B Social Selling

in: Industrial Marketing Management (in press, forthcoming)

Author post-print

Chiara Ancillai
Department of Management
Università Politecnica delle Marche
Ancona, Italy
Phone: +39 071 220 7081
Email: c.ancillai@pm.univpm.it

Harri Terho
Turku School of Economics
University of Turku
Turku, Finland
Phone: +358 2 3339 272
Email: harri.terho@utu.fi

Silvio Cardinali
Department of Management
Università Politecnica delle Marche
Ancona, Italy
Phone: +39 071 220 7221
Email: s.cardinali@univpm.it

Federica Pascucci
Department of Management
Università Politecnica delle Marche
Ancona, Italy
Phone: +39 071 220 7204
Email: f.pascucci@univpm.it

1
 Advancing Social Media Driven Sales Research:

Establishing Conceptual Foundations for B2B Social Selling

Abstract: Business markets are facing major changes due to an increasing digitalization trend and

consequent changes in buying behaviors. Practitioners and academics alike have started to

emphasize social selling as a novel way to tackle these emerging opportunities and challenges at

the sales force level. Since research in this area remains embryonic and fragmented, we adopt a

discovery-oriented research approach and conceptualize social selling and its key facets based on

a systematic literature review and a field study involving thought leading social selling

professionals. The findings indicate a need to extend the research focus from social media usage

into a concept which comprehends social selling as a broader application of digital marketing

principles at the individual salesperson level. Social selling leverages social and digital channels

for understanding, connecting with, and engaging influencers, prospects and existing customers at

relevant customer purchasing journey touchpoints for building valuable business relationships. We

relate the construct to other close selling approaches and explicate its organizational strategy

components as well as performance outcomes. The findings advance current understanding of the

role of sales in contemporary business markets and have implications for sales and marketing

theory and practice.

Keywords: B2B, social selling, personal selling, social media, digital marketing, sales strategy

2
 1. Introduction

Business markets have witnessed major changes in customers’ buying behavior due to the recent

digitalization trend. Customers are becoming more informed and less reliant on traditional selling

initiatives (Fidelman, 2012; Giamanco & Gregoire, 2012; Minsky & Quesenberry, 2016). Some

white papers have indicated that more than three quarters of all buyers have very limited interaction

with salespeople (Andersen, Archacki, De Bellefonds, & Ratajczak, 2017). This is an issue not

only for simple offerings but also for complex solution and value-based sales in which salespeople

frequently struggle to engage customers enough early in the needs definition (Adamson, Dixon, &

Toman, 2012; Terho, Eggert, Ulaga, Haas, & Böhm, 2017). Empowered buyers are also

increasingly relying on digital resources and their buying processes or ‘purchasing journeys’

increasingly involve the use of social media (Fidelman, 2012; Giamanco & Gregoire, 2012; Wiese,

2017). In fact, in a recent B2B buyer survey, 82% of the buyers noted that social content has an

impact on their buying decisions (Minsky & Quesenberry, 2016). These changes place significant

pressure on B2B salespeople and traditional sales organizations.

Practitioners and academics alike have started to discuss social selling as a prominent

contemporary selling approach with considerable potential in the B2B sales domain. Agnihotri,

Kothandaraman, Kashyap, and Singh (2012, p. 341), describe social selling as a professional

selling approach “predicated on the strength of social media allies within a social enterprise”,

emphasizing salespeople’s use of social interaction-enhancing platforms for content-creation and

networking. With regard to practitioners, Minsky & Quesenberry (2016) assert that social selling

is the strategy of including social media in the salesperson’s toolbox for the purposes of

researching, prospecting, networking, and building relationships by sharing content and answering

questions (Minsky & Quesenberry, 2016). Overall, research suggests that B2B social selling

3
represents a distinct subset of the broader digital marketing domain at the level of personal selling

(Leeflang, Verhoef, Dahlström, & Freundt, 2014; Salo, 2017).

Tentative evidence from industry leading firms such as Adobe, IBM and Maersk Line, as

well as from consultancy reports, indicates that social media and digital channels can be used in

sales to facilitate effective dialogue with buyers, even in industries that are not usually considered

to be ‘social’ (Kovac, 2016; McKinsey & Company, 2013). Academic research has further found

that social media usage in sales is positively related to salespeople’s customer knowledge, sales

behaviors and even selling performance (e.g. Itani, Agnihotri, & Dingus, 2017; Rodriguez, Ajjan,

& Peterson, 2016). However, important deficiencies exist in both practitioners’ and academic

knowledge in this area. Even companies that are reaping the greatest rewards struggle to

understand how to most effectively leverage social media in selling and measure its value for their

businesses (McKinsey & Company, 2015). Academic research which focuses on the role of social

media in B2B selling is also nascent and offers limited insight into the phenomenon. Current

knowledge remains highly fragmented, largely focusing on general social media usage, and studies

lack generally agreed constructs and an understanding of what constitutes social selling.

The purpose of this study is to conceptualize social selling and define its key facets. We

build on a discovery-oriented, theories-in-use approach (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Tuli, Kohli, &

Bharadwaj, 2007) which is well suited to the research. We start with a systematic review of the

relevant literature in this area (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003) and complement it with a

qualitative international field study involving thought leading social selling experts and frontline

sales professionals involved in social selling.

Our study offers three main contributions. Firstly, extant research has approached social

selling by focusing most of its attention on social media usage in sales. We argue that social selling

4
is better understood as a selling approach which focuses on implementing digital marketing

principles, including content marketing and social media marketing, at sales force level (see Felix,

Rauschnabel & Hinsch, 2017; Holliman & Rowley, 2014). Broadening the research focus to social

selling and its key activities provides new insights into how digitalization and changes in buying

behaviors affect the role of selling and salespeople in contemporary B2B markets. Secondly, we

contribute theoretically by conceptualizing the social selling concept. Social selling refers to a

selling approach which leverages social and digital channels for (1) understanding, (2) connecting

with, and (3) engaging influencers, prospects and existing customers on relevant customer

purchasing journey touchpoints for building valuable business relationships. This definition

reflects a service ecosystem view of selling (Hartmann, Wieland, & Vargo, 2018), emphasizing

that selling and value creation unfold over time and are embedded in broader social systems.

Instead of aiming for short-term sales, the approach focuses on influencing relevant actors’

engagement with the seller; that is, their dispositions to invest resources in their interactions with

the seller and other relevant actors in a service system, (Brodie, Fehrerer, Jaakkola, & Conduit,

forthcoming). Thirdly, the research extends current knowledge by providing new insights into the

concept’s nomological network in terms of its relationship to other selling approaches, its

organizational aspects, and its expected outcomes.

We begin by presenting an integrative overview of extant research knowledge relating to

social selling, using a systematic literature review methodology. We then extend this theory-based

view with results from a qualitative field study involving thought leaders and social selling

practitioners. Additionally, we define social selling and elaborate on its key facets and potential

outcomes. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of our research and

suggest future research directions.

5
 2. A Review of Social Selling Related Research

Given the limited and fragmentary research relating to social selling, this study adopts a discovery-

oriented, theories-in-use approach to better understand and define the phenomenon (e.g. Kohli &

Jaworski, 1990; Tuli et al., 2007; Zaltman, LeMasters, & Heffring, 1982). We first draw on the

literature relating to social selling and social media use in B2B selling, and then complement this

theoretical view with insights from a field study among 34 social selling professionals.

For assessing the academic research on the topic, we used a systematic literature review

methodology (Tranfield et al., 2003; Thorpe, Holt, Macpherson, & Pittaway, 2005). We carefully

defined the literature search criteria to obtain extensive coverage of the relevant research (see Table

1) and conducted a search in three internet-based research databases (Scopus, Emerald, and Web

of Science). The search string was as follows: (1) social media AND (sales OR selling OR seller

OR salespeople OR sales force OR sales process) AND (B2B OR B-to-B OR business-to-business

OR industrial); (2) social selling AND (B2B OR B-to-B OR business-to-business OR industrial),

delimited to blind-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. We also conducted backward and

forward searches to ensure full coverage of the relevant literature (Webster & Watson, 2002). The

process yielded 29 publications (see Table 2).

----- INSERT TABLES 1 & 2 AROUND HERE -----

We then analyzed the contents of each article as summarized in Appendix 1 (Tranfield et al.,

2003). In this phase, we paid special attention to the social selling construct(s) in studies.

Additionally, we explored the antecedents and outcomes for a more complete understanding of the

research field. The majority (23) of the identified studies were empirical and 18 were built on

quantitative methods, which is surprising taking into account the novelty of this research domain.

The analysis further demonstrated that studies did not, on the whole, use any common social selling

6
constructs and that the theoretical backgrounds of the articles were highly heterogeneous.

Interestingly, a significant number of studies dealt with the organizational aspects of social selling

and led to their inclusion in the review.

2.1 Extant research on social selling at the individual salesperson level

The content analysis of the articles in the literature review showed that studies have used three

broad approaches to examining B2B social selling at the individual salesperson level (see

Appendix 1, Figure 1). The first group encompasses descriptive studies investigating the use of

social media platforms by salespeople (Moore, Hopkins, & Raymond, 2013; Moore, Raymond, &

Hopkins, 2015; Niedermeier, Wang, & Zhang, 2016; Schuldt & Totten, 2015). These studies found

that salespeople widely use social media in B2B sales, but focus particularly on certain social

channels and tools, such as professional networking platforms and instant messaging applications

(Moore et al., 2013, 2015; Niedermeier et al., 2016). Overall, the studies in this group are

descriptive, adopting a practice-focused, rather than theory-building approach.

----- INSERT FIGURE 1 AROUND HERE -----

The second group of studies focus on the degree of social media use in selling (see Figure

1 for the complete list of studies). Scholars study either the intensity of social media use in selling

(Guesalaga, 2016; Hansen & Levin, 2012; Levin, Hansen & Laverie, 2012; Rodriguez, Peterson,

& Krishnan, 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2016; Schultz, Schwepker, & Good, 2012) or the overall

degree of social media integration in the sales process (Agnihotri et al., 2012; Agnihotri, Dingus,

Hu, & Krush, 2016; Itani et al., 2017; Ogilvie, Agnihotri, Rapp, & Trainor, 2018). These studies

therefore provide only limited insight into how salespeople leverage social media in their work.

Various studies also use very diverse constructs to study social selling and measures with a strong

7
conceptual basis are largely missing. Nevertheless, the studies are valuable in explaining the

antecedents and outcomes of social media usage in sales (see Figure 1). A broad range of

organizational and individual salesperson factors seem to drive social media use in B2B sales.

Furthermore, the use of social media in sales enhances sales behaviors and capabilities (Agnihotri

et al., 2016; Agnihotri, Trainor, Itani, & Rodriguez, 2017; Itani et al., 2017; Ogilvie et al., 2018;

Hansen & Levin, 2016; Levin et al., 2012), leads to organizational and salesperson performance

(Itani et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2012, Rodriguez, Ajjan, & Peterson, 2014; Rodriguez et al.,

2016; Schultz et al., 2012), and drives customer-related outcomes (Agnihotri et al., 2016). While

providing evidence for the general antecedents and outcomes of social media usage in sales, the

studies are less effective in providing insight into the nature of the concept or its specific activities.

Finally, some recent studies have put forward the idea of studying social selling activities,

providing some insights into how salespeople actually do social selling (see Figure 1 for the

complete list of studies). Some studies indicate that social media can be used to gather information

to better understand customers (Lacoste, 2016), as well as to network and interact with customer

stakeholders (Bocconcelli, Cioppi, & Pagano, 2017; Lacoste, 2016). Other studies note that

salespeople try to build their reputation by belonging to communities, sharing posts, or blogging

(Lacoste, 2016; Rollins, Nickell, & Wei, 2014) or through exerting social influence in online

communities (Wang, Hsiao, Yang, & Hajli, 2016). Given the primarily qualitative nature of these

articles, less evidence exists for the antecedents and outcomes of specific social selling activities.

Organizational factors appear to influence salespeople’s social selling activities (Wang et al.,

2016), and studies indicate the positive consequences of social selling at the individual and

organizational level as summarized in Figure 1 (Bocconcelli et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016). While

these articles provide insights into possible social selling activities, they emphasize diverse aspects

8
of social selling and often focus on specific contexts such as KAM. The research lacks a commonly

agreed, empirically rooted, and theoretically rigorous definition of social selling.

2.2 Extant research on social selling at the organizational level

The content analysis of the reviewed articles revealed that numerous studies emphasized the social

selling strategy or its broader organizational context. Firstly, studies widely highlighted the

importance of developing and communicating a social selling strategy; that is, a policy on how to

conduct social selling (see Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2012).

Scholars further pointed out that firms should think carefully about a systematic integration of

social media into established selling processes (Andzulis et al., 2012; Bocconcelli et al., 2017;

Marshall, Moncrief, Rudd, & Lee, 2012; Moncrief, Marshall, & Rudd, 2015). Strategy-related

articles also discuss the use of sales goals and performance metrics for ensuring an organization-

wide application of this thinking (Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012). Many studies

concluded that management should define social media-related responsibilities for relevant

departments and foster close functional collaboration between them, especially between the sales

and marketing functions, for best results (Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012; Marshall et

al., 2012; Moncrief, 2017). Some scholars have further called for an adaptation of companies’

sales management practices to include social sales ranging from selection and training to

supervision, compensation, and deployment of the sales force (Moncrief et al., 2015). Finally,

several articles argue that firms should provide technological tools for supporting salespeople’s

effectiveness in selling (Marshall et al., 2012). For example, organizations can help their

salespeople to network with customers by integrating traditional customer relationship

management systems (CRM) with data from social media, referred to as social CRM (Rodriguez

9
& Peterson, 2012; Trainor, 2012; Trainor, Andzulis, Rapp, & Agnihotri, 2014), and by developing

predictive analytical techniques based on data mining (Meire, Ballings, & Van den Poel, 2017) or

artificial intelligence (Moncrief, 2017). In this respect, scholars have shown that social CRM has

a positive influence on relational performance (Trainor et al., 2014). Overall, the research suggest

that organizational commitment and competence drive social media usage in selling (c.f.

Guesalaga 2016), although empirical support for this assertion remains limited to single respondent

assessments of sales force level usage.

2.3 A summary of theory-based view on social selling

The literature review demonstrates that, while scholars have to date studied the key domains of

social selling at the individual and the organizational levels, the extant research remains

fragmented and lacks a shared understanding of what constitutes social selling. At the salesperson

level, studies have primarily focused on salespeople’s overall use of social media in their work and

its antecedents and outcomes. Less attention has been paid to studying how salespeople conduct

social selling and current research has yet to provide a justified, theoretically rigorous and

empirically-rooted definition or a detailed description of the activities that are involved in social

selling. In the forthcoming section, we address this challenge by conceptualizing B2B social

selling based on an empirical field study.

3. Conceptualization of Social Selling

3.1 Empirical field study methodology

To gain a better understanding of the domain of the social selling construct and its key constituents

as well as potential outcomes and organizational aspects, we collected data via in-depth interviews

10
with experienced sales practitioners. The data collection relied on a theoretical sampling procedure

(Eisenhard & Graebner, 2007). Specifically, we collected data from influential social selling

thought leaders based on a 2016 Social Selling Top 100 Influencers list published by Onalytica1.

We consider this list highly relevant to this study for several reasons. Firstly, the list builds on

publicly available objective data; that is, tweets mentioning keywords social selling OR

socialselling OR socialsales OR social sales, that fit the purpose and scope of this study. Secondly,

the list builds on the PageRank methodology, taking into account the number and quality of

contextual references that a user receives. Hence, the individuals in the list actively both foster

social selling and have high visibility for this topic. Since the list comprises influential consultants,

managers, and salespeople who focus on social selling, we consider it appropriate for gaining a

rich understanding of social selling best practices.

Importantly, we decided to supplement the thought leader study with additional data from

frontline salespeople and managers to triangulate the perceptions of thought leader consultants

with those of front-line sales professionals. The procedure helped to confirm the construct’s

dimensions that emerged from the first study and to investigate closer how the dimensions manifest

in individuals’ sales practices. It also helped to control for any major differences which might exist

in the views of consultants and sales professionals.

Initially, we personally contacted all members of the Top 100 list. We explained the aims of

our research and offered managerial summaries of the study’s results to motivate the respondents

to participate. In total, 21 thought leaders agreed to participate in the study. Next, using University

alumni relationships, we contacted company managers to identify frontline sales professionals who

1 http://www.onalytica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Onalytica-Social-Selling-2016-Top-100-Influencers-and-Brands.pdf

11
are knowledgeable and active in social selling. We made contact with seven salespeople based on

our direct contacts and used further snowballing techniques in interviews to gain access to six

additional relevant informants, totaling 13 salespeople for the second sample (see Table 3).

----- INSERT TABLE 3 AROUND HERE -----

We used open-ended questions for our data collection and focused on five themes: 1) the

social selling concept, 2) the role of the selling organization in social selling, 3) goals and perceived

outcomes, 4) perceived challenges and facilitators, and 5) perceived trends and research priorities

for social selling. The questions were carefully designed to be unobtrusive and nondirective and

to avoid the potential pitfalls of “active listening” (see McCracken, 1988, p. 21).

The data analysis followed the principles of grounded theory coding, involving open, axial,

and selective coding (e.g. Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Firstly, one researcher in the team performed

the open coding, paragraph by paragraph, using transcribed text to identify the individual facets of

the social selling concept mentioned by the participants. All emerging facets of social selling were

labeled with in-vivo or descriptive codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Then another researcher in the

team screened the codes and developed, together with the first researcher, an initial coding plan

for defining social selling and its facets. In the axial coding step, we closely examined the

properties and dimensions of the initially identified facet and conducted a detailed investigation of

the relationships between them. In the final selective coding step, we integrated the identified

social selling dimensions, outcomes, and contingency factors into a conceptual framework. In this

phase, we also checked the internal consistency of the constructs, refined the wording of the

definitions, and selected relevant key quotations from the main sample followed by more practice-

focused quotations from frontline salespeople. The use of multiple researchers in the coding

12
process, a high level of agreement in the coding, and the data saturation in the analysis phase, even

when using data from a diverse set of respondents, supported the validity of the findings.

3.2 The social selling concept

The most common top-of-the-mind themes recurring among participants indicated that social

selling is an approach which leverages digital and social channels for understanding, connecting

with and engaging customers at touch-points that are relevant for their decision-making processes

(see Fidelman, 2012; Giamanco & Gregoire, 2012; Wiese, 2017). A central tenet of social selling

is being active at the right time and in the right place during customers’ purchasing journeys so

that established “connections” in social and digital channels can be moved into “real world sales”

using traditional selling approaches. This requires a long-term pull approach, building on the

engagement of customer stakeholders and other relevant actors often with no immediate or obvious

direct sales implications. The notions imply that the domain of social selling construct goes beyond

the mere usage of social media in sales. We argue that social selling is better understood as a selling

approach which focuses on implementing digital marketing principles, including content

marketing (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; Wang, Malthouse, Calder & Uzunoglu, 2017) and social

media marketing (Felix, et al. 2017; Salo, 2017), at the individual salesperson level.

Epsilon: “The B2B customer buying process has changed and the role of sales must change
as well. Sales has always been social. Social selling is adding a new way of engaging with
customers.”
Eta: “Social selling is about changing the way that sales reps engage with buyers. Sales,
particularly complex B2B sales, have always been about relationships and most likely
always will be about relationships. Social media is just another avenue to engage with and
build those relationships.”
Beta: “Buyers have more real time information at their fingertips on any device at any
time, about you, your product, your company, your market, your competitors, and your
customers’ opinions than ever before in history. For this reason, opening the initial

13
 discussion from cold is harder than ever before. Social selling is a methodology, not a tool
or product, that empowers you to gain insights about your prospective customer, to listen,
to connect, to engage, and to earn the right to turn a social connection into a real world
sales engagement, where typically you then divert into a more traditional selling process.”
Specifically, we define social selling as a selling approach, which leverages social and digital

channels for understanding, connecting with, and engaging influencers, prospects and existing

customers at relevant customer purchasing journey touchpoints for building valuable business

relationships. The construct has three core facets: 1) acquiring insights into prospects, existing

customers, and influencers through social and digital channels; 2) connecting to relevant actors

through networking and consistent dialogue at relevant touchpoints; and 3) engaging actors

through valuable content in order to influence their dispositions to invest resources in their

interactions with the seller and other relevant actors (Figure 2). Consider the selected top-of-the-

mind quotes below:

Tau: “Social selling is an approach where salespeople use digital and social channels to
get insights and develop relationships with potential prospects and current clients by
sharing valuable content and maintaining active dialogue with the relevant people through
social channels.”
Iota: “[…] sales professionals leverage relevant social media channels to collect deep
customer insights on prospective and existing buyers, connecting to prospective buyers
through active engagement with relevant content delivered within the appropriate context
and converting those connections into valuable business relationships, typically by moving
the relationship beyond social media.”
Epsilon: “Building a professional and consistent online presence, both at a corporate and
employee level, thereby leveraging social media platforms to obtain customer and prospect
intelligence with regard to pain points and challenges; grow the professional B2B network,
both at account and contact level, by expanding the decision making unit; build ongoing
relationships by sharing relevant and engaging content early on in the customer journey;
and accelerate funnel conversion, from forecasted opportunity to booking to loyalty.”
----- INSERT FIGURE 2 AROUND HERE -----

The definition highlights that social selling is as a distinctive selling approach, which focuses on

using social and digital channels for building customer relationships. In other words, it focuses on

14
creating common ground between the seller and the empowered, social buyer early in the buying

process in touchpoints that are pertinent for the buyer (Fidelman, 2012; Wiese, 2017).

Interestingly, the field interviews indicate that the effectiveness of the approach is likely to be

contingent on the simultaneous use of customer oriented selling approaches, such as consultative

(c.f. Liu & Leach, 2001) or value-based selling (Terho et al., 2017) that substantiate the potentials

brought up by social selling (see Figure 2). While the approach can help salespeople to connect to

buyers in the early stages of buying, build trust, or be seen as valuable advisors, salespeople need

to reinforce its potentials through concrete customer oriented selling behaviors.

Zeta: “Thinking that the use of social media is a short-cut to sales success. It can open the
door when emails and phone calls are blocked but, if the basics of consultative selling are
not there, pipeline and revenue challenges will continue to be a problem.”
Gamma: “A shift in sales focus [is necessary], from hitting our targets to helping clients
hit theirs. If we do that, we will hit ours too.”
Giuliana: “Clearly it cannot be just social media; social selling will not replace the market
knowledge, the technical skill, and the sales competence. […] It must always be integrated
with all traditional business development activities. [...] I mean it must be a win-win. If I
call you to sell you something and it's just me wanting to make money from you, it won't
ever work.”
Next, we discuss three identified key activities of social selling, followed by sections concerning

its potential outcomes as well as the key facets of an organizational social selling strategy (see

Figure 2).

3.2.1 Acquisition of deep customer insights in social selling

Analysis indicates that the first central facet of social selling is the acquisition of insights into

prospects, existing customers and influencers through social and digital channels. This activity

requires the salesperson to collect customer purchasing related information in order to effectively

steer the sales process and meet the customers’ needs in a relevant and timely way. This result also

15
highlights the potential of social and digital channels for effectively developing customer needs

knowledge and gaining competitive intelligence beyond the traditionally-emphasized dyadic

relationships (see Homburg, Wierseke, & Bornemann, 2009; Hughes, Bon, & Rapp, 2013).

Salespeople can leverage social media to identify companies and individuals that fit the

targeted “ideal” customer profiles, for improved lead qualification and for effectively steering the

sales process. This involves screening potential customers’ social media profiles and actively

“listening” customers and competitors. For example, sellers can use social media to gather

information about the potential customer’s key stakeholders, such as common connections,

interests, and experiences (see Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012; Lacoste, 2016).

Information can also be used to build an understanding of the potential customer’s buying process

and buying center structure, including the decision makers and other influential actors within and

outside the customer’s organization (Adamson et al., 2012; Üstüner & Godes, 2006):

Alpha: “Identifying people and companies online that fit your ideal client profile…”
Tau: “One of the key elements in social selling is ‘social listening’, where salespeople use
social channels to find the right decision makers, influencers, and engage with them, often
through private conversations.
Upsilon: “Social selling requires gathering insights about the individual and the company
they represent before reaching out.”
Claudio: “In my work I get in touch with decision makers and leading actors, so LinkedIn
becomes a basic tool for me. It means that I do specific research but I also monitor the
daily market sentiment, checking the timeline or searching for companies, by group, by
area of interest, and so on. For each company, I get an idea about the person to call, the
person to talk with, and even the organizational hierarchy, so I understand which person
to focus on during the sales process.”
Federico: “The first thing that I do when I see a new company I do not know is to go on
LinkedIn [...] The goal is to have a complete record of that company: so, to understand
who the people of that company are and also to keep in contact afterwards.”
Additionally the acquisition of customer insights in social selling can assist in understanding the

needs of prospects and customers. These ideas align with earlier studies that have discussed the

16
potential of using social media to improve the process of needs discovery (see Agnihotri et al.,

2012; Andzulis et al, 2012; Lacoste, 2016; Trainor, 2012). Importantly, the timing aspect was

strongly present in this dimension, since strategically “listening” to customers’ conversations on

social media allows salespeople to develop a better understanding of the customers’ specific

situations and up-to-date business needs in a non-intrusive way. An accurate understanding of

customers’ specific needs is becoming increasingly relevant for approaching, effectively and non-

intrusively, the increasingly informed and powerful buyers through carefully targeted initiatives.

Nu: “Understanding what your customers truly need and solving problems that they have
via thoughtful content.”
Gamma: “An understanding of what potential clients want from us via social media. What
information do they find the most valuable? What helps to build trust? How do they decide
if and how they will contact a potential supplier they have spotted through social media
activity?”
Zeta: “Using social and business intelligence tools, a salesperson can better understand
pain points, competitive threats, and business trends that a buyer would benefit from
knowing about.”
Marco: “Looking at the profiles I have targeted, observing what they do on social media,
I start understanding their views on a certain topic, where they are sensitive and where
not. You start making up your mind about your target individual without knowing him or
her […] but let’s say, which are the news that matter for them, why they share that news,
what are the most central aspects of their work.”

3.2.2 Connecting to relevant actors in social selling

The next identified facet of social selling is the salesperson’s efforts to connect to influencers,

prospects, and existing customers through networking and consistent dialogue at relevant

customer purchasing journey touchpoints. The data analysis indicated that this dimension consists

of efforts to build relational networks by establishing professional connections with prospective

and existing customers, and by fostering systematic dialogue with these connections in social and

digital channels. Thus, social selling leverages the basic premise of social media; that is, the ability

17
to create and maintain a network of personal contacts through digital and social channels (Hennig-

Thurau, Malthouse, Friege, Gensler, Lobschat, & Rangaswamy, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

Pi: “[…] following and engaging with top executives at target accounts; connecting with
different people, and building a strong professional network; adding value for prospective
clients without looking for anything in return.”
Omicron: “Social selling is first and foremost not selling through social media channels.
It is a way of leveraging social media channels to gather a core audience of clients, industry
peers, and potential clients (prospects) in order to lay a foundation of trust through thought
leadership and mutual common interests.”
Luca: “There is certainly the personal networking and the ability to have a qualified
network, [...] broadening the network with companies or people in the industry is important
and therefore a part of the activity must also be ‘cold’.”
Mattia: “I also use social media to maintain ongoing relationships with people I'm already
connected with [...] because we met at conferences, events, where I created connections,
optimizing my network [...] every time I get to know a new person, because we scheduled
an appointment, we met during a conference, people introduce him or her to me. I always
try to create a connection on LinkedIn for example.”
When discussing connecting to the customers, respondents highlighted the importance of

consistent dialogue with influencers, prospects, and existing customers through commenting,

questioning, or answering relevant questions. Instead of one-way communication, social selling

has the potential to facilitate dialogue between salespeople and relevant actors (see Andzulis et al.,

2012; Bocconcelli et al., 2017; Trainor, 2012). Respondents stated that social media channels

represents a critical platform for timely interaction with customers and other influential actors.

Kappa: “My business was built on social media. I spent insane amounts of time responding
to everybody. My website has only recently launched after nearly two years. I’ve never
advertised my services. Yet, I have received a healthy number of leads and enquires every
week from LinkedIn and Twitter, while building strong revenue streams.”
Upsilon: “Social selling is starting a conversation with insights about the individual
decision makers and the company they represent. Social sellers add value for their prospect
from the first conversation.”

18
 Lambda: “Consistency, just doing it, and consistency, and not over thinking it: if you over
think it, you’re done. And if you’re not doing it, you’re done. […] It’s what we just talked
about; consistency and effort, just getting the work done.”
Daniel: “In social selling the work is to create interest or seek to interact with other users.
For example, we got an important client thanks to a third party’s comment. I joined the
conversation, one thing led to another and the conversation developed eventually to a
successful sales proposal. The approach of social selling is like this; either joining
conversations or triggering conversations on your profile or in groups.”

3.2.3 Engaging through valuable content in social selling

Whilst the second connecting-facet of social selling focuses on building consistent dialogue with

potential and existing connections in the relevant touch-points and at the right time, the third

engagement-related facet relates to the nature of the dialogue. This third facet of social selling

concerns engaging customers and other relevant actors through valuable content, thus for

influencing their dispositions to invest resources in their interactions with the seller and other

relevant actors (c.f. Brodie et al., forthcoming). Respondents emphasized that social selling is not

about sales-focused communication with a target audience but about engaging relevant actors with

content that fits their interests, goals, and problems beyond the selling task. These efforts can help

to establish common ground for a future relationship by affecting the relevant key actors’

engagement; that is, “dispositions to invest resources in their interactions with other connected

actors in a service system” (Brodie et al., forthcoming):

Beta: “Social selling needs a change in mindset, an understanding of how social works
and how to leverage it in a natural feeling approach in order to engage, not push away,
prospects. Too many salespeople are not getting it and are using it as a blast approach:
send an invitation to connect, followed immediately by a sales pitch proposition. This is
not social selling! Social selling is a subtle, blended approach that needs patience and
understanding to utilize.”
Lambda: “I think what gets lost in social selling is the actual engagement. Social selling
to me isn’t having a profile, liking thing or connecting with people, or sending InMails. In
fact, I think that InMails from LinkedIn are more ‘spammy’ than emails now. It’s just a

19
 new spam, but what I look out is what is the engagement people are doing with the articles
that are on these channels.”
Mattia: “Depending on the topic I have in mind, I try to engage the people in my network
that I think may be interested in this topic, trying to create interest and connection.”
Francesco: “Personally speaking, I share content on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn
and sometimes I also tag those who have carried out a specific job or a specific project. So
in that way, you engage directly with the customer or the business partner that you have.”
Respondents pointed out that successful engagement depends on the relevance and value of the

content that salespeople provide. Rather than focusing on the company’s products or services,

salespeople should focus on providing business-problem-focused content to attract the attention of

informed and empowered buyers as well as other influential key actors (see Agnihotri et al., 2012;

Bocconcelli et al., 2017). Many respondents noted the importance of illustrative and reliable

content such as white papers, references, and even reputable external sources:

Epsilon: “Social selling is about engaging with relevant content which is thought
provoking, inspires and informs the customer about something he was not aware of
before.”
Zeta: “What I would clarify is the use of content that should have value for the buyer.
Often, salespeople are simply using the content that marketing created which very often
still looks like product pitches. The content should focus on and speak to the issues that the
targeted buyer cares about. [...] Salespeople should also be on the lookout for external
content created by reputable sources that can be used to engage buyers in conversations,
because buyers only care about what you can do for them, not what you want to sell them.”
Marco: “I saw that when people try to go directly into sales, the contact stops and clearly
at that point you’ve lost the thread that could join you with your sales opportunity basically.
[…] I share things that are likely to be useful to my target customers, something that can
bring them an advantage.
Tommaso: “When I have to deal with these people, I try to provide solutions to problems
that they displayed in a previous face-to-face encounter or in a post I read. For sure, before
selling anything, I inform him or her of what the solution might be to his or her problem
and perhaps I send the content of our blog that talks about it [...] It is a communication
aimed at resolving the problem and building trust.”
Giuliana: “Once I got attention through references or experiences that we had with
successful case histories, I wait for an answer and a conversation shortly arises. This

20
 conversation is not so focused on ‘I want to sell you something’ because we sell expensive
solutions that requires certain [upfront] decision criteria.”
This facet is also highly consistent with recent studies on content marketing, which highlight the

importance of delivering relevant, compelling, and timely content based on customer needs

(Holliman & Rowley, 2014; Järvinen & Taiminen, 2016). Yet this activity implements this broader

corporate level perspective (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) at individual-level personal interactions.

3.3 The expected outcomes of social selling

Data analysis identified several potential outcomes for social selling ranging from salesperson

level soft outcomes and sales performance, to customer and organizational outcomes as

summarized in Figure 2. We discuss the outcomes in more detail below.

First, study participants emphasized the development of a strong personal brand as one of

the key outcomes of social selling. Specifically, systematic social selling activities have the

potential to build a thought leadership position with the target customers. Lacoste (2016) made a

similar remark in her study showing that key account managers use social media to build their

professional credibility, which can streamline the first contact request to potential customers.

According to the data, the personal brand has even broader role in supporting customers

spontaneously reaching out to the salesperson in respect of buying related problems. Data also

suggests that social selling can help salespeople to demonstrate sales service behaviors, by adding

new tools to the resource-intensive traditional channels in communication (see Agnihotri et al.,

2012, 2017):

Gamma: “Building their 'personal brand' and positioning themselves as thought leaders
in their industry. Traditional selling pushes people away, social selling attracts people to
you.”

21
 Eta: “Social selling is not about connecting for an aggressive sales methodology; it is
about building your reputation as a trusted advisor and/or subject matter expert, so that in
the long term, your customer comes to you.”
Federico: “Also as a tool for following up with customers, even for inviting them to events
or for understanding what point the negotiation has reached. Many people read LinkedIn
even before email […] Often, I just write a message on LinkedIn to determine the right time
to talk: ‘You told me two months ago that we should get in touch at this point. Would now
be a good time for you to talk?’ I ask this type of question to create a relational continuity
with the client and to decide what the next step should be.”
Luca: “Surely being recognized within your market. If someone uses social media, he or
she may run into one of my posts or anyway, when I contact him or her, I'm not unknown;
this is an incredible advantage compared to five, ten years ago.”
Furthermore, data analysis indicated that social selling has the potential to affect a salesperson’s

selling performance. Three main performance areas emerged from the data, namely lead

performance, sales process efficiency, and revenues. Participants noted that social selling has a

particular impact on the front end of the selling cycle, by assisting salespeople to generate an

increased number of better-quality leads, as well as obtaining higher closing ratios and shorter

sales cycles during the sales process. Indeed, studies have questioned the effectiveness of

traditional prospecting techniques, such as cold canvassing in contemporary business (see

Moncrief & Marshall, 2005). In contrast to many traditional approaches, social selling was

perceived by participants to be an effective means of approaching attractive leads and prospects in

a non-invasive and more personal way (see Agnihotri et al., 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2012; Ogilvie

et al., 2018). These front end outcomes should have an impact on a salesperson’s revenue

performance in the long term:

Gamma: “Done right, social selling will improve sales numbers and conversion ratio, but
that should not be your focus. Focus on the right activities and the results take care of
themselves.”
Upsilon: “Selling outcomes are higher close rates, shorter sales cycles, and bigger deal
sizes. This comes at the cost of more preparation time. You may reach out to fewer
prospects, but close more deals.”

22
 Delta: “For sales, its closing ratio, lead generation, and revenue.”
Luca: “Social media has accelerated the process of mutual choice. So it's important to be
trustworthy in social media. In this way, when someone checks who is this person wanting
an appointment with me, what does he do, what he is looking for, this person already
qualifies himself and overcomes any knowledge barriers that existed previously.”
Francesco: “There have been increases both in terms of revenue and business
opportunities. For potential customers, we generate interest and demand via social
networks.”
Thirdly, participants widely noted relational and customer outcomes. The understanding of

customers’ knowledge about the buying process, repeated meaningful conversations, and the

provision of valuable insights help salespeople to build trust in the relationships. In doing so, social

selling can also affect customer satisfaction. Additionally, many respondents also noted that social

selling is likely to facilitate customer referrals through engagement and sellers’ personal branding

(see Van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, et al., 2010).

Upsilon: “Social selling done right should have a positive impact on sales results, while at
the same time increase buyers’ satisfaction with the buying process.”
Lambda: “[…] customer advocacy, so the customer really believes in your brand and
product.”
Iota: “Conversions create happy customers that can be leveraged for the acquisition of
new customers […] When they meet someone that has an interest in your product, service,
or expertise, they will refer them to you.”
Marco: “To substantially increase the credibility perceived by customers. If the client sees
that I’m paying attention to particular aspects that, honestly speaking, my competitor does
not really look at, I acquire in his eyes superior credibility and I will receive more trust
from him.”
Nicola: “The goal is to write an article, make a post, something true where I solved a
problem for a customer. What is great is to see that, giving their name and surname, our
customers say it is true. [...] Always the final goal is a reference.”
Finally, respondents noted that a systematic application of social selling among salespeople might

also affect a company’s performance in the long-term through the combined effects of salesperson-

23
and customer-related outcomes. Study participants noted two key areas of organizational

performance, namely brand awareness and organizational selling performance.

Beta: “Brand awareness will be impacted to a degree, but this is typically founded in social
advocacy; having influencers and others sharing organizational level content to their
audiences.”
Eta: “Overall brand or reputation of the company, selling performance, ROI”
Iota: “Brand awareness and selling performance are indeed the most important
organizational level goals in social selling.”
Luca: “There is a part of ambassador and brand awareness: let's say you try to publish
something on weekly basis, to propose something that is inherent to the products and
services we sell.”
Marco: “Speaking of prospects, branding for us is essential because we are not very well
known. So, if you do branding using customer references, ask current customers for
permission to use their name; certainly that could bring significant benefits. And this
certainly happens on social online.”

3.4 The organizational aspects of social selling

Finally, data analysis indicates that social selling is an individual salesperson level concept.

Respondents emphasized that organizations play a vital role in its effective company-wide

implementation (c.f. Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012; Itani et al., 2017; Ogilvie et al.,

2018). The data analysis produced a list of seven tightly-connected facets of organizational social

selling strategy (see Figure 2). The empirical results are clearly aligned with earlier, mostly

conceptual, studies in this area but also highlight new aspects at the organizational level. For

clarity, we focused only on elements of strategy that are specific to social selling and did not

consider general management topics such as top management support, change management, or

training, even though these were widely represented in the data.

Participants emphasized the need to clearly define and communicate a social media policy

for social selling in order to achieve the best results. Companies should identify the right people

24
to manage social media tools, allowing employees to use social media and providing guidelines

for its proper use.

Delta: “Before implementing social selling, proper online etiquette needs to be

established.”
Zeta: “Have we created and clearly communicated social communication guidelines to our
salespeople?”
Iota: “Start with a social media policy; and for every ‘do not’, also include a ‘do’.”
Mu: “Relevant platforms to the brand. Create and build a community at the outset.
[…]People buy from people so choose the right person to manage your social media.”
Most participants also emphasized the key role of customer buying behavior-based segmentation

and targeting in social selling. Respondents noted that companies should support their salespeople

in understanding who the ideal target customers are, what types of channels they use, what their

typical organizational needs are, which stakeholders are normally involved in buying, and what

concerns individual buyers have. Detailed buyer profiles can help in lead qualification and steering

the social selling efforts.

Iota: “Sales professionals need to fully grasp the buying journey of their customers. They
need to know where their customers are online, what platforms they use. They need to
understand the etiquettes of those platforms.”
Zeta: “Who is our target audience and what do they care about? What social channels are
our prospects likely to be engaging in?”
Lambda: “I think you have to understand your buyer. So, one thing that people don’t do a
good job at is understanding where their buyer ‘lives’. Before we do anything, whether in
a sales process, social selling, whatever it is, you have to know what your ideal client
profile is. I think the biggest problem people have in the sales world is not knowing who
their buyer is, who’s going to buy from them. It doesn’t matter if it’s social, calling,
marketing; if you’re marketing to the wrong person, you can’t get their attention, they’re
never going to buy from you […] So, what the strategy really is, is based on the business
you’re selling to and what your ideal client profile is, and I think you build the strategy
around that; it’s all about the attention.”
Pi: “You need to be clear on the ideal customer profile and the target personas within
those accounts so you know where they ‘live socially’.”

25
The data further indicates that an organizational social selling strategy should systematically

integrate social selling activities into selling processes. A programmatic approach to social selling

ensures that individual social selling efforts are integrated into daily sales activities and broader

corporate objectives. These results also resonate with studies that have noted the different roles of

social media in various steps of the traditional sales process (Andzulis et al., 2012; Marshall et al.,

2012; Moncrief et al., 2015).

Epsilon: “A programmatic approach is needed.”

Lambda: “I think the thing that is missing is that the entire lifecycle of the client needs to
be taken into account in social selling […] I think just integrating, having an integrated
process for social selling is important.”
Pi: “There needs to be structure to what reps do on social and how they do it, but allow
them to still show their own voice. It also needs to be aligned with KPIs and objectively
measured to show the positive impact on revenue and prove the value.”
Social selling strategy should also consider specific goals and metrics. Many participants

emphasized that it is very hard to identify the direct short-term outcomes of social selling activities,

so managers should pay attention to long-term organizational goal setting. Data analysis suggests

that managers should carefully tailor the KPIs and metrics, taking into account the nature and

purpose of social selling activities (c.f. Agnihotri et al., 2012). Respondents frequently stressed

specific activity-focused metrics for evaluating salespeople’s performance, such as the number of

leads, shared content, number of face-to-face meetings, or demonstrations achieved through social

selling practices, among others. The measures should not simply focus on the quantity but also

address the quality of the activities to obtain the best results.

Omicron: “[…] establishing long term goals. Maintaining a good level of engagement with
those putting social selling into practice is key, since in some industries, the benefits of
social selling are not immediate.”
Tau: “Everything that can be measured should be measured and be implemented into the
sales process in order to avoid social selling activities getting left out of daily sales
activities. […] Companies should then implement some kind of program or test period and

26
 start measuring the KPI’s: lead sources; number of content posted or shared; content
engagement; the number of meetings, leads, and deals through social channels.”
Phi: “The primary objective is to get face to face with a qualified customer with the minimal
amount of effort and time. So all measurements need to be related to that. Number of
qualified leads generated. Number of face-to-face meetings achieved.”
Zeta: “Sales leadership is a roadblock. They often still insist on measuring number of
phone calls made or emails sent but the quality of the messaging is overlooked. More isn’t
better. If the activity isn’t leading to sales outcomes like more sales calls being made, the
problem is in the messaging and lack of relevance and personalization.”
Organizational alignment is a critical element in social selling strategy. Participants frequently

emphasized that sales and marketing, especially, should work together with distinct roles for

effective management of online and offline conversations with prospects and customers (c.f.

Agnihotri et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2012; Moncrief, 2017). Social selling requires clearly

defined roles and clear responsibilities for participating departments, sometimes involving non-

sales parties in the organization (cf. Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012; Marshall et al.,

2012; Moncrief, 2017).

Zeta: “Strategy that includes sales and marketing, which defines clear hand off points and
who does what.”
Pi: “[…] and then develop a strategy that surrounds them from a marketing standpoint as
well as a rep standpoint, leveraging social to gain insights and engage when appropriate.
There should be a clear distinction between the company brand and the rep brand to ensure
it doesn’t all sound the same.”
Omicron: “I believe that it's a mistake to only focus on that small group of an organization.
Every employee has a chance, an opportunity to partake in social selling. They are the best
advocates an organization has.”
One primary area of functional collaboration concerns the organizational creation and sharing of

content (c.f. Bocconcelli et al., 2017). Respondents stressed that social selling efforts benefit from

wide “social media advocacy” among employees and organizations should know how to inspire

non-sales individuals to become active in social content sharing. In this regard, respondents

27
stressed the need for flexibility and a supportive, rather than a predominant approach by the

marketing function to help salespeople to engage customers with content.

Beta: “To get success from social selling in an organization requires […] the business to
support the sales team with strong, engaging, ongoing new content.”
Upsilon: “The marketing team needs to support with content and should have an integrated
approach of marketing activity and social selling outreach by the sales force.”
Lambda: “It’s not just sales; it’s got to be the organization. I think engineering should be
doing social selling and not in the traditional social selling space; they should be sharing
stuff, because they never know who’s looking at their profile.”
Gamma: “As stated previously, social selling is not done by firms; it is done by individual
salespeople. Company social media channels should share their peoples’ posts, not the
other way around.”
Finally, the participants noted that firms should carefully consider the provision of technological

tools for supporting their salespeople’s social selling efforts. Clearly, companies are increasingly

employing digital marketing- and sales-related technologies. Since, as far as we are aware, no up-

to-date established list of all potential applicable technologies exists in this area, we developed a

list of six potential groups of technologies related to social selling based on sales software-focused

commercial websites and practitioner discussions (see Table 4). After the open inductive data

collection, we asked participants to further rate the perceived relevance of the list of identified

sales-related technologies. Interestingly, the respondents rated salesperson-focused supportive

technologies most highly, including social CRM, social media management, and sales enablement

software. These tools focus on assisting users in leveraging social media and content in their work.

The views support earlier studies that have noted the positive effects of social CRM on

salespeople’ selling behaviors and customer relationship performance (see Agnihotri et al., 2017;

Trainor et al., 2014). In turn, the respondents gave lower scores to management and marketing as

well as automation-focused technologies such as sales force automation, business intelligence, and

marketing automation software.

28
 ----- INSERT TABLE 4 AROUND HERE -----

Importantly, many participants stressed that a trade-off exists between the use of technologies and

a personal approach in social selling activities. The different tools also have the potential to

overwhelm salespeople and reduce the required customer focus in social selling. Findings suggest

that too-dominant sales technologies might even negatively moderate the relationship between

social selling and business performance.

Iota: “The essence of social selling is hyper-personalization as opposed to increased

automation. This is where many organizations go wrong and hence claim that social selling
doesn’t work. Any tools offered should help the sales professional to increase the level of
personal contact with existing and prospective buyers. If it doesn’t do that, don’t burden
the sales professionals with those tools.”
Lambda: “I do believe you have to give people tools, because salespeople are lazy. So, I
think you do need to give them tools; I just think you have to be cautious and balanced,
because if you give them too many tools, they don’t do anything.”
Gamma: “Social selling is not snooping. Great social selling keeps things simple. Share
great content and prospects will gravitate to you. There is too much automation used in
social selling. Social selling is done by humans, not robots.”
Pi: “Selecting the least amount of tools that complement each other and that you can build
into a process without too much overlap.”
These views align with CRM studies that have demonstrated that highly technology driven

initiatives are likely to fail, even having negative effects for companies (c.f. Reinartz, Krafft, &

Hoyer, 2004). We conclude that supportive salesperson-focused technologies are likely to be

beneficial for social selling but carry serious risks when they become too dominant.

4. Discussion

4.1 Theoretical implications

This study makes several substantial contributions to B2B personal selling and digital marketing

research. The findings extend current knowledge by advancing the scope of social selling research,

29
by developing a best-practice conceptualization of social selling, and by providing new insights

into the nomological network of this concept.

First, practitioners and academics alike have widely embraced the social selling concept and

its potential to tackle business challenges and opportunities related to digitalization and changing

buying behavior. However, the vast majority of empirical studies in this field have approached the

phenomenon through salespersons’ use of social media in selling (c.f. Agnihotri et al., 2016; Itani

et al., 2017; Rapp, Beitelspacher, Grewal, & Hughes, 2013). Our results show that social selling is

a broader concept which leverages social and digital channels for understanding, connecting with,

and engaging empowered and informed customers and other actors at relevant touchpoints (see

Fidelman, 2012; Giamanco & Gregoire, 2012; Wiese, 2017). Accordingly, we argue that social

selling should be seen as a more fundamental selling concept which implements digital marketing

principles at the individual salesperson level. Our findings demonstrate how key digital marketing

principles, including content marketing (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; Wang et al., 2017) and social

media marketing (Felix et al., 2017; Salo, 2017) are strongly present in today’s personal selling

practice in B2B markets. Importantly, this view deepens understanding about the role and tasks of

selling and salespeople in contemporary B2B markets (c.f. Sheth & Sharma, 2008).

Second, social selling research is fragmented and lacks commonly agreed constructs (see

Itani et al., 2017; Rapp et al., 2013; Rodriguez et al., 2012). We address this gap by offering an

empirically based conceptualization of the concept and specifying its key activities. Social selling

refers to a selling approach, which leverages social and digital channels for understanding,

connecting with, and engaging influencers, prospects and existing customers at relevant customer

purchasing journey touchpoints for building valuable business relationships. Until now, research

has approached the three key facets of the construct only indirectly, and at best partially, by

30
studying diverse selling behaviors as mediators between social media usage and performance

(Agnihotri et al., 2016; Itani et al., 2017; Ogilvie et al., 2018). Interestingly, the conceptualization

reflects a service ecosystem view of selling, which asserts that selling and value creation unfold

over time and are embedded in broader social systems. This view emphasizes that modern selling

increasingly involves the participation of broad sets of internal and external individuals in dialogic

interactions and institutional processes (Hartmann et al., 2018). Social selling responds to this

challenge by using social and digital channels to integrate and manage communication flows

among relevant sets of actors, including influencers, customers, or prospects. For example, the

conceptualization shows how social selling can develop customer needs knowledge and

competitive intelligence beyond dyadic relationships (c.f. Homburg, Wierseke, & Bornemann,

2009; Hughes, Bon, & Rapp, 2013). The ecosystem view also highlights narratives as an important

medium for institutional work and focuses on various individuals’ participation in the alignment

and maintenance of institutional arrangements (Hartmann et al., 2018). Our results show how

social selling applies this idea by acquiring insights, networking, and dialogue, in addition to

sharing tailored narrative content using digital and social channels. Instead of aiming directly for

sales, the construct focuses on influencing relevant actors’ engagement; that is, their dispositions

to invest resources in their interactions with sellers and other relevant actors in a service system

(c.f. Brodie et al., forthcoming). This type of subtle, indirect approach is increasingly important

since B2B salespeople increasingly struggle to engage empowered buyers early enough. This is an

issue not only for simple offerings but also for complex solution and value-based sales in which

salespeople (Adamson, et al., 2012; Terho et al., 2017).

Third, our inductive findings extend current knowledge by providing new insights

concerning the nomological network of the social selling concept. We suggest that the

31
effectiveness of social selling is likely to be contingent on the salesperson’s simultaneous use of

customer oriented selling approaches, such as consultative or value-based selling that substantiates

its potentials to a customer (see Liu & Leach, 2001; Terho et al., 2017). Our results also pinpoint

several social selling outcomes, ranging from soft salesperson outcomes, such as the strength of a

salesperson’s personal brand; to selling performance related issues such as lead quality, selling

process efficiency, and revenues; customer outcomes such as satisfaction, commitment and referral

behaviors; and even company level performance. Importantly, most empirical studies in this area

have not closely investigated the identified performance areas. Instead, many studies have used

broad performance scales, such as relationship performance, that include diverse performance

areas ranging from lead acquisition to customer retention indicators (e.g. Rodriguez et al., 2012,

2016). Our findings emphasize the need to carefully reconsider the traditional performance

measures when researching social selling. Finally, we complement the primarily conceptual

studies in this area by developing empirical insights into social selling strategy elements, which

potentially drive the adoption and effectiveness of social selling (see Agnihotri et al., 2012;

Andzulis et al., 2012; Moncrief et al., 2015; Trainor, 2012). Interestingly, these findings call for

more research attention to the role of contemporary sales and marketing technologies in selling.

4.2 Managerial implications

This study provides insights that support the implementation of social selling at the salesperson

and organizational levels. Our results indicate that social selling represents a strategic investment

for B2B firms for tackling the opportunities and challenges related to the digitalization trend and

consequent changes in buying behaviors at the salesforce level.

32
 At the salesperson level, the results offer detailed insight into the social selling concept and

its key activities: acquisition of deep insights into prospective and existing customers, connecting

to customers and other influential actors at relevant touch-points through networking and dialogue,

in addition to engaging relevant actors through valuable content. The approach is not simply

another sales channel for making sales pitches but a way to engage the informed, empowered, and

social buyers during their purchasing journeys using digital and social channels. The approach

calls for high customer focus and use simultaneous use of customer oriented selling activities such

as consultative and value-based selling. A narrow view of social selling is likely to cause customers

to see the efforts as “modern spam” or “lip-service” engagement without real substance.

Importantly, the results provide a solid basis for benchmarking social selling practices.

At the organizational level, social selling offers a strategic opportunity for firms to tackle the

changed buying behavior in B2B markets. The empirical results provide clear guidance for

management in developing an organizational social selling strategy, including social media

policies for sales, buying behavior-based segmentation and targeting, the integration of social

selling into the selling process, social selling goals and metrics, organizational alignment, content

creation and sharing, and provision of technological sales tools. The list of potential outcomes of

social selling should further help in developing the goals and KPIs for salespeople and

organizations.

4.3 Study limitations and implications for future research

As in the case of any research, our study design is subject to limitations, some of which offer

opportunities for future research. Firstly, future research should examine closer the developed

conceptualization of social selling. Since our research is explorative in nature, employing

qualitative data, a natural next step would be to develop and empirically test measures for the social
33
selling construct. Similarly, the conceptualization has been developed using key informant data.

While we paid careful attention to theoretical sampling and collected data from various sources,

future research should examine more closely the generalizability of the developed concept to

different industries. Our results imply that social selling is different from other customer focused

selling approaches, focusing on social and digital channels. Still, future studies should establish

discriminant validity with regard to other customer-oriented selling concepts.

Secondly, our results highlight the need to study the antecedents of social selling. We call

for more research to study the role of organizational social selling strategies in salesperson-level

social selling since there is very little empirical research in this area. Another fruitful research

avenue concerns the role of modern technology in social selling because the academic research

seems to be lagging behind current developments in this area. The field study findings indicate

that technology and automation are challenging topics, since they can support social selling efforts,

but may also be counterproductive if implemented in an excessively technology-driven way. Many

study participants noted that technology, especially that using artificial intelligence, is likely to

continue changing the social selling domain in the future. Hence, we suggest that future research

should better understand the types of potential technologies as well as their optimal role and

deployment in this area. A third research avenue concerns the sales and marketing interface in the

social selling domain. Study findings indicate that the role and tasks of sales and marketing

departments are becoming closer than ever to each other. Marketing is increasingly focusing on

lead acquisition for sales, whereas salespeople are increasingly adopting indirect ways of relating

to and engaging customers in wider ecosystem contexts. We call for research about the roles,

challenges, and synergies in sales and marketing collaboration related to social selling.

34
 Thirdly, the study findings suggest future research avenues relating to the outcomes of social

selling. Our explorative study identified four potential performance areas ranging from soft

salesperson outcomes, such as the strength of the personal brand, to salesperson selling

performance, relational performance, and even organizational performance. Interestingly, study

findings further highlight the need to adapt the performance measures to the specific social selling

outcomes. With regard to social selling performance, finding especially highlight lead performance

and sales process efficiency. Therefore, future research in this area should adapt outcome measures

to the special nature of this phenomenon instead of using broad performance measures.

Additionally, we call for new research about the customer view and the potential “dark side” of

social selling for a more balanced view of this phenomenon.

Finally, exploring more deeply the various conditions that define the effectiveness of social

selling would be of great interest. Due to resource limitations, we focused only on seller-related

contingencies. Our qualitative insights indicate that the effectiveness of social selling depends on

salespeople’s use of other customer-oriented selling approaches such as consultative or value-

based selling approaches. We encourage studies to examine in more depth whether and how other

selling approaches affects the performance of social selling. Furthermore, we call for new studies

examining whether organizational social selling strategies affect the effectiveness of social selling

efforts at the sales force level. Future studies should also consider other contextual contingencies

related to customer, relational, or industry related factors. For example, are social selling efforts

equally effective for different types of sales task, ranging from simpler offerings to complex

customer solutions, or in different relational contexts, varying from lead acquisition to maintaining

long-term relationships?

35
 REFERENCES

Adamson, B., Dixon, M., & Toman, N. (2012). The End of Solution Sales. Harvard Business
Review, 90(7), 61–68.
Agnihotri, R., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R., & Singh, R. (2012). Bringing “social” into sales:
the impact of salespeople’s social media use on service behaviors and value creation.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 333-348.
Agnihotri, R., Dingus, R., Hu, M. Y., & Krush, M. T. (2016). Social media: Influencing
customer satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 172-180.
Agnihotri, R., Trainor, K. J., Itani, O. S., & Rodriguez, M. (2017). Examining the Role of Sales-
Based CRM Technology and Social Media Use on Post-Sale Service Behaviors in India.
Industrial Marketing Management, 81, 144-154.
Andersen, P., Archacki, R., De Bellefonds, N., & Ratajczak, D. (2017). How Digital Leaders are
Transforming B2B Marketing. bcg.com, October 9
(https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/marketing-sales-how-digital-leaders-
transforming-b2b.aspx).
Andzulis, J. M., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. (2012). A review of social media and
implications for the sales process. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3),
305-316.
Bocconcelli, R., Cioppi, M., & Pagano, A. (2017). Social Media as a Resource in SMEs’ Sales
Process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 693-709.
Brodie, R., Fehrerer, J., Jaakkola, E. & Conduit J. (forthcoming). Actor Engagement in
Networks: Defining the Conceptual Domain. Journal of Service Research
Fidelman, M. (2012).The Rise of Social Salespeople. Forbes.com, October 16
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/markfidelman/2012/11/05/the-rise-of-social-salespeople/).
Giamanco, B., & Gregoire, K. (2012). Tweet me, friend me, make me buy. Harvard Business
Review, 90(7/8), 88-93.
Guesalaga, R. (2016). The Use of Social Media in Sales: Individual and Organizational
Antecedents, and the Role of Customer Engagement in Social Media. Industrial Marketing
Management, 54, 71-79.
Hansen, J. M., & Levin, M. A. (2016). The Effect of Apathetic Motivation on Employees'
Intentions to Use Social Media for Businesses Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 6058-
6066.
Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a New Theoretical
Foundation for Selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1-18.
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(3), 311-330.
Holliman, G., & Rowley, J. (2014). Business to business digital content marketing: marketers’
perceptions of best practice. Journal of research in interactive marketing, 8(4), 269-293.

36
Homburg, C., Wieseke J., & Bornemann T. (2009). Implementing the Marketing Concept at the
Employee-Customer Interface: The Role of Customer Need Knowledge. Journal of
Marketing, 73(4), 64-81.
Hughes, D. E., Le Bon J., & Rapp A. (2013). Gaining and leveraging customer-based
competitive intelligence: The pivotal role of social capital and salesperson adaptive selling
skills. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 91-110.
Itani, O. S., Agnihotri, R., & Dingus, R. (2017). Social media use in B2b sales and its impact on
competitive intelligence collection and adaptive selling: Examining the role of learning
orientation as an enabler. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 64-79.
Järvinen, J., & Taiminen, H. (2016). Harnessing Marketing Automation for B2B Content
Marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 164-175.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market-orientation: The construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
Kovac, M. (2016). Social media works for B2B sales, too Harvard Business Review Digital
Articles, September 25, 2-4.
Lacoste, S. (2016). Perspectives on social media ant its use by key account managers. Industrial
Marketing Management, 54, 33-43.
Leeflang, P. S., Verhoef, P. C., Dahlström, P., & Freundt, T. (2014). Challenges and solutions
for marketing in a digital era. European management journal, 32(1), 1-12.
Levin, M. A., Hansen, J. M., & Laverie, D. A. (2012). Toward understanding new sales
employees’ participation in marketing-related technology: Motivation, voluntariness, and
past performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 379-393.
Liu, A. H., & Leach, M. P. (2001). Developing loyal customers with a value-adding sales force:
Examining customer satisfaction and the perceived credibility of consultative
salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21(2), 147-156.
Marshall, G. W., Moncrief, W. C., Rudd, J. M., & Lee, N. (2012). Revolution in sales: The
impact of social media and related technology on the selling environment. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 349-363.
McKinsey & Company (2013). Being B2B Social: A Conversation with Maersk Line’s head of
Social Media. McKinsey.com, September 25 (http://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/marketing-and-sales/our-insights/being-b2b-social-a-conversation-with-maersk-
lines-head-of-social-media).
McKinsey & Company (2015). Transforming the business through social tools. McKinsey.com,
September 5 (http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/transforming-
the-business-through-social-tools).
Meire, M., Ballings, M., & Van den Poel, D. (2017). The added value of social media data in
B2B customer acquisition systems: A real-life experiment. Decision Support Systems, 104,
26-37.

37
Minsky, L., & Quesenberry, K. A. (2016). How B2B Sales can Benefit from Social Selling.
Harvard Business Review Digital Articles. 8 Nov, 2-5.
Moncrief, W. C., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). The evolution of the seven steps of
selling. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(1), 13-22.
Moncrief, W. C., Marshall, G. W., & Rudd, J. M. (2015). Social media and related technology:
Drivers of change in managing the contemporary sales force. Business Horizons, 58(1), 45-
55.
Moncrief, W. C. (2017). Are sales as we know it dying…or merely transforming? Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37(4), 271-279.
Moore, J. N., Hopkins, C. D., & Raymond, M. A. (2013). Utilization of relationship-oriented
social media in the selling process: a comparison of consumer (B2C) and industrial (B2B)
salespeople. Journal of Internet Commerce, 12(1), 48-75.
Moore, J. N., Raymond, M. A., & Hopkins, C. D. (2015). Social selling: A comparison of social
media usage across process stage, markets, and sales job functions. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 23(1), 1-20.
Niedermeier, K. E., Wang, E., & Zhang, X. (2016). The use of social media among business-to-
business sales professionals in China: How social media helps create and solidify guanxi
relationships between sales professionals and customers. Journal of Research in Interactive
Marketing, 10(1), 33-49.
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media
effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41(5), 547-566.
Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Hinsch, C. (2017). Elements of strategic social media
Marketing: A holistic framework. Journal of Business Research, 70, 118-126.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management
process: Its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research,
41(3), 293-305.
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(3), 365-
378.
Rodriguez, M., & Peterson, R. M. (2012). The role of social CRM and its potential impact on
lead generation in business-to-business marketing. International Journal of Internet
Marketing and Advertising, 7(2), 180-193.
Rodriguez, M., Ajjan, H., & Peterson, R. M. (2014). CRM/social media technology: Impact on
customer orientation process and organizational sales performance. Journal of Marketing
Development & Competitiveness, 8(1), 85–97.
Rodriguez, M., Ajjan, H., & Peterson, R. M. (2016). Social media in large sales forces: an
empirical study of the impact of sales process capability and relationship performance.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(3), 365-379.

38
Rollins, M., Nickell, D., & Wei, J. (2014). Understanding salespeople's learning experiences
through blogging: A social learning approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(6),
1063-1069.
Salo, J. (2017). Social media research in the industrial marketing field: Review of literature and
future research directions. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 115-129.
Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (2015). Application of Social Media Types in the Sales Process.
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 19(3), R230.
Schultz, R. J., Schwepker Jr, C. H., & Good, D. J. (2012). Social media usage: an investigation
of B2B salespeople. American Journal of Business, 27(2), 174-194.
Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (2008). The impact of the product to service shift in industrial
markets and the evolution of the sales organization. Industrial Marketing
Management, 37(3), 260-269.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Terho, H., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., Haas, A., & Böhm, E. (2017). Selling Value in Business
Markets: Individual and Organizational Factors for Turning the Idea into Action. Industrial
Marketing Management, 66, 42-55.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and
medium‐sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(4), 257-281.
Trainor, K. J. (2012). Relating social media technologies to performance: A capabilities-based
perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 317-331.
Trainor, K. J., Andzulis, J. M., Rapp, A., & Agnihotri, R. (2014). Social media technology usage
and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM.
Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1201-1208.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of
management, 14(3), 207-222.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking Customer Solutions: From
Product Bundles to Relational Processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17
Üstüner, T., & Godes, D. (2006). Better Sales Networks. Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8),
102–112.
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010).
Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal
of service research, 13(3), 253-266.
Wang, W. L., Malthouse, E. C., Calder, B., & Uzunoglu, E. (2017). B2B content marketing for
professional services: In-person versus digital contacts. Industrial Marketing Management.
in press.

39
Wang, Y., Hsiao, S. H., Yang, Z., & Hajli, N. (2016). The impact of sellers' social influence on
the co-creation of innovation with customers and brand awareness in online communities.
Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 56-70.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS quarterly, 26(2), 13-23.
Wiese, M. (2017). Death of a salesman: the rise of social selling. Forbes.com, November 28
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/06/29/death-of-a-salesman-the-
rise-of-social-selling/).
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory construction in marketing: Some
thoughts on thinking. John Wiley & Sons.

40
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in the systematic literature review

Criteria Inclusion Exclusion

Technology: Social media SFA, websites or other technologies
Context: B2B selling + general selling B2B marketing, B2C selling

Table 2. Database search process and results

Database /search phase Keywords - Duplications Exclusion based Selected

based hits on text analysis studies

a. Scopus 44 -2 -28

b. Web of Science 52 -29 -23

c. Emerald 13 -10 -2

Database search total 109 -41 -53 15

Backward search 7

Forward search 7

Included articles total 29

41
Table 3. Profiles of social selling professionals participating in the study

Main sample 1, Primary Job Industry Sales Country

Participant Job Role* Title Exp.**
Barbara Giamanco CO CEO Training 30 USA
Bill Carmody CO, SA CEO Marketing 24 USA
Carola Rodrigues CO, MA, SA Director Consulting 15 Netherland
Carola van der CO Social Selling Program Consulting 16 Netherland
Linden Manager
Dale Zwizinski MA Senior VP of Sales Technology 20 USA
David Perry MA Manager, Content Legal services 16 Canada
Marketing & Social Media
Frank Hattann MA Director Technology 18 Ireland
Gabriella Sannino CO Consultant International 27 USA
Marketing
Ian Moyse MA Sales Director ICT 32 UK
John Barrows CO Business Founder Sales training 22 USA
John Smibert CO Director Sales consulting 45 Australia
Julio Viskovich CO Sales Trainer and Sales training 10 Canada
Professor
Kirsten Boileau MA Global Head of Social ICT 10 Canada
Selling
Kurt Shaver CO Chief Sales Officer Consulting 35 USA
Mic Adam CO Social Selling practitioner Consulting 40 Belgium
Perry van Beek CO, MA, SA Business Founder & Social Sales training 25 Netherland
Selling Specialist
Sam Hurley CO Business Founder Dig. Marketing 7 UK
Sani Leino CO CEO Sales training 12 Finland
Stuart Allen CO Consultant, Sales Consulting 35 UK
Susan Dolan CO Google Expert Marketing - UK
Tripp Braden CO Managing Partner ICT 30 USA
Frontline sample 2, Primary Job Industry Sales Country
Participant Job Role* Title Exp.**
Claudio SA Account Manager & DM ICT 9 Italy
Specialist
Emanuele SA Business Founder Dig. Marketing 9 Italy
Daniel SA Business Founder Dig. Marketing 5 Italy
Federico SA Account Manager ICT 11 Italy
Francesco SA Business Developer Construction 6 Italy
Francesco MA Sales Manager HR consulting 5 Italy
Giuliana SA Sales Account & Business ICT 7 Italy
Developer
Luca MA Sales Director & Channel ICT 20 Italy
Manager
Marco SA Account Manager ICT 10 Italy
Matej MA Sales Manager ICT - Italy
Mattia MA Business Developer ICT 16 Italy
Manager
Nicola MA National Sales Manager ICT 5 Italy
SA Business Founder and Dig. Marketing 3 Italy
Tommaso project manager
*- CO= Consultant; MA=Manager; SA=Salesperson / ** experience: years in sales

42
Table 4. Perceived relevance of social selling-related technologies

not somewhat highly Mean

Supportive technology* relevant
relevant relevant relevant (N=21)

Social CRM systems: CRM systems with integrated social media features to better manage customer 0 3 5 13 3.5
relationships by synchronizing social media data into customer profiles, tracking and monitoring customer
interaction and communication also across social media. E.g. Salesforce, Netsuite, SAP, Nimble 0% 14% 24% 62%

Social media management software: Software for content management and social listening and 0 1 9 11 3.5
monitoring, that allows to schedule and handle the activity of all social channels, identify key prospects and
influencers and foster engagement through social media. E.g. Hootsuite, Sprout, Buffer, IFTTT, Meltwater,
Cision 0% 5% 43% 52%

Sales enablement software: Tools to help salespeople to both find marketing generated content and create 0 1 11 9 3.4
content themselves, submit it to prospects, and track prospects' engagement with the content throughout the
sales cycle. E.g. Brainshark, Octiv, Bloomfire, ClearSlide, Seismic, Showpad, Guru, DocSend, Highspot,
App Data Room, GetAccept, CloudApp 0% 5% 52% 43%

Sales force automation CRM systems: Systems that automate sales and administrative activities related 1 3 10 7 3.1
to e.g. information sharing, inventories, contact management, sales calls logging, quoting, order processing
and tracking, workflow management, sales forecasting and performance measurement. E.g. Salesforce,
5% 14% 48% 33%
Pipedrive

Business intelligence systems: Analytics software helping to retrieve, analyze and transform customer
0 5 9 7 3.1
buying related raw data (big data) into reports to help decision making. Their features include deal insights,
profitability analysis, modeling and forecasting and performance measurement. E.g. Oracle BI, Tableau,
GoodData, LiveHive, Sisense, Birst 0% 24% 43% 33%
Marketing automation systems: These systems automate and monitor marketing activities and workflow
0 4 12 5 3.0
based on behavioral customer data. They can include digital campaigns, e-mail marketing, social media
marketing, content management and lead management. Software helps to qualify leads for the sales team.
E.g. Hubspot, Marketo, Oracle Eloqua, ToutApp, Mindmatrix 0% 19% 57% 24%

Total 1% 13% 44% 41% 3.3

* - Descriptions present key aspects of identified social selling related technologies. In practice, software may have functionalities from many cathegories.
** - Above average means are highlighted by grey background color

43
Figure 1. A summary of research findings concerning B2B social selling

Notes: The studied relationships can be traced based on dual author codes [e.g. Guesalaga 2016 (Individual commitment) Guesalaga 2016 (Degree of SM use)]; Italics: non-significant antecedents; Variables with
superscripted number: mediating effects [e.g. Agnihotri et al., 20161 (Social media use)  Agnihotri et al., 20161 (Information communication)  Agnihotri et al., 20161 (Responsiveness; Satisfaction)]; Variables with
asterisk*: indirect mediating effect only.

44
Figure 2. The social selling concept and its potential key outcomes

Organizational social selling strategy Potential outcomes of social selling

• Social media policy for sales Soft salesperson outcomes
• Buying behavior based segmentation and • Strength of personal brand
targeting • Ability to do sales service behaviors
• Selling process integration
• Specific goals and metrics Salesperson selling performance
• Organizational alignment • Better lead quality, lead
• Content creation and sharing attractiveness
• Sales related technologies (+/–) + • Sales process efficiency (shorter sales
cycle; higher closing ratio)
+ • Revenue
Salesperson social selling activities
Relationship and customer performance
• Acquisition of customer insights
• Connecting to prospects, customers and
+ • Trust
• Satisfaction
influencers
• Referral behaviors
• Engagement through valuable content
 for converting contacts into business outcomes in
Organizational performance
long-term
+ • Organizational selling performance
• Brand performance: brand awareness
Supportive use of other selling approaches
• Customer-oriented selling approaches, such as
consultative and value-based selling

Note: Italics indicate a possible negative moderating effect.

45
Appendix 1 - Descriptive and Content Analysis

N. Author(s), Year & Key concept(s) under Theoretical Methodology and Contribution
Journal study Basis data
1 Agnihotri et al. How social media tools Task- Conceptual A framework of social media use and value creation outlining how both the
(2012) can help salespeople Technology salesperson and the customer benefit from social media through learning and
Journal of perform service Fit Theory sharing content, establishing relationship and exploiting networking
Personal Selling behaviors leading to opportunities.
& Sales value creation
From a salesperson’s standpoint, social media allows to create value
Management
(salesperson-perceived value and customer-perceived value) by enabling
service behaviors.
Social selling strategy: goal delineation, information exchange, competitive
intelligence, performance metrics.
2 Agnihotri et al. The impact of social - Quantitative The mere use of social media does not ensure to enhance customer satisfaction
(2016) media usage on Survey data and salesperson’s responsiveness. It requires that the salesperson uses social
Industrial salesperson-perceived N=111, media to convey critical information and knowledge that is important to the
Marketing value and customer- USA customer (full mediation).
Management perceived value

3 Agnihotri et al. The effects of sales- Task- Quantitative Sales-based CRM has a positive effect on post-sale service behaviors
(2017) based CRM on post- Technology Survey data (Information communication, Empathy and Sportsmanship). A positive effect
Journal of sale service behaviors Fit Theory N=162 on Diligence and Inducements was not supported.
Business and the moderating role Salesperson salesperson-
Social media positively moderates the relationship between sales-based CRM
Research of social media service customer dyads,
and Inducements, Empathy and Sportsmanship. A positive moderating effect
behavior India
between CRM and Diligence and between CRM and Information
perspective
communication was not supported.
4 Andzulis et al. The influence of social - Conceptual Social selling strategy is a dynamic process of four steps: establish a presence,
(2012) media on salesperson’s drive customers, social media as an additional sales channel and SM actively
Journal of behaviors, the selling employed in sales activities.
Personal Selling process and sales
The integration of social media in the traditional selling process.
& Sales management practices
Management
5 Bocconcelli et al. The role of social IMP Qualitative The organization provides content to share on social media platforms (e.g.
(2017) media in the selling approach Longitudinal case YouTube video showing the functioning of products).
process and selling 4R model study

46
 Journal of practices of a small 7 interviews, Social media plays a key role in establishing contact and start business
Business & firm Italy relationships with customers, distributors, producers of complementary
Industrial products, architects and experts, whereas the sales negotiation process follows
Marketing more “traditional” patters, even if visual social media may effectively support
the process.
Social media allows to increase the visibility and enter into new markets.
Social media enables networking opportunities since business relationships
with customers, distributors and business partners are established after a first
contact and first interactions on social media.
6 Guesalaga (2016) Antecedents of social Interactional Quantitative Organizational competence, customer’s use, individual commitment and
Industrial media usage in sales psychology Survey data organizational commitment are predictors of social media usage.
Marketing theory N=220
The effect of individual commitment on social media usage will be higher when
Management USA
the individual competence is higher.
The effect of customer’s use is partially mediated by organizational and
individual factors.
7 Hansen and Levin The impact of Motivation Quantitative Extrinsic, intrinsic and apathetic motivation affect behavioral intention to use
(2016) motivation in affecting model Survey data social media, which in turn affects behavioral usage.
Journal of intention to use social N=210
The apathetic motivation negatively moderates the relationship between
Business media and outcomes of USA
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and behavioral intention.
Research behavioral usage
The relationship between intention to use and actual use is amplified for
marketing/sales job roles (moderating effect).
8 Itani et al. (2017) Antecedents and Theory of Quantitative No relationship between attitude toward social media usefulness and social
Industrial outcomes of social Reasoned Survey data media use was found. However, learning orientation interacts with a
Marketing media usage in sales Action N=120 salespeople’s attitude toward social media usefulness to impact their social
Management salesperson- media use.
supervisor dyads,
Social media use will affect the performance of salespeople through affecting
India
their skills, knowledge and behaviors (i.e. adaptive selling behavior and
competitive collection).
9 Lacoste (2016) Benefits and challenges - Qualitative Key account managers use social media to promote their professional identity,
Industrial of social media usage Grounded theory build reputation/credibility, connect to potential customers, and improve
Marketing in key account 22 interviews, customer retention. However when it comes to engage customers they shift to
Management managers' perspective France face-to-face relationships.

47
 Focus on LinkedIn and Viadeo
10 Levin et al. (2012) Motivations driving the Motivational Quantitative Extrinsic, intrinsic and apathetic motivation affect behavioral intention to use
Journal of adoption of social model Survey data social media, which in turn affects behavioral usage
Personal Selling media by new N=194
Voluntary moderates the relationship between behavioral intention and
& Sales employees and USA
behavioral usage.
Management outcomes of social
media usage Behavioral use positively impacts on a result-oriented outcome (moderator:
past performance) and a perception-oriented outcome linked to increased
knowledge and skills.
11 Marshall et al. The positive and - Qualitative The effects of social media on salespeople, sales management and sales
(2012) negative effects of 4 focus group, strategy:
Journal of social media on the Cross-country
-Sales force connectivity (daily routine, 24/7)
Personal Selling sales job and sales
-Relationship (face-to-face vs. virtual)
& Sales people
-Selling Tools (7 steps of selling are condensing)
Management
-Generational differences
-Global nature of sales
-Sales/Marketing interface
12 Meire et al. The value of data - Quantitative Automatic handling of Facebook pages improves the qualification prediction
(2017) mining of Facebook Real-life of prospects into leads worth pursuing and reduces the time needed to screen
Decision Support data in the customer experiment, the pages. Social media data add value over website and commercial data.
Systems acquisition process USA

13 Moncrief et al. The impact of social Expectancy Conceptual The use of social media requires an alignment of sales management functions:
(2015) media on sales force theory supervision, selection, training, compensation and deployment.
Business Horizons management and sales
The use of social media influences also the sales role, sales aptitudes and skills
performance
and motivation.
14 Moncrief (2017) “Are sales as we know - Conceptual Social media is triggering a transformation in the world of B2B sales. Notably,
Journal of it dying…or merely these changes affect the salesperson and the sales department, the buyer and
Personal Selling transforming?” the buying center, the interface between marketing and sales and the methods
& Sales of selling. Consequently, this evolution elicits new research opportunities for
Management sales researchers.
15 Moore et al. Differences in social Social Qualitative The use of social media by B2B salespeople is greater than their B2C
(2013) media usage among networking Survey data counterparts.
B2B and B2C sales theory N=395,
personnel and among USA

48
 Journal of salespeople and B2B salespeople tend to make more use of professional networking sites (e.g.
Internet managers LinkedIn), blogs, webinars, presentation sharing sites (e.g. Slideshare)
Commerce Salespeople use social media for prospecting, initiate contact and post-sale
follow-up, but B2B salespeople use social media for prospecting, handling
objections and follow-up in a greater extent.
16 Moore et al. The use of social media - Quantitative The use of social CRM is prevalent in B2B. In both B2B and B2C contexts,
(2015) in B2B and B2C sales Survey data managers use social CRM more than sales reps. There is no difference in social
Journal of N=395 media usage in the seven step of the sales process, but B2B managers appear
Marketing Theory USA to use social CRM more frequently than other sales professionals in some
and Practice stages.
17 Niedermeier et al. The role of social - Mixed Use of specific platforms (e.g. WeChat, QQ) and frequency of adoption with
(2016) media in creating and 3 interviews current and potential customers.
Journal of strengthening guanxi Survey data
A conceptual framework is advanced regarding social media activities that help
Research in relationships N=42,
to influence and increase guanxi elements which in turn impact on operational
Interactive China
and economic performance.
Marketing
18 Ogilvie et al. The effects of social - Quantitative Salesperson use of social media has a positive effect on product information
(2018) media use on Survey data communication and adaptability. The effect on diligence and knowledge is not
Industrial individual behaviors N= 389 supported.
Marketing and characteristics, the N= 192
Training positively moderates the relationships between SMT and all four
Management moderating role of USA
behaviors and characteristics.
training and the impact
on performance A linear relationship between behaviors and characteristics and performance
exist, except for product communication and sales performance.
19 Rapp et al. (2013) The contagion effect of Contagion Quantitative There is a direct effect of social media usage from the supplier to the retailer
Journal of the social media use across theory Multilevel survey and from the retailer to the consumer (i.e. contagion effect across retailers and
Academy of business suppliers, data end-consumers). This effect is moderated by brand reputation and service
Marketing retailers and consumers N=28 salespeople ambidexterity.
Science and the outcomes of N=144 retailers
Social media use positively contributes to supplier brand performance (total
social media use N=445 consumers
sales of the brand in the retailer outlet), retailer store performance (total store
throughout a USA
sales) and consumer-retailer loyalty.
distribution channel
20 Rodriguez and The integration of - Conceptual Best practices advancement of social CRM and case study examples.
Peterson (2012) traditional and social
International CRM
Journal of

49
 Internet
Marketing and
Advertising

21 Rodriguez et al. The impact of social Social Quantitative Social media usage has a positive relationship with sales processes (creating
(2012) media on the sales capital Survey data opportunities and relationship management) and relationship sales
Journal of process and the sales theory N=1699 performance.
Personal Selling performance Cross-country
Relationship performance mediates the relationship between social media
& Sales
usage and outcome-based sales performance. Although social media usage
Management
does not directly influence the outcome-based sales performance, there is an
indirect influence through the enhancement of the sales processes.
22 Rodriguez et al. The way CRM and - Quantitative Both CRM and social media use positively impact on customer-orientation,
(2014) social media impact on Survey data which in turn has a positive relationship with sales performance.
Journal of sales performance N=1699
Marketing through customer Cross-country
Development and orientation
Competitiveness
23 Rodriguez et al. Antecedents and Resource- Quantitative Sales personnel capability and upper management support are key drivers of
(2016) outcomes of social based view Survey data social media use.
Journal of media usage in large N=184,
If the firm’s sales process is not well defined, social media may not have the
Marketing Theory firms Cross-country
positive result management expects in the technology investment (sales process
and Practice
capability as a mediator).
Relationship performance mediates the connection between social media use
and sales performance.
24 Rollins et al. The impact of social Social Qualitative Blogging can be a helpful learning and training tool, in terms of information
(2014) media on salespeople's learning Netnography searching, learning about customers, avoiding ineffective practices, drawing
Industrial overall learning theory 200 personal inspiration from peers, reflecting on the own weaknesses, revaluating own
Marketing blogs, skills and discovering gaps.
Management Country not
Blogging affects self-efficacy and performance expectancy.
specified
25 Schuldt and The integration of - Quantitative The use of social media is greater in the earlier stages of the selling process.
Totten (2015) social media in the Survey data The focus seems to be on monitoring customer comments and sharing company
Academy of various steps of the N=57, news.
Marketing Studies sales process USA
Journal

50
26 Schultz et al. Antecedents and - Quantitative Age and social media norms are predictors of social media usage.
(2012) outcomes of social Survey data
Social media usage positively impacts on outcome performance.
American Journal media usage N=273,
of Business USA Customer-oriented selling is not a significant predictor, but it impacts on
outcome performance.
27 Trainor (2012) The integration of Resource- Conceptual A conceptual model that links the sales-and-marketing centric technology (e.g.
Journal of traditional and social based view, SFA) and customer-centric technology (i.e. social media) to CRM capabilities
Personal Selling CRM Capability- and processes (e.g. relational information processing, social selling, social
& Sales based innovation) that impact on performance outcomes (e.g. customer-based profit
Management perspective performance, customer-based relational performance).
28 Trainor et al. Social CRM impacts Resource- Quantitative Social media use as a resource positively influences customer relationship
(2014) on firm outcomes based view, Survey data performance via firm-level capabilities.
Journal of Capability- N= 308
Interaction effect of social media and customer-centric management systems
Business based USA
on social CRM capabilities. Complementarity exists between CRM systems
Research perspective
and emerging technologies like SM.
29 Wang et al. Factors that motivate Social Quantitative Sellers’ social identity and social comparison are key facilitators for
(2016) sellers to engage in co- influence Survey data participating in co-innovation practices within online communities.
Industrial innovation with theory N=190
Co-innovation activities increase brand awareness among potential customers.
Marketing customers in B2B Country not
Management online communities specified
and outcome of co-
innovation in terms of
brand awareness

51