Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Advancing social media driven sales research: Establishing conceptual T

foundations for B-to-B social selling
Chiara Ancillaia, Harri Terhob, , Silvio Cardinalia, Federica Pascuccia
⁎

a
Faculty of Economics, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
b
Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Business markets are facing major changes due to an increasing digitalization trend and consequent changes in
B2B buying behaviors. Practitioners and academics alike have started to emphasize social selling as a novel way to
Social selling tackle these emerging opportunities and challenges at the sales force level. Since research in this area remains
Personal selling embryonic and fragmented, we adopt a discovery-oriented research approach and conceptualize social selling
Social media
and its key facets based on a systematic literature review and a field study involving thought leading social
Digital marketing
Sales strategy
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 in-
dividual 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 ap-
proaches 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.

1. Introduction selling as a prominent contemporary selling approach with consider-

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 in-
itiatives (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 sales-
people (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
able potential in the B2B sales domain. Agnihotri, Kothandaraman,
Kashyap, and Singh (2012, p. 341), describe social selling as a profes-
sional selling approach “predicated on the strength of social media al-
lies within a social enterprise”, emphasizing salespeople's use of social
interaction-enhancing platforms for content-creation and networking.
With regard to practitioners, Minsky and 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 an-
swering questions. Overall, research suggests that B2B social selling
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 ef-
fective 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

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: c.ancillai@pm.univpm.it (C. Ancillai), harri.terho@utu.fi (H. Terho), s.cardinali@univpm.it (S. Cardinali), f.pascucci@univpm.it (F. Pascucci).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.002
Received 5 January 2018; Received in revised form 7 December 2018; Accepted 7 January 2019
Available online 26 February 2019
0019-8501/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
C. Ancillai, et al. Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308

and even selling performance (e.g. Itani, Agnihotri, & Dingus, 2017; Table 1
Rodriguez, Ajjan, & Peterson, 2016). However, important deficiencies Inclusion and exclusion criteria in the systematic literature review.
exist in both practitioners and academic knowledge in this area. Even Criteria Inclusion Exclusion
companies that are reaping the greatest rewards struggle to understand
how to most effectively leverage social media in selling and measure its Technology: Social media SFA, websites or other technologies
Context: B2B selling + general B2B marketing, B2C selling
value for their businesses (McKinsey & Company, 2015). Academic
selling
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 so-
cial media usage, and studies lack generally agreed constructs and an Table 2
understanding of what constitutes social selling. Database search process and results.
The purpose of this study is to conceptualize social selling and de- Database Keywords Duplications Exclusion based Selected
fine its key facets. We build on a discovery-oriented, theories-in-use /search phase -based hits on text analysis studies
approach (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007)
a. Scopus 44 −2 −28
which is well suited to the research. We start with a systematic review
b. Web of 52 −29 −23
of the relevant literature in this area (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003) Science
and complement it with a qualitative international field study involving c. Emerald 13 −10 −2
thought leading social selling experts and frontline sales professionals Database search 109 −41 −53 15
involved in social selling. total
Our study offers three main contributions. Firstly, extant research Backward search 7
has approached social selling by focusing most of its attention on social Forward search 7
Included articles 29
media usage in sales. We argue that social selling is better understood as
total
a selling approach which focuses on implementing digital marketing
principles, including content marketing and social media marketing, at
the sales force level (see Felix, Rauschnabel, & Hinsch, 2017; Holliman
& Rowley, 2014). Broadening the research focus to social selling and its (Scopus, Emerald, and Web of Science). The search strings were as fol-
key activities provides new insights into how digitalization and changes lows: (1) social media AND (sales OR selling OR seller OR salespeople OR
in buying behaviors affect the role of selling and salespeople in con- sales force OR sales process) AND (B2B OR B-to-B OR business-to-business
temporary B2B markets. Secondly, we contribute theoretically by con- OR industrial); (2) social selling AND (B2B OR B-to-B OR business-to-
ceptualizing social selling. Social selling refers to a selling approach business OR industrial), delimited to blind-reviewed journal articles and
which leverages social and digital channels for (1) understanding, (2) book chapters. We also conducted backward and forward searches to
connecting with, and (3) engaging influencers, prospects and existing ensure full coverage of the relevant literature (Webster & Watson, 2002).
customers at relevant customer purchasing journey touchpoints for The process yielded 29 publications (see Table 2).
building valuable business relationships . This definition reflects a We then analyzed the content of each article as summarized in
service ecosystem view of selling (Hartmann, Wieland, & Vargo, 2018), Appendix 1 (Tranfield et al., 2003). In this phase, we paid special at-
emphasizing that selling and value creation unfold over time and are tention to the social selling construct(s) in studies. Additionally, we
embedded in broader social systems. Instead of aiming for short-term explored the antecedents and outcomes for a more complete under-
sales, the approach focuses on influencing relevant actors' engagement standing of the research field. The majority (23) of the identified studies
with the seller; that is, their dispositions to invest resources in their was empirical and 18 were built on quantitative methods, which is
interactions with the seller and other relevant actors in a service system surprising taking into account the novelty of this research domain. The
(Brodie, Fehrerer, Jaakkola, & Conduit, 2019). Thirdly, the research analysis further demonstrated that studies did not, on the whole, use
extends current knowledge by providing new insights into the concept's any common social selling constructs and that the theoretical back-
nomological network in terms of its relationship to other selling ap- grounds of the articles were highly heterogeneous. Interestingly, a
proaches, its organizational aspects, and its expected outcomes. significant number of studies dealt with the organizational aspects of
We begin by presenting an integrative overview of extant research social selling and led to their inclusion in the review.
knowledge relating to social selling, using a systematic literature review
methodology. We then extend this theory-based view with results from a 2.1. Extant research on social selling at the individual salesperson level
qualitative field study involving thought leaders and social selling practi-
tioners. Additionally, we define social selling and elaborate on its key fa- The content analysis of the articles in the literature review showed
cets and potential outcomes. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and man- that studies have used three broad approaches to examining B2B social
agerial implications of our research and suggest future research directions. selling at the individual salesperson level (see Appendix 1, Fig. 1). The
first group encompasses descriptive studies investigating the use of social
2. A review of social selling related research media platforms by salespeople (Moore, Hopkins, & Raymond, 2013;
Moore, Raymond, & Hopkins, 2015; Niedermeier, Wang, & Zhang, 2016;
Given the limited and fragmentary research relating to social selling, Schuldt & Totten, 2015). These studies found that salespeople widely use
this study adopts a discovery-oriented, theories-in-use approach to better social media in B2B sales, but focus particularly on certain social chan-
understand and define the phenomenon (e.g. Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; nels and tools, such as professional networking platforms and instant
Tuli et al., 2007; Zaltman, LeMasters, & Heffring, 1982). We first draw on messaging applications (Moore et al., 2013, 2015; Niedermeier et al.,
the literature relating to social selling and social media use in B2B 2016). Overall, the studies in this group are descriptive, adopting a
selling, and then complement this theoretical view with insights from a practice-focused, rather than theory-building approach.
field study among 34 social selling professionals. The second group of studies focuses on the degree of social media use
For assessing the academic research on the topic, we used a systematic in selling (see Fig. 1 for the complete list of studies). Scholars study
literature review methodology (Thorpe, Holt, Macpherson, & Pittaway, either the intensity of social media use in selling (Guesalaga, 2016;
2005; Tranfield et al., 2003). We carefully defined the literature search Hansen & Levin, 2016; Levin, Hansen, & Laverie, 2012; Rodriguez,
criteria to obtain extensive coverage of the relevant research (see Table 1) Peterson, & Krishnan, 2012; Rodriguez et al., 2016; Schultz, Schwepker,
and conducted a search in three internet-based research databases & Good, 2012) or the overall degree of social media integration in the

294
C. Ancillai, et al.
Fig. 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.
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 sales-
people leverage social media in their work. Various studies also use
very diverse constructs to study social selling and measures with a
strong conceptual basis are largely missing. Nevertheless, the studies
are valuable in explaining the antecedents and outcomes of social
media usage in sales (see Fig. 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 be-
haviors and capabilities (Agnihotri et al., 2016; Agnihotri, Trainor,
Itani, & Rodriguez, 2017; Hansen & Levin, 2016; Itani et al.,
2017; Levin et al., 2012; Ogilvie et al., 2018), 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 out-
comes of social media usage in sales, the studies are less effective in
providing insights into the nature of the concept or its specific activ-
ities.
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 Fig. 1 for the complete list of studies).
Some studies indicate that social media can be used to gather in-
formation to better understand customers (Lacoste, 2016), as well as to
network and interact with customer stakeholders (Bocconcelli, Cioppi,
295
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
& 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 ex-
erting 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 sales-
people's social selling activities (Wang et al., 2016), and studies indicate
the positive consequences of social selling at the individual and orga-
nizational level as summarized in Fig. 1 (Bocconcelli et al., 2017; Wang
et al., 2016). While these articles provide insights into possible social
selling activities, they emphasize diverse aspects of social selling and
often focus on specific contexts such as KAM. The research lacks a
commonly agreed, empirically rooted, and theoretically rigorous defi-
nition of social selling.
2.2. Extant research on social selling at the organizational level
The content analysis of the reviewed articles revealed that nu-
merous studies emphasized the social selling strategy or its broader
organizational context. Firstly, studies widely highlighted the im-
portance 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
C. Ancillai, et al.
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 appli-
cation 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 func-
tional 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 super-
vision, 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 cus-
tomer relationship management systems (CRM) with data from social
media, referred to as social CRM (Rodriguez & 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
suggests that organizational commitment and competence drive social
media usage in selling (c.f. Guesalaga, 2016), although empirical sup-
port 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 or-
ganizational levels, the extant research remains fragmented and lacks a
shared understanding of what constitutes social selling. At the sales-
person 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 with
experienced sales practitioners. The data collection relied on a theore-
tical 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 Onalytica.1
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 foster social selling and have high
visibility for this topic. Since the list comprises influential consultants,
1
http://www.onalytica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Onalytica-
Social-Selling-2016-Top-100-Influencers-and-Brands.pdf
296
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
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 front-line salespeople and managers to tri-
angulate 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 in-
vestigate 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 sum-
maries of the study's results to motivate the participation. 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 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 sales-
people for the second sample (see Table 3).
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 re-
search priorities for social selling. The questions were carefully de-
signed 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 parti-
cipants. 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 fa-
cets. 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, re-
fined the wording of the definitions, and selected relevant key quota-
tions from the main sample followed by more practice-focused quota-
tions from frontline salespeople. The use of multiple researchers in the
coding 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 participants, supported the validity of the findings.
3.2. The social selling concept
The most common top-of-the-mind themes recurring among partici-
pants indicated that social selling is an approach which leverages digital
and social channels for understanding, connecting with and engaging
customers at touchpoints 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 ob-
vious 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
C. Ancillai, et al. Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308

Table 3
Profiles of social selling professionals participating in the study.
Main sample 1, Participant Primary Job Rolea Job Industry Sales Country
Title Expb

Barbara Giamanco CO CEO Training 30 USA

Bill Carmody CO, SA CEO Marketing 24 USA
Carola Rodrigues CO, MA, SA Director Consulting 15 Netherlands
Carola van der Linden CO, SA Social Selling Program Manager Consulting 16 Netherlands
Dale Zwizinski MA Senior VP of Sales Technology 20 USA
David Perry MA Manager, Content Marketing & Social Media Legal services 16 Canada
Frank Hattann MA Director Technology 18 Ireland
Gabriella Sannino CO Consultant International Marketing 27 USA
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 Professor Sales training 10 Canada
Kirsten Boileau MA Global Head of Social Selling ICT 10 Canada
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 Selling Specialist Sales training 25 Netherlands
Sam Hurley CO Business Founder Dig. Marketing 7 UK
Sani Leino CO CEO Sales training 12 Finland
Stuart Allen CO Consultant, Sales Strategist Consulting 35 UK
Susan Dolan CO Google Expert Marketing - UK
Tripp Braden CO Managing Partner ICT 30 USA

Frontline sample 2, Participant Primary Job Rolea Job Industry Sales Country
Title Expb

Claudio SA Account Manager & DM Specialist ICT 9 Italy

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 Developer ICT 7 Italy
Luca MA Sales Director & Channel Manager ICT 20 Italy
Marco SA Account Manager ICT 10 Italy
Matej MA Sales Manager ICT - Italy
Mattia MA Business Developer Manager ICT 16 Italy
Nicola MA National Sales Manager ICT 5 Italy
Tommaso SA Business Founder and project manager Dig. Marketing 3 Italy
a
CO = Consultant; MA = Manager; SA = Salesperson.
b
Experience: years in sales.

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 relation-
ships.”
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 va-
luable content in order to influence their dispositions to invest re-
sources in their interactions with the seller and other relevant actors
(Fig. 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 main-
taining active dialogue with the relevant people through social channels.”

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 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 le-
verages social and digital channels for understanding, connecting with, and
Iota: “[…] sales professionals leverage relevant social media channels to
collect deep customer insights on prospective and existing buyers, con-
necting 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 plat-
forms to obtain customer and prospect intelligence with regard to pain
points and challenges; grow the professional B2B network, both at ac-
count and contact level, by expanding the decision making unit; build

297
C. Ancillai, et al. Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308

Fig. 2. The social selling concept and its potential key outcomes.
Note: Italics indicate a possible negative moderating effect.

ongoing relationships by sharing relevant and engaging content early on social and digital channels. This activity requires the salesperson to collect
in the customer journey; and accelerate funnel conversion, from fore- customer purchasing-related information in order to effectively steer the
casted opportunity to booking to loyalty.” sales process and meet the customers' needs in a relevant and timely way.
This result also highlights the potential of social and digital channels for
The definition highlights that social selling is as a distinctive selling
effectively developing customer needs knowledge and gaining competitive
approach, which focuses on using social and digital channels for
intelligence beyond the traditionally-emphasized dyadic relationships (see
building customer relationships. In other words, it focuses on creating
Homburg, Wieseke, & Bornemann, 2009; Hughes, Le Bon, & Rapp, 2013).
common ground between the seller and the empowered, social buyer
Salespeople can leverage social media to identify companies and in-
early in the buying process at touchpoints that are pertinent for the
dividuals that fit the targeted “ideal” customer profiles, for improved
buyer (Fidelman, 2012; Wiese, 2017). Interestingly, the field interviews
lead qualification and for effectively steering the sales process. This in-
indicate that the effectiveness of the approach is likely to be contingent
volves screening potential customers' social media profiles and actively
on the simultaneous use of customer-oriented selling approaches, such
“listening” customers and competitors. For example, sellers can use social
as consultative (c.f. Liu & Leach, 2001) or value-based selling (Terho
media to gather information about the potential customer's key stake-
et al., 2017) that substantiate the potentials brought up by social selling
holders, such as common connections, interests, and experiences (see
(see Fig. 2). While the approach can help salespeople to connect to
Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al., 2012; Lacoste, 2016). Information
buyers in the early stages of buying, build trust, or be seen as valuable
can also be used to build an understanding of the potential customer's
advisors, salespeople need to reinforce its potentials through concrete
buying process and buying center structure, including the decision ma-
customer-oriented selling behaviors.
kers and other influential actors within and outside the customer's or-
Zeta: “Thinking that the use of social media is a short-cut to sales success. ganization (Adamson et al., 2012; Üstüner & Godes, 2006):
It can open the door when emails and phone calls are blocked but, if the
Alpha: “Identifying people and companies online that fit your ideal client
basics of consultative selling are not there, pipeline and revenue chal-
profile.”
lenges will continue to be a problem.”
Tau: “One of the key elements in social selling is ‘social listening’, where
Gamma: “A shift in sales focus [is necessary], from hitting our targets to
salespeople use social channels to find the right decision makers, influ-
helping clients hit theirs. If we do that, we will hit ours too.”
encers, and engage with them, often through private conversations."
Giuliana: “Clearly it cannot be just social media; social selling will not
Upsilon: “Social selling requires gathering insights about the individual
replace the market knowledge, the technical skill, and the sales compe-
and the company they represent before reaching out.”
tence. […] It must always be integrated with all traditional business
development activities. [...] I mean it must be a win-win. If I call you to Claudio: “In my work I get in touch with decision makers and leading
sell you something and it's just me wanting to make money from you, it actors, so LinkedIn becomes a basic tool for me. It means that I do
won't ever work.” specific research but I also monitor the daily market sentiment, checking
the timeline or searching for companies, by group, by area of interest,
Next, we discuss three identified key activities of social selling,
and so on. For each company, I get an idea about the person to call, the
followed by sections concerning its potential outcomes as well as the
person to talk with, and even the organizational hierarchy, so I under-
key facets of an organizational social selling strategy (see Fig. 2).
stand 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
3.2.1. Acquisition of deep customer insights in social selling
know is to go on LinkedIn [...] The goal is to have a complete record of
Analysis indicates that the first central facet of social selling is the
that company: so, to understand who the people of that company are and
acquisition of insights into prospects, existing customers and influencers through

298
C. Ancillai, et al.
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 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 di-
mension, 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 pro-
blems 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 those 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 pro-
spective 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 to create
and maintain a network of personal contacts through digital and social
channels (Hennig-Thurau et al., 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 any-
thing 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 (pro-
spects) 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.”
299
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
When discussing connecting to the customers, participants high-
lighted the importance of consistent dialogue with influencers, pro-
spects, and existing customers through commenting, questioning, or
answering relevant questions. Instead of one-way communication, so-
cial selling has the potential to facilitate dialogue between salespeople
and relevant actors (see Andzulis et al., 2012; Bocconcelli et al., 2017;
Trainor, 2012). Participants stated that social media channels represent
a critical platform for timely interaction with customers and other in-
fluential 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.”
Lambda: “ Consistency, just doing it, and consistency, and not over
thinking it: if you overthink 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 touchpoints 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.,
2019). Participants emphasized that social selling is not about sales-fo-
cused communication with a target audience, but about engaging re-
levant 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., 2019):
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 things 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 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
C. Ancillai, et al.
specific job or a specific project. So in that way, you engage directly with
the customer or the business partner that you have.”
Participants 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 at-
tention of informed and empowered buyers as well as other influential
key actors (see Agnihotri et al., 2012; Bocconcelli et al., 2017). Many
participants 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 mar-
keting 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 so-
lutions to problems that they displayed in a previous face-to-face en-
counter 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 con-
versation shortly arises. This 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 imple-
ments 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 Fig. 2. We
discuss the outcomes in more detail below.
First, study participants emphasized the development of a strong per-
sonal brand as one of the key outcomes of social selling. Specifically, sys-
tematic social selling activities have the potential to build a thought lea-
dership 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 con-
tact 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
300
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
thought leaders in their industry. Traditional selling pushes people away,
social selling attracts people to you.”
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 so-
cial 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 po-
tential to affect a salesperson's selling performance. Three main perfor-
mance areas emerged from the data, namely lead performance, sales
process efficiency, and revenue. 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 tra-
ditional 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.”
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 participants
also noted that social selling is likely to facilitate customer referrals through
engagement and sellers' personal branding (see Van Doorn 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.”
C. Ancillai, et al.
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, participants 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- and cus-
tomer-related outcomes. Study participants noted two key areas of or-
ganizational 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 or-
ganizational 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 a 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. Participants 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-con-
nected facets of organizational social selling strategy (see Fig. 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 to-
pics 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 commu-
nicate a social media policy for social selling in order to achieve the best
results. Companies should identify the right people 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 in-
clude 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
301
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
manage your social media.”
Most participants also emphasized the key role of customer buying
behavior-based segmentation and targeting in social selling. Participants
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, mar-
keting; 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’.”
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 in-
dividual 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 sug-
gests 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). Participants 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 im-
plemented into the sales process in order to avoid social selling activities
C. Ancillai, et al. Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308

getting left out of daily sales activities. […] Companies should then im-

Meanb (N=21)
plement some kind of program or test period and start measuring the KPIs:
lead sources; number of content posted or shared; content engagement; the
number of meetings, leads, and deals through social channels.”

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.3
Phi: “The primary objective is to get face to face with a qualified cus-

highly relevant
tomer 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.”

62%

52%

43%

33%

33%

24%

41%
13

11
Zeta: “Sales leadership is a roadblock. They often still insist on measuring

5
number of phone calls made or emails sent but the quality of the mes-

relevant
saging is overlooked. More isn't better. If the activity isn't leading to sales

24%

43%

52%

48%

43%

57%

44%
11

10

12
outcomes like more sales calls being made, the problem is in the messa-

9
ging and lack of relevance and personalization.”

somewhat relevant
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 man-

14%

14%

24%

19%

13%
agement of online and offline conversations with prospects and custo-

5%

5%
3

4
mers (c.f. Agnihotri et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2012; Moncrief, 2017).

Descriptions present key aspects of identified social selling-related technologies. In practice, software may have functionalities from many categories.
not relevant
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

0%

0%

0%

5%

0%

0%

1%
0

0
et al., 2012; Moncrief, 2017).

Social CRM systems: CRM systems with integrated social media features to better manage customer relationships by synchronizing social media data into

Social media management software: Software for content management and social listening and monitoring, that allows to schedule and handle the activity

Business intelligence systems: Analytics software helping to retrieve, analyze and transform customer buying related raw data (big data) into reports to

include digital campaigns, e-mail marketing, social media marketing, content management and lead management. Software helps to qualify leads for the
Sales enablement software: Tools to help salespeople to both find marketing generated content and create content by themselves, submit it to prospects,

management, sales calls logging, quoting, order processing and tracking, workflow management, sales forecasting and performance measurement. E.g.

help decision making. Their features include deal insights, profitability analysis, modeling and forecasting and performance measurement. E.g. Oracle BI,
Sales force automation CRM systems: Systems that automate sales and administrative activities related to e.g. information sharing, inventories, contact
and track prospects’ engagement with the content throughout the sales cycle. E.g. Brainshark, Octiv, Bloomfire, ClearSlide, Seismic, Showpad, Guru,

Marketing automation systems: These systems automate and monitor marketing activities and workflow based on behavioral customer data. They can
customer profiles, tracking and monitoring customer interaction and communication also across social media. E.g. Salesforce, Netsuite, SAP, Nimble
Zeta: “Strategy that includes sales and marketing, which defines clear

of all social channels, identify key prospects and influencers and foster engagement through social media. E.g. Hootsuite, Sprout, Buffer, IFTTT,
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 organi-
zational creation and sharing of content (c.f. Bocconcelli et al., 2017).
Participants 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, participants 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
sales team. E.g. Hubspot, Marketo, Oracle Eloqua, ToutApp, Mindmatrix

content.” Above average means are highlighted by grey background color.

Upsilon: “The marketing team needs to support with content and should
have an integrated approach of marketing activity and social selling
DocSend, Highspot, App Data Room, GetAccept, CloudApp
Perceived relevance of social selling-related technologies.

outreach by the sales force.”

Lambda: “It's not just sales; it's got to be the organization. I think en-
gineering should be doing social selling and not in the traditional social
selling space; they should be sharing stuff, because they never know who's
Tableau, GoodData, LiveHive, Sisense, Birst

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, participants noted that firms should carefully consider the
Salesforce, Pipedrive

provision of technological tools for supporting their salespeople's social

Supportive technologya

Meltwater, Cision

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 tech-
Table 4

Total

nologies related to social selling based on sales software-focused com-

b
a

mercial websites and practitioner discussions (see Table 4). After the

302
C. Ancillai, et al.
open inductive data collection, we asked participants to further rate the
perceived relevance of the list of identified sales-related technologies.
Interestingly, the participants rated salesperson-focused supportive
technologies most highly, including social CRM, social media man-
agement, 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 perfor-
mance (see Agnihotri et al., 2017; Trainor et al., 2014). In turn, the
participants gave lower scores to management and marketing as well as
automation-focused technologies such as sales force automation, busi-
ness intelligence, and marketing automation software.
Importantly, many participants stressed that a trade-off exists be-
tween 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 ne-
gatively 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 ex-
isting 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 ne-
gative 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, by de-
veloping 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 ap-
proached 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
303
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
informed customers and other actors at relevant touchpoints (see
Fidelman, 2012; Giamanco & Gregoire, 2012; Wiese, 2017). Accord-
ingly, 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, re-
search has approached the three key facets of the construct only in-
directly, and at best partially, by 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 em-
bedded 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 pro-
cesses (Hartmann et al., 2018). Social selling responds to this challenge
by using social and digital channels to integrate and manage commu-
nication 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 et al., 2009;
Hughes et al., 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 institu-
tional 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 dis-
positions to invest resources in their interactions with sellers and other
relevant actors in a service system (c.f. Brodie et al., 2019). This type of
subtle, indirect approach is increasingly important since B2B sales-
people increasingly struggle to engage empowered buyers early enough
in the needs definition. This is an issue not only for simple offerings but
also for complex solution and value-based sales (Adamson et al., 2012;
Terho et al., 2017).
Third, our inductive findings extend current knowledge by pro-
viding new insights concerning the nomological network of the social
selling concept. We suggest that the effectiveness of social selling is
likely to be contingent on the salesperson's simultaneous use of cus-
tomer-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 revenue; 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
C. Ancillai, et al.
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 re-
searching social selling. Finally, we complement the primarily con-
ceptual studies in this area by developing empirical insights into social
selling strategy elements, which potentially drive the adoption and ef-
fectiveness of social selling (see Agnihotri et al., 2012; Andzulis et al.,
2012; Moncrief et al., 2015; Trainor, 2012). Interestingly, these find-
ings 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 digi-
talization trend and consequent changes in buying behaviors at the
salesforce level.
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 channel for making sales
pitches but a way to engage the informed, empowered, and social
buyers during their purchasing journeys using digital and social chan-
nels. The approach calls for high customer focus and simultaneous use
of customer-oriented selling activities such as consultative and value-
based selling. A narrow view of social selling is likely to cause custo-
mers 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 oppor-
tunity for firms to tackle the changed buying behavior in B2B markets.
The empirical results provide clear guidance for management in de-
veloping an organizational social selling strategy, including social
media policies for sales, buying behavior-based segmentation and tar-
geting, 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 po-
tential 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 lim-
itations, 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 empiri-
cally test measures for the social selling construct. Similarly, the con-
ceptualization 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 gen-
eralizability of the developed concept to different industries. Our results
304
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
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 organiza-
tional social selling strategies in salesperson-level social selling since
there is very little empirical research in this area. Another fruitful re-
search 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 tech-
nology 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 po-
tential technologies as well as their optimal role and deployment in this
area. A third research avenue concerns the sales and marketing inter-
face 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 acquisi-
tion for sales, whereas salespeople are increasingly adopting indirect
ways of relating to and engaging customers in wider ecosystem con-
texts. We call for research about the roles, challenges, and synergies in
sales and marketing collaboration related to social selling.
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 per-
formance, relational performance, and even organizational perfor-
mance. Interestingly, study findings further highlight the need to adapt
the performance measures to the specific social selling outcomes. With
regard to social selling performance, findings 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 qua-
litative 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. We encourage studies to examine
in more depth whether and how other selling approaches affect 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?
 Appendix 1. Descriptive and content analysis

N. Author(s), Year & Key concept(s) under study Theoretical Methodology and data Contribution
C. Ancillai, et al.

Journal Basis

1 Agnihotri et al. (2012)
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management
2 Agnihotri et al. (2016)
Industrial Marketing Management
3 Agnihotri et al. (2017)
Journal of Business Research
4 Andzulis et al. (2012)
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management
How social media tools can help
salespeople to perform service be-
haviors leading to value creation
The impact of social media usage
on salesperson-perceived value and
customer-perceived value
The effects of sales-based CRM on
post-sale service behaviors and the
moderating role of social media
The influence of social media on
salesperson’s behaviors, the selling
process and sales management
practices
Task-Technology Fit Theory
- Quantitative
Task-Technology Fit Theory
Salesperson service behavior
perspective
- Conceptual
Conceptual A framework of social media use and value creation outlining how both
the salesperson and the customer benefit from social media through
learning and sharing content, establishing relationship and exploiting
networking opportunities.
From a salesperson’s standpoint, social media allows to create value
(salesperson-perceived value and customer-perceived value) by enabling
service behaviors.
Social selling strategy: goal delineation, information exchange, compe-
titive intelligence, performance metrics.
The mere use of social media does not ensure to enhance customer
Survey data satisfaction and salesperson’s responsiveness. It requires that the sales-
N=111, person uses social media to convey critical information and knowledge
USA that are important to the customer (full mediation).
Quantitative Sales-based CRM has a positive effect on post-sale service behaviors
Survey data (Information communication, Empathy and Sportsmanship). A positive
N=162 salesperson-cus- effect on Diligence and Inducements was not supported.
tomer dyads, Social media positively moderates the relationship between sales-based
India CRM and Inducements, Empathy and Sportsmanship. A positive mod-
erating effect between CRM and Diligence and between CRM and
Information communication was not supported.
Social selling strategy is a dynamic process of four steps: establish a
presence, drive customers, social media as an additional sales channel
and social media actively employed in sales activities.
The integration of social media in the traditional selling process.

305
5 Bocconcelli et al. (2017)
Journal of Business & Industrial Mar-
keting
6 Guesalaga (2016)
Industrial Marketing Management
7 Hansen and Levin (2016)
Journal of Business Research
8 Itani et al. (2017)
Industrial Marketing Management
The role of social media in the
selling process and selling practices
of a small firm
Antecedents of social media usage
in sales
The impact of motivation in af-
fecting intention to use social
media and outcomes of behavioral
usage
Antecedents and outcomes of social
media usage in sales
IMP approach Qualitative The organization provides content to share on social media platforms
4R model Longitudinal case study (e.g. YouTube video showing the functioning of products).
7 interviews, Social media plays a key role in establishing contact and start business
Italy relationships with customers, distributors, producers of complementary
products, architects and experts, whereas the sales negotiation process
follows 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 relation-
ships with customers, distributors and business partners are established
after a first contact and first interactions on social media.
Interactional psychology theory Quantitative Organizational competence, customer’s use, individual commitment and
Survey data organizational commitment are predictors of social media usage.
N=220 The effect of individual commitment on social media usage will be
USA higher when the individual competence is higher.
The effect of customer’s use is partially mediated by organizational and
individual factors.
Motivation model Quantitative Extrinsic, intrinsic and apathetic motivation affect behavioral intention
Survey data to use social media, which in turn affects behavioral usage.
N=210 The apathetic motivation negatively moderates the relationship between
USA intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and behavioral intention.
The relationship between intention to use and actual use is amplified for
marketing/sales job roles (moderating effect).
Theory of Reasoned Action Quantitative No relationship between attitude toward social media usefulness and
Survey data social media use was found. However, learning orientation interacts
N=120 salesperson-super- with a salespeople’s attitude toward social media usefulness to impact
visor dyads, their social media use.
India Social media use will affect the performance of salespeople through
affecting their skills, knowledge and behaviors (i.e. adaptive selling
behavior and competitive collection).
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
 9 Lacoste (2016)
Industrial Marketing Management
Benefits and challenges of social
media usage in key account man-
agers' perspective
- Qualitative Key account managers use social media to promote their professional
Grounded theory identity, build reputation/credibility, connect to potential customers,
22 interviews, France and improve customer retention. However when it comes to engage
customers they shift to face-to-face relationships.
Focus on LinkedIn and Viadeo
C. Ancillai, et al.

10 Levin et al. (2012) Motivations driving the adoption of Motivational model Quantitative Extrinsic, intrinsic and apathetic motivation affect behavioral intention
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales social media by new employees and Survey data to use social media, which in turn affects behavioral usage
Management outcomes of social media usage N=194 Voluntary moderates the relationship between behavioral intention and
USA behavioral usage.
Behavioral use positively impacts on a result-oriented outcome (mod-
erator: past performance) and a perception-oriented outcome linked to
increased knowledge and skills.
11 Marshall et al. (2012) The positive and negative effects of - Qualitative The effects of social media on salespeople, sales management and sales
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales social media on the sales job and 4 focus group, strategy:
Management sales people Cross-country -Sales force connectivity (daily routine, 24/7)
-Relationship (face-to-face vs. virtual)
-Selling Tools (7 steps of selling are condensing)
-Generational differences
-Global nature of sales
-Sales/Marketing interface
12 Meire et al. (2017) The value of data mining of - Quantitative Automatic handling of Facebook pages improves the qualification
Decision Support Systems Facebook data in the customer ac- Real-life experiment, prediction of prospects into leads worth pursuing and reduces the time
quisition process USA needed to screen the pages. Social media data adds value over website
and commercial data.
13 Moncrief et al. (2015) The impact of social media on sales Expectancy theory Conceptual The use of social media requires an alignment of sales management
Business Horizons force management and sales per- functions: supervision, selection, training, compensation and deploy-
formance ment.
The use of social media influences also the sales role, sales aptitudes and
skills and motivation.
14 Moncrief (2017) Historical examination of the sales - Conceptual Social media is triggering a transformation in the world of B2B sales.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales research and future research ave- Notably, these changes affect the salesperson and the sales department,

306
Management nues the buyer and the buying center, the interface between marketing and
sales and the methods of selling. Consequently, this evolution elicits new
research opportunities for sales researchers.
15 Moore et al. (2013) Differences in social media usage Social networking theory Qualitative The use of social media by B2B salespeople is greater than their B2C
Journal of Internet Commerce among B2B and B2C sales per- Survey data counterparts.
sonnel and among salespeople and N=395, B2B salespeople tend to make more use of professional networking sites
managers USA (e.g. LinkedIn), blogs, webinars, presentation sharing sites (e.g.
Slideshare)
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 to a greater extent.
16 Moore et al. (2015) The use of social media in B2B and - Quantitative The use of social CRM is prevalent in B2B. In both B2B and B2C contexts,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac- B2C sales Survey data managers use social CRM more than sales reps. There is no difference in
tice N=395 social media usage in the seven step of the sales process, but B2B
USA managers appear to use social CRM more frequently than other sales
professionals at some stages.
17 Niedermeier et al. (2016) The role of social media in creating - Mixed Use of specific platforms (e.g. WeChat, QQ) and frequency of adoption
Journal of Research in Interactive Mar- and strengthening guanxi relation- 3 interviews with current and potential customers.
keting ships Survey data A conceptual framework is advanced regarding social media activities
N=42, that help to influence and increase guanxi elements which in turn impact
China on operational and economic performance.
18 Ogilvie et al. (2018) The effects of social media use on - Quantitative Salesperson use of social media has a positive effect on product
Industrial Marketing Management individual behaviors and charac- Survey data information communication and adaptability. The effect on diligence
teristics, the moderating role of N= 389 and knowledge is not supported.
training and the impact on perfor- N= 192 Training positively moderates the relationships between SMT and all
mance USA four behaviors and characteristics.
A linear relationship between behaviors and characteristics and perfor-
mance exist, except for product communication and sales performance.
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
 19 Rapp et al. (2013) The contagion effect of social
Journal of the Academy of Marketing media use across business sup-
Science pliers, retailers and consumers and
the outcomes of social media use
throughout a distribution channel
Contagion theory Quantitative There is a direct effect of social media usage from the supplier to the
Multilevel survey data retailer and from the retailer to the consumer (i.e. contagion effect
N=28 salespeople across retailers and end-consumers). This effect is moderated by brand
N=144 retailers reputation and service ambidexterity.
N=445 consumers Social media use positively contributes to supplier brand performance
C. Ancillai, et al.

20 Rodriguez and Peterson (2012)
International Journal of Internet Mar-
keting and Advertising
21 Rodriguez et al. (2012)
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management
22 Rodriguez et al. (2014)
Journal of Marketing Development and
Competitiveness
23 Rodriguez et al. (2016)
Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-
tice
24 Rollins et al. (2014)
Industrial Marketing Management
The integration of traditional and
social CRM
The impact of social media on the
sales process and the sales perfor-
mance
The way CRM and social media
impact on sales performance
through customer orientation
Antecedents and outcomes of social
media usage in large firms
The impact of social media on
salespeople's overall learning
- Conceptual
Social capital theory
- Quantitative
Resource-based view
Social learning theory
USA (total sales of the brand in the retailer outlet), retailer store performance
(total store sales) and consumer-retailer loyalty.
Best practices advancement of social CRM and case study examples.
Quantitative Social media usage has a positive relationship with sales processes
Survey data (creating opportunities and relationship management) and relationship
N=1699 sales performance.
Cross-country Relationship performance mediates the relationship between social
media usage and outcome-based sales performance. Although social
media usage does not directly influence the outcome-based sales
performance, there is an indirect influence through the enhancement of
the sales processes.
Both CRM and social media use positively impact on customer-orienta-
Survey data tion, which in turn has a positive relationship with sales performance.
N=1699
Cross-country
Quantitative Sales personnel capability and upper management support are key
Survey data drivers of social media use.
N=184, If the firm’s sales process is not well defined, social media may not have
Cross-country the positive result management expects for the technology investment
(sales process capability as a mediator).
Relationship performance mediates the connection between social
media use and sales performance.
Qualitative Blogging can be a helpful learning and training tool, in terms of
Netnography information searching, learning about customers, avoiding ineffective

307
200 personal blogs, practices, drawing inspiration from peers, reflecting on the own weak-
Country not specified nesses, revaluating own skills and discovering gaps.
Blogging affects self-efficacy and performance expectancy.
25 Schuldt and Totten (2015) The integration of social media in - Quantitative The use of social media is greater in the earlier stages of the selling
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal the various steps of the sales pro- Survey data process. The focus seems to be on monitoring customer comments and
cess N=57, sharing company news.
USA
26 Schultz et al. (2012) Antecedents and outcomes of social - Quantitative Age and social media norms are predictors of social media usage.
American Journal of Business media usage Survey data Social media usage positively impacts on outcome performance.
N=273, Customer-oriented selling is not a significant predictor, but it impacts on
USA outcome performance.
27 Trainor (2012) The integration of traditional and Resource-based view, Conceptual A conceptual model that links the sales-and-marketing centric tech-
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales social CRM Capability-based perspective nology (e.g. SFA) and customer-centric technology (i.e. social media) to
Management CRM capabilities and processes (e.g. relational information processing,
social selling, social innovation) that impact on performance outcomes
(e.g. customer-based profit performance, customer-based relational
performance).
28 Trainor et al. (2014) Social CRM impacts on firm out- Resource-based view, Quantitative Social media use as a resource positively influences customer relation-
Journal of Business Research comes Capability-based perspective Survey data ship performance via firm-level capabilities.
N= 308 Interaction effect of social media and customer-centric management
USA systems on social CRM capabilities. Complementarity exists between
CRM systems and emerging technologies like SM.
29 Wang et al. (2016) Factors that motivate sellers to en- Social influence theory Quantitative Sellers’ social identity and social comparison are key facilitators for
Industrial Marketing Management gage in co-innovation with custo- Survey data participating in co-innovation practices within online communities.
mers in B2B online communities N=190 Co-innovation activities increase brand awareness among potential
and outcome of co-innovation in Country not specified customers.
terms of brand awareness
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
C. Ancillai, et al.
References
Adamson, B., Dixon, M., & Toman, N. (2012). The end of solution sales. Harvard Business
Review, 90(7), 61–68.
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., 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., 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. (2019). Actor engagement in networks:
Defining the conceptual domain. Journal of Service Research, 22(2).
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities
and challenges. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Hinsch, C. (2017). Elements of strategic social media
marketing: A holistic framework. Journal of Business Research, 70, 118–126.
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' in-
tentions 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.
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 pro-
positions, 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, 2–4 September 25.
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 so-
lutions 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.
McCracken, Grant (1988). The long interview (Qualitative Research Methods Series 13).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
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.
Minsky, L., & Quesenberry, K. A. (2016). How B2B sales can benefit from social selling.
Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5 8 Nov.
308
Industrial Marketing Management 82 (2019) 293–308
Moncrief, W. C. (2017). Are sales as we know it dying…or merely transforming? Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37(4), 271–279.
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 tech-
nology: Drivers of change in managing the contemporary sales force. Business
Horizons, 58(1), 45–55.
Moore, J. N., Hopkins, C. D., & Raymond, M. A. (2013). Utilization of relationship-or-
iented social media in the selling process: A comparison of consumer (B2C) and in-
dustrial (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 busi-
ness-to-business sales professionals in China: How social media helps create and so-
lidify guanxi relationships between sales professionals and customers. Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(1), 33–49.
Ogilvie, J., Agnihotri, R., Rapp, A., & Trainor, K. (2018). Social media technology use and
salesperson performance: A two study examination of the role of salesperson beha-
viors, characteristics, and training. Industrial Marketing Management, 75, 55–65.
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.
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., 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 perfor-
mance. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(3), 365–379.
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., 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.
Rollins, M., Nickell, D., & Wei, J. (2014). Understanding salespeople's learning experi-
ences 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 lit-
erature 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, C. H., Jr., & Good, D. J. (2012). Social media usage: An in-
vestigation 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 di-
rections. 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).
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.