JID: AMJ

ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal

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

Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research

priorities
Sylvia C. Ng a,∗, Jillian C. Sweeney b, Carolin Plewa c
a
Asia School of Business (in collaboration with MIT Sloan), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
UWA Business School, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
c
Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a marketplace characterised by more demanding and increasingly active customers, both academics
Received 22 July 2019 and practitioners have become increasingly drawn to the concept of customer engagement (CE). Despite
Revised 16 March 2020
the recognised importance of CE, research in this area remains fragmented with a variety of definitions
Accepted 25 May 2020
and conceptualisations evident in the literature. This is concerning, as a lack of alignment may result
Available online xxx
in misinterpretations, causing further divergence in future research. This paper thus offers a systematic
Keywords: review of the extant literature on customer engagement dated from 2009-2018, reflecting: (i) leading con-
Customer engagement ceptualisations and manifestations of CE, (ii) customer- and firm-related CE antecedents, as well as (iii)
Actor engagement CE outcomes from the customer and firm perspectives. Hence, it provides conceptual, methodological and
Systematic review thematic guidance to scholars studying CE. Furthermore, we discuss an extensive list of research priori-
Research priorities ties, developed based on future-focused contributions of 12 distinguished international experts, providing
a strong foundation for shaping CE literature in future.
© 2020 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Engagement, and customer engagement (CE) more specifically,
has received prolific attention, both from academic as well as prac-
titioner communities. CE was first identified by the Marketing Sci-
ence Institute (MSI) as a high research priority in 2010, with con-
tinued recognition to this date. Indeed, MSI priorities 2018-2020
Tier 1 comprise research on deepening CE with the firm, the use of
Artificial Intelligence for better engagement and the use of engage-
ment as a KPI such as for new adopters (Marketing Science Insti-
tute 2018). Throughout this time, interest in the concept of engage-
ment has intensified, evident in multiple special issues on the topic
and the burgeoning nature of the related literature. Yet, the prolific
interest has brought with it a high level of fragmentation, includ-
ing a variety of definitions and conceptualisations (Harmeling et al.
2017). Such lack of alignment may result in misinterpretations and
further divergence in the future.
Furthermore, from a practice point of view, marketing profes-
sionals may find it challenging to justify their spending on engage-
ment related activities, given that the returns may occur over time
rather than after a specific campaign. On the other hand, failure
to invest in customer engagement activities could also mean a re-
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sylvia.ng@asb.edu.my, sylviang@mit.edu (S.C. Ng).
duction in the potential value not only for the firm, but also for
the customer. Hence, a unified conceptualisation and measurement
of CE, along with an awareness of its criticality and related future
trends, will help marketers to overcome this obstacle. To align var-
ious perspectives, we build on Islam and Rahman’s (2016) system-
atic literature review of customer engagement research published
between 2005 and 2015, to capture the significant acceleration of
engagement research in recent years. Specifically, we draw on lit-
erature published between 2005 and 2018 in our systematic re-
view of the literature to: (i) clarify the definition of CE; (ii) iden-
tify the theoretical lenses that build the foundation of CE research;
(iii) outline the manifestations of CE; (iv) consolidate the measure-
ments of CE; and (v) examine the antecedents and outcomes of
CE. We also (vi) develop an agenda that is critical for future re-
search in CE. By doing so, we provide conceptual, methodological
and thematic guidance to scholars studying CE. The structure of
this paper is as follows. First, we outline the method used to ad-
dress our research objectives, in particular, the process and crite-
ria guiding our systematic review of the existing customer engage-
ment literature. This is followed by a discussion structured around
the research objectives for this paper. We conclude with a discus-
sion of the rich opportunities in CE for future research, jointly with
established scholars in this field.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
1441-3582/© 2020 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 1
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.
Inclusion Criteria
Subject Customer, actor
Area Marketing
Focal object Brand, online channels (website/ social
media/ online shopping), service
provider, etc.
Types Customer engagement, consumer
engagement, online brand engagement,
customer engagement process, customer
engagement behaviour, customer brand
engagement
Methodology
To achieve our research objectives, we conducted a systematic
review of the customer engagement literature. Such a review en-
ables us to identify crucial scientific contributions specific to a
field or question (Transfield et al. 2003). The review process itself
is “systematic, transparent and reproducible” (p. 209), hence min-
imising potential biases and errors (Transfield et al. 2003). This is
compared to a traditional literature review, which may be skewed
by familiarity, availability bias, and implicit preferences of the re-
searcher (Rousseau et al. 2008). Furthermore, a systematic review
is particularly effective for identifying and evaluating extensive lit-
eratures (Transfield et al. 2003). Following the three-step process
as per Crossan and Apaydin (2010), this review comprises (i) data
collection, (ii) data analysis and (iii) data synthesis, leading to the
reporting of results.
Data collection
To facilitate a comprehensive and unbiased search for relevant
articles, the following steps were undertaken: (i) identify search
terms, (ii) set temporal boundaries, and (iii) assess the quality of
papers (Transfield et al. 2003).
Search terms. Relevant key words and search terms were iden-
tified by the authors to scope the study. Specifically, we utilised
Scopus, Ebsco and ProQuest to search for customer engag∗ when
in: (i) both title and abstract; or (ii) both abstract and keyword.
Further to this, we recognized the emerging trend of research into
actor engagement (AE) over the last few years (e.g. Storbacka et al.
2016). To reflect the corresponding broader conceptualisation of
engagement, including multiple actors in the network, we also
searched for the related term actor engag∗ using the same search
criteria.
Temporal Boundaries. We focused on articles published from Jan-
uary 2005 to December 2018, since very few research papers used
the term ‘customer engagement’ prior to that period (Brodie et al.
2011). Searching for customer engag∗ , a total of 377 papers were
identified in Scopus under “Business, Management and Account-
ing” (fixed field). In addition, 167 papers in EBSCO and 89 papers
in ProQuest were found within marketing-related journals specifi-
cally. Results for actor engag∗ include 24 papers in Scopus, 7 papers
in EBSCO and 4 papers in ProQuest.
Quality of papers. Only peer reviewed journals were included;
that is, books, conference papers and other forms of publications
were excluded from the search. This approach enabled us to focus
on high quality and impactful contributions to the field. Specif-
ically, we benchmarked articles according to the 2016 Australian
Business Deans Council (ABDC) journal list. Only papers ranked A∗ ,
A or B were included in our review. Furthermore, with regards to
impact, papers were only taken into consideration if they met the
following criteria for articles published in specific time periods:
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
Exclusion Criteria
Non-customer (e.g. employee/ firm, student/ teacher, etc)
Non-marketing related (e.g. political, sociology, psychology,
educational, organisational, business management, etc.)
Technology (i.e. IT/ science related), task, occupation,
organisation, politics, etc.
Loosely defined engagement terms (e.g. synonyms for
words like ’participate’ or ’involved’ etc.)
• 20 05-20 07: greater or equal to 40 citations,
• 2008-2010: greater or equal to 30 citations,
• 2011-2012: greater or equal to 20 citations,
• 2013-2014: greater or equal to 10 citations,
• 2015: greater or equal to 5 citations,
• 2016: greater or equal to 1 citation, and
• 2017-2018: 0 (i.e. include papers that are not cited).
The search and removal of duplicated papers from three
databases led to a total of 169 articles, for which the abstracts
were downloaded. The abstracts were then distributed amongst
the three authors, who considered each paper against the inclu-
sion and exclusion criteria in Table 1. The final sample of papers
under review was confirmed as 97 papers.
Data analysis and synthesis
As part of the analysis, codes were developed based on (but
not limited to) broad recurring themes across the papers under re-
view, in relation to the objectives of this paper: (i) definition of
CE; (ii) theoretical lenses; (iii) manifestations of CE; (iv) measure-
ments of CE, as well as (v) antecedents and outcomes of CE. An
iterative process involving three authors and a research assistant
was utilised to optimise the identification of recurring themes. In
the first round, 10 papers were read independently and coded by
two authors to establish the first set of codes. These were dis-
cussed and agreed upon by the three authors before moving on to
the next set of 10 papers where a similar process was undertaken,
which led to a refinement of the coding scheme. Once a consensus
on the thematic coding was reached on the 20 papers, the remain-
ing 77 papers were divided amongst the four researchers for fur-
ther coding. We then proceeded to analyse and synthesise the data
collected as part of this review (Crossan and Apaydin 2010) leading
to the framework development offering conceptual, methodological
and thematic guidance to scholars studying CE.
What is customer engagement?
Conceptualisation and definition of CE
The concept of engagement was introduced into the marketing
literature in the early 20 0 0s, with ‘customer engagement’ specif-
ically gathering pace from around 2005 among marketing aca-
demics, such as Bowden (2009), van Doorn (2010), Kumar et al.
(2010) and Brodie et al. (2011). Notably, research on customer en-
gagement is concentrated primarily within specialised service mar-
keting journals such as the Journal of Services Marketing (13%), Jour-
nal of Service Research (8%), and Journal of Service Theory and Prac-
tice (6%); see Table 2. It features less prominently in other journals
such as the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (three pa-
pers) and the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Retailing, and Indus-
trial Marketing Management (one paper each).
 JID: AMJ
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,

Table 2
Journals pblishing CE Research and Key Theoretical Lenses.

Theory

Journal Quality Number of Value SD Relationship Social Exchange Stimulus Organism Stakeholder Resource Exchange Role Uses and Engagement
(ABCD) Articles Cocreation Logic Marketing Theory Response Theory Theory Theory Gratifications Theory

Journal of Sevices Marketing A 13 4 5 2 2 2 2 1 1

Journal of Service Research A∗ 8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Journal of Service Theory and A 6 1 2 2 1 1

S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Practice
Journal of Service A 6 1 3 1 1
Management
Journal of Marketing A 5 3 2 1 2 1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Management
Journal of Retailing and A 5 1 1
Customer Services
Journal of Product and Brand B 5 1 1
Management
Journal of Strategic Marketing A 4 2 1 1 1 1
Journal of Marketing Theory B 4 1 1 2
and Practice
Journal of the Academy of A∗ 3 1
Marketing Science
Journal of Interactive A 3
Marketing
Journal of Business Research B 3 1 1
Intl. Journal of Retail and B 3 1
Distribution Management
Australasian Marketing Journal A 2 1
Journal of Brand Management A 2 1
Journal of Customer Behaviour B 2
International Journal of Bank B 2 1
Marketing
Asia Pacific Journal of B 2 1
Marketing and Logistics
Journal of Marketing Research A∗ 1
Industrial Marketing A∗ 1
Management
Journal of Retailing A∗ 1 1
Journal of Marketing A∗ 1
Others(less than two articles, 15 3 4 5 1
A & B Journal)
Total 97 24 18 17 7 5 5 4 4 2 1
25% 19% 18% 7% 5% 5% 4% 4% 2% 1%

[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

3
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

4 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Selected Highly Ranked and Cited Articles from 2009.

Year Definition Author(s) Journal Citation Type of engagement Type of paper

rank

2018 Customer engagement is defined as “the connection Grewal et al. A∗ 3 Emotional Conceptual
between the customer and retailer”.
2017 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s Harmeling et al. A∗ 16 Behavioural Empirical
voluntary resource contribution to a firm’s marketing
function, going beyond financial patronage”.
2017 Customer engagement is defined as “the mechanics of a Pansari and Kumar A∗ 27 Behavioural Conceptual
customer’s value addition to the firm, either through
director/and indirect contribution”. cf. Kumar et al. (2010)
2016 Customer engagement (in social media) is defined as “the Guesalaga R. A∗ 16 Behavioural Empirical
extent to which the organisation’s important customers
are active in using social media tools”.
2016 Actor engagement is defined as “both the disposition of Storbacka et al. B 270 Disposition Conceptual
actors to engage, and the activity of engaging in an
interactive process of resource integration within the
institutional context provided by a service ecosystem”.
2014 Customer engagement is defined as “behavioural Verleye, Gemmel A∗ 45 Behavioural Empirical
manifestations of customer engagement toward a firm, and Rangarajan
after and beyond purchase”. cf. van Doorn et al. (2010)
2014 Customer engagement is defined as “is a psychological Jaakkola and A∗ 140 Behavioural Empirical
state that occurs by virtue of interactive customer Alexander
experiences with a focal agent/object such as a firm or
brand. cf. Brodie et al. (2011). This study focuses on the
behavioral manifestations of CE. We study CEBs through
which customers make voluntary resource contributions
that have a brand or firm focus but go beyond what is
fundamental to transactions, occur in interactions
between the focal object and/or other actors, and result
from motivational drivers (cf. Brodie et al. 2013; Brodie
et al. 2011; Van Doorn et al. 2010)”.
2012 Customer engagement is defined as “turning on Sashi C.M. B 235 Emotional/ Relational Conceptual
customers by building emotional bonds in relational
exchanges with them”.
2012 Customer engagement is defined as “the intensity of an Vivek, Beatty and B 236 Behavioural/ Emotional Empirical
individual’s participation in and connection with an Morgan
organisation’s offerings or organisational activities, which
either the customer or the organisation initiates”.
2011 Customer engagement is defined as “a psychological state Brodie et al. A∗ 488 Psychological Conceptual
that occurs by virtue of interactive, cocreative customer
experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in
focal service relationships”.
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “the behavioural Bijmolt et al. A∗ 104 Behavioural Conceptual
manifestation from a customer toward a brand or a firm
which goes beyond purchase behaviour”. cf. van Doorn
et al. (2010)
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s Verhoef, Reinartz A∗ 234 Behavioural Conceptual
behavioural manifestations that have a brand or firm and Krafft
focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational
drivers”. cf. van Doorn et al. (2010)
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “active interactions of Kumar et al. A∗ 259 Behavioural Conceptual
a customer with a firm, with prospects and with other
customers, whether they are transactional or
non-transactional in nature”.
2010 Customer engagement is defined as “a customer’s van Doorn et al. A∗ 554 Behavioural Conceptual
behavioural manifestations that have a brand or firm
focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational
drivers”.
2009 Customer engagement is defined as “a psychological Bowden J. B 230 Psychological Conceptual
process that models the underlying mechanisms by
which customer loyalty forms for new customers of a
service brand as well as the mechanisms by which
loyalty may be maintained for repeat purchase customers
of a service brand”.

To date, customer engagement has primarily been examined
from four broad perspectives: (i) as a behavioural manifestation,
originating from work conducted by van Doorn et al. (2010);
(ii) as a psychological state as per Brodie et al. (2011); (iii) as a
disposition to act (e.g. Storbacka et al. 2016); and (iv) as a process
including several steps or stages of the customer decision making
process (e.g. Maslowska et al. 2016).
We identified 15 explicit definitions from highly ranked
(A∗ on ABCD ranking) or highly cited (>100 citations) papers
(Crossan and Apaydin 2010) featured in top-tiered journals such
as Journal of Service Research, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Journal of Retailing and Industrial Marketing Management.
As evidenced from the definitions in Table 3, and from our sys-
tematic review in Table 4, CE has been predominantly examined
from a behavioural perspective (46%). A further 27% of the papers
included in this review conceptualise CE as a multi-dimensional
construct comprising behavioural, cognitive and emotional engage-
ment, while 4% focused solely on emotional engagement. Though

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 4
Approaches in Examining Customer Engagement.

No. of articles % (of 97 papers) Select References

Conceptualisation
Behavioural 45 46% van Doorn et al. (2010); Verhoef et al. 2010; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014
Multi-dimensional 26 27% Brodie et al. 2011; Carvalho and Fernandes 2018; Heinonen 2018
Process 6 6% Bowden 2009; Li et al. 2017; So et al., 2016; Maslowska et al. 2016
Emotional 4 4% Blasco-Arcas et al. 2016; Straker and Wrigley 2016; Grewal et al. 2018
Disposition 3 3% Storbacka et al. 2016; Fehrer et al. 2018; Li et al. 2017
Others / NA 13 13%
Type of paper
Empirical 71 73% Fehrer et al. 2018; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Vivek et al. 2012
Conceptual 26 27% Hollebeek and Andreassen 2018; Harmeling et al. 2017; Grewal et al. 2018
Method∗
Single method
Survey (online/ offline) 41 42% Guesalaga 2016; Verleye et al 2014; Fehrer et al. 2018
In-depth interview 3 3% Alvarez-Milán et al. 2018; Pongpaew et al. 2017; Marbach et al. 2016
Case study 3 3% Li et al. 2017; Straker and Wrigley 2016; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014
Experiment 3 3% Rehnen et al. 2017; Blasco-Arcas et al. 2016; Mattila et al. 2016
CIT 2 2% Zhang et al. 2018; Kim and Yi 2017
Focus group 1 1% Naumann et al. 2017
Netnography 1 1% Harwood and Garry 2015
Mixed method
Survey and in-depth interview 8 8% Groeger et al. 2016; Thakur 2016; Verleye et al. 2014
Focus group and in-depth interview 4 4% Bowden et al. 2015; Vivek et al. 2012
Others 5 5%
∗
NA: not applicable; Note: 71 are empirical papers.

only 3% conceptualise engagement as a disposition, this has been a
developing focus over the last four years (e.g. Storbacka et al. 2016;
Fehrer et al 2018). Further, several authors (6%) have argued that
engagement can refer to a range of phenomena including experi-
ential, attitudinal and behavioural factors, that represent different
stages of an engagement process (e.g. Maslowska et al. 2016).
Literature focusing on behavioural manifestations commonly
refers to ‘customer engagement behaviours’ (CEB). Van Doorn et al.
(2010, p. 254) specify CEB as behaviours (that) “go beyond transac-
tions and may be specifically defined as a customer’s behavioural
manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase,
resulting from motivational drivers” (see Table 3). While Kumar
et al. (2010) argue that CE should include transactional behaviours,
most scholars (e.g. Verhoef et al. 2010; Bijmolt et al. 2010, Jaakkola
and Alexander 2014; Verleye et al. 2014) concur with van Doorn
et al. (2010) and the Marketing Science Institute (Marketing Sci-
ence Institute 2010) that customer engagement only involves be-
haviour that extends beyond transactions, and thus beyond pur-
chase. Since behaviours can be easily observed and measured, this
conceptualisation is often utilised by industry practitioners in mea-
suring CE, for example, as customer activities such as online word
of mouth, customer reviews, peer-to-peer information sharing and
customer-initiated activities with firms (Bolton 2011).
When conceptualised as a psychological state CE reflects a
multi-dimensional construct comprising behavioural, cognitive and
emotional engagement; Brodie et al. (2011) defining it as “a psy-
chological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, cocreative cus-
tomer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in fo-
cal service relationships” (p. 260). The authors recognise that cus-
tomer engagement is non-linear, and does not occur in “an or-
derly, sequential progression of phases over time” (Brodie et al.
2013, p. 110). Since CE is context-driven, the three dimensions of
CE can occur in various sequences (Brodie et al. 2011). For in-
stance, a customer can be emotionally engaged by movie ads or
through conversations with friends, before going online to find
out more (emotional + behavioural + cognitive engagement). As
such, this approach accounts for instances where customers are en-
gaged subconsciously or unintentionally, either cognitively or emo-
tionally, before displaying customer-initiated behaviours. Hence,
while behaviour is a critical manifestation of engagement, com-
prehensive evaluations of CE require recognition of it as a mul-
tidimensional construct that includes cognitive and emotional di-
mensions in addition to behaviours (Carvalho and Fernandes 2018;
Heinonen 2018). However, concerns over the concept of a psycho-
logical state have been raised by Abdul-Ghani et al. (2019), who
suggest that a state may only be momentary and thus not reflec-
tive of the enduring concept of engagement implicit in the litera-
ture.
An engagement disposition represents an internal state repre-
senting a willingness or tendency to engage (e.g. Storbacka et al.
2016, Fehrer et al. 2018). This disposition implicitly leads to be-
havioural manifestations, such that engagement is represented by
both. For example, Storbacka et al. (2016, p. 3009) conceptualise
actor engagement as “both the disposition of actors to engage,
and the activity of engaging in an interactive process of resource
integration within the institutional context provided by a service
ecosystem”. Such activities can be assessed through observable en-
gagement behaviours.
Other researchers have recognised that engagement is rep-
resented by more than one distinct concept/stage in modelling
consumer/actor behaviours or decision-making. In addition to the
recognition of cognitive, emotional and behavioural dimensions as
identified above (e.g. Brodie et al, 2011), a number of researchers
conceptualise engagement as several stages of customer decision
making, thus adopting a ‘process’ type model that does not re-
strict engagement to one particular stage, but includes a range of
interactions and experiences; for example, with a brand or firm
(Maslowska et al. 2016; Verleye et al. 2014).
While engagement research has matured over the last decade,
no single conceptualisation or definition of customer engagement
has emerged. Instead, this review suggests that there are four pri-
mary streams of conceptualisations in the literature to date (i.e. CE
as a behavioural manifestation, psychological state, disposition and
process), which should be recognized and understood by engage-
ment scholars and practitioners.
Theoretical lenses underlying customer engagement
Three interrelated core theories emerged from the review as
building the foundation for CE research – relationship marketing,
service-dominant (SD) logic, and value cocreation. Of the 97 pa-
pers, value cocreation was noted as a theoretical foundation in 25%

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
of the articles, followed closely by service dominant (SD hereafter)
logic and relationship marketing at 19% and 18% respectively. To-
gether, they comprise 62% of the research papers included in this
review (see Table 2).
Relationship marketing is defined as “attracting, maintaining
and – in multi-service organisations – enhancing customer rela-
tionships” (Berry 1983, p. 25). That is, the creation of extended or
long-term relationships with a customer, instead of transactional
relationships (Wirtz and Lovelock 2018). Specifically, relationship
marketing focuses on the interactions between the customer and
the firm from a micro-level perspective. As the foundational ba-
sis, it offers useful insights on how firms can influence customers’
value cocreation process through interactions that are dyadic, such
in buyer-seller relationships (Grönroos and Voima 2013). As such,
relationship marketing is particularly useful in explaining the dy-
namics behind customer engagement on a micro-level, the focus
of much of the current CE research. Studies in this research stream
focus on how customer engagement can enhance the firm’s mar-
keting strategy (Jaakkola et al. 2018).
SD logic was first conceptualised in 2004 (Vargo and Lusch),
offering an alternative lens at a meta theory level to the goods-
oriented model of economic exchange. Contrary to the goods dom-
inant logic where value is conceptualised as being embedded in a
product, tangible output and discrete transactions, SD logic posits
that service is the basis of exchange (Vargo and Lusch, 2008),
where providers and customers cocreate value (Echeverri and
Skalen, 2011). From this perspective, customers integrate resources,
including their own, in the value cocreation process, and in this
way ‘engage’. This perspective recognises customers as active play-
ers rather than passive receivers (Payne et al. 2008; Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 20 0 0), a point highly relevant to CE: It suggests that
customers can potentially derive more value through such interac-
tions by engaging with the firm. Likewise, there are opportunities
for firms to benefit from engaging their customers, if they handle
such interactions with care and define their customers’ experiences
positively. In later work, Vargo and Lusch (2011) broadened the
perspective of value cocreators from customers to all actors, sup-
porting a change in focus from customer to service provider to the
more generic actor-to-actor (A2A) approach. Hence, the SD logic
approach supports a shift from dyadic relationships to broader
actor to actor (A2A) system perspective (Vargo and Lusch 2004;
Jaakkola et al. 2018).
While the SD Logic represents abstraction at a metatheoretical
level, engagement has been argued as representing a mid-range
theoretical level that is of great interest and relevance to prac-
tice, partly because of its observability (Brodie et al. 2019). Jaakkola
et al. (2018) explain how SD Logic and engagement theorising pro-
cesses inform each other: ‘metatheories inform managerial practice
by offering a lens to view the general logic of markets’ (p. 583).
Further research on the process and implications of engagement
across layers within the ecosystem will be critical for practitioners
generating engagement strategies involving multiple stakeholders
across platforms.
Value cocreation, a concept under-pinned by SD Logic, is par-
ticularly useful in investigating the cocreative process of cre-
ating value. Not only can value be cocreated through a ‘‘joint
process ... where the service provider’s (production) process
and customer’s consumption and value creation process merge
into one process of direct interactions’’ (Grönroos and Gum-
merus 2014, p. 210) from a micro perspective (e.g. Ng et al.
2016, Ng et al. 2019). It can also be cocreated by integrat-
ing resources through interactions and activities with collabora-
tors in the customer’s (wider) service network (McColl-Kennedy
et al. 2012). Applying the value cocreation lens in the con-
text of CE not only enables researchers to consider engagement
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
from a dyadic perspective, but also from a network/ecosystem
perspective.
Other theories relevant to CE identified in our review include
social exchange theory (7%), stimulus organism response (5%),
stakeholder theory (5%), and resource exchange theory (4%), as
outlined in Table 2. These theories relate to the roles of actors
within the ecosystem, as well as to the resources that are utilised
in exchanges between various actors.
Manifestations of CE
To explore the manifestations of customer engagement – that
is, who, with whom, what, how much, when and where it can ex-
ist - this systematic literature review focused on extant research in
relation to the: focal actor (who); focal object (with whom); va-
lence (what); intensity (how much); level of interaction (when);
and context (where), as noted in Table 5. Consideration of such
manifestations is crucial as customer engagement can vary across
situational conditions and time (Brodie et al. 2011).
Focal actor. The focal actor reflects the primary subject who
engages with the focal object(s). In this paper, we examine en-
gagement specifically from the customer’s perspective – i.e. cus-
tomer engagement. To date, the majority of the work on CE has
focused on paying customers as the focal actor. However, Groeger
et al. (2016) extended van Doorn et al.’s (2010) framework on cus-
tomer engagement behaviours (CEB), by arguing the relevance of
non-paying customers who are predicated on consumption of free
offerings” (Groeger et al. 2016, p. 192). Non-paying customers in-
clude prospective customers, prosumers, product users who use a
competing brand of the same product, and individuals who par-
ticipate in consumer trials (Groeger et al. 2016). Such “customers”
can benefit firms through future purchases, awareness and influ-
ence, knowledge, future purchase network, cocreation of product/
brand experience, and access to appropriate consumer networks,
for instance. Thus, firms should consider investing in and actively
engaging non-paying customers (Groeger et al. 2016).
Further to this, researchers are starting to examine customer
engagement from the firm’s perspective – that is, what firms can
do to facilitate customer engagement – often referred to as cus-
tomer engagement marketing (CEM) (Harmeling et al. 2017). CEM
represents “the firm’s deliberate effort to motivate, empower, and
measure a customer’s voluntary contribution to its marketing func-
tions, beyond a core, economic transaction (i.e., customer engage-
ment)” (Harmeling et al. 2017, p. 312). That is, it actively enlists
customers to serve as ‘pseudo-marketers’ for the firm (Harmeling
et al. 2017, p. 312). This stream of research views CE from a man-
agerial perspective, where CE is initiated by the firm and customer
experience is proactively managed (Alvarez-Milán 2018).
Focal object(s). Focal object pertains to the primary “object(s)”
that the focal actor engages with; including other customers, firms
or other non-human actors; that is, interactive experiences with
the focal object(s) (Brodie et al. 2011). Our review shows that the
majority of papers focus on CE with a single focal object, such as
with a brand (26%), a service provider (14%), social media (13%),
or a firm (7%), see Table 5. Nonetheless, CE may be more com-
plex in reality, involving multiple focal objects simultaneously, as
addressed by 7% of papers identified in this review (see Table 5).
As Ng et al. (2016) highlight, engagement between the customer
and the service offering includes ‘layers of engagement’ – that is,
in the context of financial planning with the provider, their ad-
vice and their service process - and such interactions can occur
during or outside of the service interaction. Similarly, Dessart et al.
(2016) recognise that consumers can engage with different foci and
that such forms of engagement can take place simultaneously. In-
deed, engagement with multiple focal objects in the same con-
sumption related context, such as the brand, brand community
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Table 5
Manifestations of CE.

Number of articles % (of 97 papers) Select References

Valence
Positive 82 85% Fehrer et al. 2018; Guesalaga 2016
Positive and Negative 4 4% Heinonen 2018; Zhang et al. 2018; Naumann et al. 2017
NA 11 11%
Focal objects
Brand (online and offline) 25 26% Carvalho and Fernandes 2018; Gong 2018
Service provider 14 14% Meshram and O’Cass 2018; Verleye et al. 2014
Social media 13 13% Guesalaga 2016; Malthouse et al. 2013
Firm 7 7% Harmeling et al. 2017; Kumar and Pansari 2016; Kumar et al. 2010
Multiple focal objects 7 7% Alexander et al. 2018; Li et al. 2017
NA∗ 31 32%
Level of Interaction
Micro 78 80% Heinonen 2018; Grewal et al. 2018; Naumann et al. 2017
Meso 15 15% Harmeling et al., 2017; Prior et al. 2016; Verleye et al. 2014
Macro 4 4% Alexander et al. 2018; Hollebeek and Andreassen, 2018
Context
Offline 35 36% Naumann et al. 2017; Verleye et al., 2016; Jaakkola and Alexander, 2014
Online 33 34% Heinonen 2018; Guesalaga 2016; Blasco-Arcas et al. 2016
Mixed 3 3% Li et al. 2017; Vivek et al. 2014; 2012
NA∗ 26 27% Hollebeek and Andreassen 2018; Harmeling et al. 2017; Grewal et al. 2018
∗
NA: not applicable; Note: 26 are conceptual papers.

and individuals within the community, can potentially affect each
other.
Furthermore, engagement is not limited to human-to-human
interactions but also extends to machines or human and machine
combinations (Storbacka et al. 2016). Customers today are not only
becoming more active in interacting and engaging with traditional
focal objects such as brands, firms and service providers, but also
increasingly with advanced technological interfaces. How firms can
effectively engage customers by drawing on technology or digital
interfaces is an emerging area of research, including applications
to machine learning and robots (e.g. Storbacka et al. 2016) and the
internet of things (e.g. Letheren et al. 2019).
Valence. CE may be ‘positively’ or ‘negatively’ valenced
(van Doorn et al.’s 2010). From the customer’s perspective, va-
lence relates to the customer’s response, in terms of attraction
versus repulsion towards the focal object (Hollebeek and Chen
2014). Nonetheless, while customers can experience negative CE,
they may still choose to continue interacting with the focal object
due to situational constraint, for example, due to brand lock-in or
switching costs. Although firms are aware of the potential back-
lash of mismanaging non-transactional interactions with customers
(Verhoef et al. 2010), far less is known about negatively valenced
customer engagement (Heinonen 2018), given that much of the ex-
tant CE research in marketing has focused on positively valenced
CE. Indeed, of 97 papers under review, an overwhelming 85% of
papers (see Table 5) investigate positive CE; while 4% examined
both positive and negative engagement.
Negatively valenced engagement in relation to brands, can
be shown through consumers’ “unfavourable brand-related
thoughts, feelings, and behaviours during focal brand interac-
tions” (Hollebeek and Chen 2014, p. 63). In the context of services,
negative CE can entail feelings of “anger, hatred and stress, which
manifest through more constructive coping behaviours such as
individual and group complaint behaviour” (Naumann et al. 2017,
p. 902). More importantly, negative CE can manifest in ways that
affect the wider service community beyond the focal firm, by cus-
tomers who may seek to recruit others in their cause (Naumann
et al. 2017).
Intensity. Intensity relates to the level or strength of CE. Exist-
ing research is often focused on active engagement, yet not all cus-
tomers are actively engaged. In fact, there is an emerging stream
of research that explores other levels of engagement, such as: (i)
passive engagement, (ii) non-engagement and (iii) disengagement.
Passive engagement is a less active form of engagement, which re-
flects a temporary state of inactiveness, or dormancy, by customers
who have previously been actively engaged with the focal object
(adapted from Brodie et al. 2013). It has also been conceptualised
as a lower form of engagement where customers passively con-
sume content or use simple forms of feedback such as ‘likes’ on
Facebook (Malthouse et al. 2013). Examples of such behaviours or
lack of behaviours can include ‘liking’ or sharing information on
social media (Malthouse et al. 2013).
Non-engagement represents no interactive experience (or in-
teraction) with the firm or brand (Brodie et al. 2011, p260), which
is the opposite of “active” engagement. Finally, disengagement, or
the “termination” stage, refers to the process of concluding a cus-
tomer’s engagement with the focal object (Bowden et al. 2015),
which is typically permanent (Brodie et al. 2013). Disengagement
can be characterised by feelings of cynicism, frustration, neglect
and distrust (Naumann et al. 2017) that is, active engagement with
a negative valence, which can create lower tolerance for service
failures causing customers to be more susceptible to ending the
relationship (Bougie et al. 2003). Nonetheless, as with valence, few
researchers have sought to understand the wide spectrum of CE, in
terms of its level or intensity.
Level of interaction. As marketing evolves to a new logic that
is service driven (Vargo 2009), it is imperative to consider cus-
tomer engagement in relation to the service ecosystem, which is
commonly conceptualised at three levels: micro, meso and macro
(Frow et al. 2014; Storbacka et al. 2016). The micro level focuses on
interactions between individuals; the focal firm (i.e. entity guided
by a set of rules) is considered at a meso level, while the mar-
ket is considered at the macro perspective (Frow et al. 2014). More
recently, Frow et al. (2019) have also called for research to “ex-
plore other levels of the ecosystem and their interaction” (p. 2683).
These can include, for instance, the wider ecosystem that can be
viewed from the meta or mega level (Frow et al. 2019). Our re-
view indicates that 80% of the papers investigate CE from a micro
perspective, 15% from a meso level, and 4% with a macro outlook
(Table 5).
The recent shift from exploring CE at a micro dyadic level to a
macro level/ network perspective aligns with the developments of
SD Logic research. The corresponding adaptation to service systems
as a unit of analysis with respect to engagement and on engage-
ment through value cocreation within systems has emerged over
the last six years. In line with the trend towards an A2A perspec-

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
tive of engagement within an ecosystem, there is greater recog-
nition that actors do not only influence each other dyadically but
also the entire ecosystem, causing ‘ripples’ across levels (Farquhar
and Robson 2017). For example, Lariviere et al. (2013) explore how
the use of a mobile, networked technology by customers, firms,
and others such as non-paying customers, competitors and others
can create value simultaneously; they termed this ‘value fusion’.
This approach has gained traction, with recent conceptual papers
extending the discussion of this concept (e.g. Jaakkola et al. 2018;
Brodie et al. 2019).
Context (Online/offline). Customer engagement research is evi-
dent across both online and offline contexts: Of the papers under
review, 36% were conducted in the offline setting, 34% pertained to
the online context, 3% were a mix of both online and offline set-
tings; while the remaining papers did not discuss either context
specifically (e.g. conceptual papers, literature reviews), see Table 5.
The context can act as a constraint that determines the focal ob-
ject(s) that the customer is able engage with. For instance, in the
online context, customers are likely to engage with various focal
objects through mobile devices, apps, social media and websites.
In the offline setting, customers can physically engage with the ser-
vicescape via store attributes, products, the service store personnel
or through store trials (e.g. Bednall et al. 2018). However, both on-
line and offline engagement can occur simultaneously in the same
setting. For example, individuals not only engage with the Apple
brand in a store by interacting with physical products and service
staff, but also by drawing on the online resources utilized for ser-
vice provision in store.
Methodology
Approach. When examining the methodologies and approaches
undertaken to examine CE, the review shows that of the 97 papers
under review, 73% of the studies were empirical in nature, while
27% were conceptual papers (see Table 4). Surveys emerge as the
preferred method for collecting data pertaining to CE, with 42% of
the papers under review using surveys for data collection (Table 4),
while 8% utilised a mixed method approach of surveys and in-
depth interviews. Qualitative techniques were less represented –
only eight papers reported the use of in-depth interviews and/or
focus groups, and three employed case studies. While case studies
have less commonly been used, they offer opportunities to gain
comprehensive understanding of the dynamics within single set-
tings that are representative of real-life situations (Li et al. 2017).
Our findings also reveal the use of only three experiments (Blasco-
Arcas et al. 2016; Rehnen et al. 2017; Mattila et al. 2016), examin-
ing the effect of emotions, motivations and sense of power on en-
gagement, both carried out online. This is surprising in that tech-
nology offers innovative ways for researchers to simulate a real-life
scenario within a controlled setting; allowing us to further under-
stand the complex and dynamic nature of CE.
Measurement. Although a variety of customer engagement mea-
sures abound, few authors have derived their measures based on
strict conceptual and operational definitions. Researchers following
the behaviourally-focused conceptualisation of engagement have
drawn on specific forms of behaviour such as loyalty or word
of mouth (e.g. Mattila et al. 2016; Benjarongrat and Neal 2017;
van Doorn 2010), with Kumar and Pansari (2016) measuring cus-
tomer engagement by means of direct and indirect outcomes such
as purchase, referral, influence and knowledge value. The latter
measure has gained traction across several subsequent studies fo-
cusing on engagement behaviours (e.g. Prentice and Loureiro 2018).
Some researchers have used a broader conceptualisation and
measure multiple dimensions, including emotional and cognitive
aspects as well as behaviours (e.g. Hollebeek et al. 2014); while
others establish measures that deepen or extend the recognised
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
three dimensions of engagement. While Dessart et al. (2016) de-
velop seven dimensions comprising enthusiasm and enjoyment
(affective), attention and absorption (cognitive), as well as shar-
ing, learning and endorsing (behavioural), So et al.’s (2016) scale
comprises identification, enthusiasm, attention, absorption and in-
teraction. Finally, Vivek et al. (2014) derive a customer engagement
scale comprising some similar facets yet introduce a stronger social
element and recognise both existing and potential customers. Di-
mensions include conscious attention, enthused participation and
social connection. Similarly, Thakur (2016) conceptualises and mea-
sures customer engagement arising from six forms of experience
including monetary and social facilitation, though these seem to
represent customer value rather than engagement per se.
Moreover, research over the last four years has recognised en-
gagement as comprising a disposition, or a tendency to act that is
separate to behaviour and reflects a sense of relationship or con-
nectedness (e.g. Jaakkola et al. 2018; Fehrer et al. 2018). Measures
will need to be developed or adapted to align with this conceptu-
alisation. Future research is also likely to use secondary data mea-
sures readily available through technology in analysing big data,
such as when conducting sentiment analysis. This is discussed fur-
ther in the future research section.
What are the antecedents and outcomes of CE?
Identifying antecedents and outcomes that are commonly asso-
ciated with CE is relevant to delineating CE from other marketing
constructs, thereby establishing what is uniquely CE. Our review
findings suggest two types of antecedents: (i) customer-related and
(ii) firm-related, as substantiated by Vivek et al. (2012). Likewise,
outcomes can be categorised into those associated with the cus-
tomer perspective, and those experienced by the firm.
Customer-related antecedents of CE
Customer capabilities. Customer capabilities relate to the fo-
cal actor’s operant resources (i.e. knowledge and skill), which in-
evitably affect his/her ability to interact and therefore engage with
the focal object (Ng et al. 2016). A customer with better skills and
knowledge is more likely to interact and therefore engage with the
focal object, given his/her ability to understand the subject mat-
ter. Conversely, engagement with a focal object could be impeded
by the customer’s lack of understanding, as a result of low lev-
els of skills and knowledge. That is, the customer’s capabilities af-
fect their ability to be engaged – cognitively, emotionally and be-
haviourally - during the interaction with the focal object. Karpen
et al. (2012) show how service dominant capabilities lead to and
reinforce ‘service dominant acting’, such as engagement. Specifi-
cally, customers’ ability to cocreate value through engagement re-
sults from customer knowledge and skills.
Situational factors. Situational conditions such as service con-
venience and perceived service fairness may drive customer en-
gagement. Service convenience is the “time and effort saved by
customers while purchasing and using a service” (Berry et al.
2002, p.5), while perceived service fairness reflects the “cus-
tomers’ perception of the degree of justice in service firm’s be-
haviour.” (Seiders and Berry 1998, p. 9); that is, a psychologi-
cal contract where customers expect the service firm to satisfy
their needs and treat them fairly (Schneider and Bowen, 1999).
Specifically, research identified that these two factors significantly
impact the behavioural aspect of CE (i.e. CEB), such as word of
mouth and helping behaviours (other customers and the firm)
(Roy et al. 2018). Given that CE is highly context-driven and that
its dimensions can vary substantially across contexts (Brodie et al.
2011), future research is required to further investigate CE in di-
verse settings with various situational factors.
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Attitudinal factors. Attitudinal antecedents reflect the cus-
tomer’s feeling towards the focal object. Specifically, this review
identifies three primary attitudinal factors that are conceptu-
alised and/or modelled in both online and offline contexts, namely
trust, commitment and satisfaction (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014);
all relevant given the strong focus of extant literature on ex-
isting/repeat customers. Broadly, trust relates to the customer-
perceived security/reliability in interactions with the focal object
and the belief that the focal object acts in the customer’s best in-
terest (adapted from Delgado-Ballester et al. 2003). Commitment
pertains to the desire to maintain the relationship with the focal
object; that is, the customer values the ongoing relationship with
the focal object such that they are willing to put in maximum ef-
fort to maintain it (adapted from Morgan and Hunt 1994); and sat-
isfaction relates to the customer’s overall evaluation based on the
total purchase and consumption experience with a good or service
over time (Johnson and Fornell 1991).
These three factors are cyclical in nature in that they may be
both drivers and outcomes of CE (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014),
depending on whether the customer is a new or existing/repeat
customer (Bowden 2009). This is because customer engagement is
non-linear, and does not occur in an “an orderly, sequential pro-
gression of phases over time” (Brodie et al. 2013, p. 110). For in-
stance, for existing/repeat customers, factors such as trust, com-
mitment and satisfaction are drivers of CE, as they have experi-
enced the interaction with the focal object and are going back
again, building a relationship or establishing a deeper and personal
connection with the focal object (Bowden 2009). Conversely, for
new customers, these same factors may be outcomes from engag-
ing with a new focal object. Maslowska et al. (2016) further high-
light that the effects on different engagement related constructs
are not necessarily linear and at the same time may cause different
reactions to various actors in the system. Yet, most studies examin-
ing the customer engagement process do not indicate or separate
new and existing customers. This has important implications for
understanding antecedents or outcomes as well as for determining
appropriate strategies.
Firm-related antecedents of CE
Firm-led customer engagement activities evident in the litera-
ture under review comprise CEM initiatives and social CRM.
CEM initiatives. CEM refers to a firm’s deliberate effort to mo-
tivate, empower, and measure a customer’s voluntary contribution
to its marketing functions, beyond a core, economic transaction
(Harmeling et al. 2017). As such, the firm initiates CE and seeks to
proactively manage the customer experience (Alvarez-Milán 2018).
From a CEM perspective, customers are seen to have resources that
can contribute to the firm’s marketing functions (Hollebeek et al.
2019; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). According to Harmeling et al.
(2017), two types of CEM initiatives can be differentiated – tasked-
based and experiential. Task-based CEM often include some ele-
ment of work, for instance, where “customers use their resources
to complete certain structured task (e.g. write a review, refer a cus-
tomer, provide support to other customers) that involves mental or
physical effort, which is usually accompanied by a form of reward
(e.g. discounts, points, etc.)” (p. 319). On the other hand, experien-
tial CEM leverages on “experiential events to stimulate heightened
psychological and emotional connections (of the customer) to the
firm, brand, or other customers” (p. 322). Both are used to drive
customers’ active participation in and contribution to the firm’s
marketing functions, to increase the firm’s performance (Harmeling
et al. 2017).
Social CRM. With the rise of social media, a shift from tradi-
tional customer relationship management (CRM) to social CRM is
evident, with social CRM including social functions, processes and
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
9
capabilities that consider the interaction between customers and
firms, as well as their extended network (i.e. friends, relatives and
peers) (Greenberg 2010). As such, through social media technolo-
gies, social CRM enables a more powerful form of engagement with
customers, one that is highly interactive and embodies two-way
communication, unlike traditional one-way CRM (Choudhury and
Harrigan 2014; Kumar et al., 2010). Furthermore, customers can
be encouraged to cocreate marketing efforts and product offerings
with firms through social CRM activities (Choudhury and Harrigan
2014; Rodriguez, Peterson and Krishnan, 2012). Malthouse et al.
(2013) also highlight that employees should be empowered to con-
sider other customer contact points (or interactive channels), such
as social media in developing a social CRM approach. By being im-
mersed in social media, an employee can be a spokesperson for
the company through CRM activities (Malthouse et al. 2013), and
therefore is an advocate for his/ her company.
Outcomes of CE
Customer’s perspective. From the papers under review, we
identified several common marketing outcomes of CE - these
are outcomes as experienced by the customers themselves as
a result of CE; including satisfaction (e.g. Carvalho & Fernandes
2018; Fehrer et al. 2018), trust (e.g. So et al. 2016), loyalty (e.g.
Fehrer et al. 2018; Thakur 2016), and word-of-mouth (WOM) (e.g.
Carvalho & Fernandes 2018; Islam and Rahman 2016). However,
while satisfaction and trust may act as antecedents or outcomes,
depending on the customer’s previous experience with the focal
object [i.e. existing versus new customers (Bowden 2009)]; inten-
tion to purchase and WOM may be marketing outcomes of a spe-
cific/single cycle, whether for an existing or new customer. Referral
behaviour may be viewed as behavioural engagement itself (Kumar
and Pansari 2016), while others conceptualise it as an outcome of
engagement (e.g. Islam and Rahman 2016). Clarity in conceptuali-
sation and explanation is critical for theoretical and practical ad-
vancement in the field.
Firm’s perspective. Customer outcomes can also benefit the
firm such as through retention and customer acquisition, in turn
improving firm performance. Kumar et al. (2010) formally argued
how customers can facilitate the four types of value for the firm
through engagement. Customer’s engagement value (CEV) enables
the firm to evaluate customers based on their behavioural inter-
actions with the firm, which tend to be observable and therefore
measurable. According to Kumar et al. 2010, CEV comprises four
components: (i) customer lifetime value - customer’s purchase
behaviour, (ii) customer referral value - incentivised referrals of
new customers, (iii) customer influencer value – customer’s be-
haviour to influence other customers (e.g. WOM), (iv) customer
knowledge value – feedback from customer. As such, firms are
able to determine if a customer is being undervalued or overval-
ued, rendering appropriate strategies to “enable higher long-term
contribution from the customer” (p. 297). The antecedents and
outcomes are shown in Fig. 1, offering an overview of the engage-
ment themes, antecedents and outcomes.
Where do we go from here?
Through our systematic review of the CE literature in the sec-
tions above, we have achieved our initial research objectives of (i)
clarifying the definition of CE; (ii) identifying the theoretical lenses
that build the foundation of CE research; (iii) outlining the mani-
festations of CE; (iv) consolidating the measurements of CE; and
(v) examining the antecedents and outcomes of CE. In doing so,
we were able to provide conceptual, methodological and thematic
guidance to scholars studying CE. Yet, to move forward, it is also
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 1. Manifestations, Antecedents and Outcomes of CE
critical to explore what is not known yet about the domain (Briner
et al. 2009; Peloza and Shang 2011).
Hence, we invited 15 distinguished international experts within
the field of CE and sought their views pertaining the future of re-
search on CE. The objective was to develop forward-looking in-
sights to be used for shaping the CE literature in future. The ex-
perts were selected based on purposive sampling – specifically,
these academics have published in A and/ or A∗ journals in the
area of customer engagement, and/or have engagement related pa-
pers that are highly cited. Furthermore, many of these experts had
actively contributed to the special customer engagement stream
and sessions on customer engagement at the ANZMAC conferences
in 2017-2019. Of the 15 invited experts, 12 contributed their views.
The invited commentary authors were free to reflect and elab-
orate on points offered as examples by the article authors or to
develop their own themes in their suggestions on future research
directions. Given that we wanted to encourage the invited com-
mentary authors to address critical issues for future research rather
than documenting the status of a particular area, we specifically
did not request for references. Upon receiving the invited authors’
inputs (see Appendix A), their responses were analysed using the
categorizing process by Lincoln and Guba (1985) to identify recur-
ring themes. Multiple investigator triangulation was then carried
out to minimise discrepancies in data (Grove and Fisk 1992), as
well as several rounds of negotiations to reach common consensus
on the findings (Shah and Corley 2006). Five overarching themes of
research priorities emerged from the expert commentaries on the
future of customer engagement research, each comprising a range
of calls for research. The themes are summarised in Tables 6 to 10,
outlining the calls for research underpinning each theme, as well
as the respective expert commentary quotes based on which the
calls were derived.
Theme 1: Conceptualisation of CE
The systematic review revealed that engagement has been
loosely conceptualised in many of our selected papers, lacking a
definition or grounding framework, hampering a clear conceptual
and operational definition of CE. Table 6 summarises three key ar-
eas of suggested research going forward, based on inputs from the
invited authors: (i) improve conceptual clarity; (ii) investigate en-
gagement beyond the behavioural facet; and (iii) advance research
on engagement dispositions.
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
Theme 2: Understanding non-positive forms of engagement
Our review showed that while certain negative or neutral forms
of engagement - such as passive engagement, non-engagement,
disengagement and negative engagement - were recognised (e.g.
Alexander et al. 2018; Naumann et al. 2017), only a handful of pa-
pers addressed these forms of engagement. Table 7 identifies two
potential areas for future research: (i) investigating different levels
of engagement, and (ii) addressing negative valence and its impli-
cations.
Theme 3: Zooming out - the wider perspective
The systematic review indicated a growing recognition to go
beyond the dyadic and examine engagement within ecosystems,
as well as to study engagement objects and contexts beyond
those commonly investigated. In line with this theme, seven
future-facing research areas were proposed by invited authors:
(i) investigate a broader range of factors impacted by engage-
ment; (ii) examine conditions that facilitate or inhibit interac-
tions, (iii) investigate engagement with new forms of technol-
ogy, (iv) investigate engagement in complex and diverse contexts,
(v) investigate engagement in ecosystems, (vi) examine engage-
ment over time, and (vii) examine engagement for social good
(see Table 8).
Theme 4: Methodological approaches of CE
A heavy reliance on surveys emerged from the systematic re-
view. Looking forward, the invited authors indicate two areas that
are particularly relevant for the future of CE research: (i) to ap-
ply a variety of methodologies in CE research, (ii) to utilise of ad-
vanced technologies in data collection, and (iii) to advance mea-
surement of engagement (see Table 9). No doubt the escalating
ubiquity and interconnectivity of technology, including smart de-
vices and the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI), is growing
the array of data collection opportunities and methodologies for
engagement researchers.
Theme 5: Theoretical considerations
The need for a broader, inter-disciplinary approach to engage-
ment is an important theme that underlies key insights from this
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Table 6
Theme 1 - Conceptualisation of CE.

Call for Research Commentary Quote of Commentary Author

Author

Improve conceptual 02 - Sharon Beatty “One is the need to solidify the definition and measurement of CE further, given ongoing debate as to its
clarity nature. Noting that associated relational concepts, such as involvement and loyalty, took decades to settle, CE
may still be considered to be in its infancy. Thus, the construct and its measurement need further
assessment.”
09 – Chatura “Although a lot has been written about the meaning of engagement, conceptual confusion about its meaning
Ranaweera still exists in the marketing literature, with scholars offering different perspectives (e.g. co-creation
perspective, process view, etc.). Conceptual overlap with other similar constructs, combined with redefining
old concepts under the umbrella of engagement can lead to further confusion (e.g. from a definitional view
point, many ‘engagement behaviours’ investigated are no different from what has been looked at as ‘loyalty
behaviours’ in the past; and the dimensions of engagement often cited are no different from the dimensions
of loyalty). While lack of conceptual clarity is very much part of the early development of a scientific
discipline, clarity is critical for theory in the domain to move forward. If there are overlaps between these
concepts (such as engagement and loyalty), what are the unique attributes of each concept? Are there unique
drivers and unique consequences of each concept? Is one more suited than the other to capture the scope of
relationships between actors? Or do they have their own distinct purposes, and if so, what are they?”
Investigate engagement 10 - Marianna “Despite the burgeoning research in Customer Engagement (CE), we still know little about it. Most of the
beyond behavioural facet Sigala studies on CE focus on its behavioural dimensions, less studies focus on its emotional and psychological
dimensions, while very limited is written about its spiritual dimension.”
11 - Shiri Vivek “Ease of obtaining data has further diverted attention from the cognitive and emotional aspects of
engagement, presenting the behavioural indicators (likes, brand page loyalty etc.) as synonymous to
engagement. This attention to only one aspect of customer engagement is perhaps the reason that academic
investigation has not succeeded much in informing business performance. Behavioural indicators of
engagement may result from several other factors besides the cognitive and emotional investment made by
the customer. There is much scope for inquiring into the nature of cognitive and emotional aspects of
engagement, which can perhaps better explain its influence on business outcomes.”
Advance research on 02 - Sharon Beatty “… firms should note that individuals have differing engagement proclivities, viewed as an individual trait.
engagement dispositions Thus, studying CE proclivities or preferences is useful.”

Table 10
Theme 5 - Theoretical Considerations.

Call for Research Commentary Quote of Commentary Author

Author

Theoretical 06 - Julia Fehrer “... there is a need for further exploring the institutionalisation processes of AE. For example, when do
considerations individual AE behaviours turn into accepted routines that all actors in the network adhere to? How do these
institutionalisation processes unfold? And how can they be influenced?”
10 - Marianna “Research in CE needs to adopt a multi-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary or even an anti-disciplinary
Sigala perspective to understand this complex and highly dynamic phenomenon. However, we should also
recognize that our current theoretical lenses, constructs and mindsets may be limited or inappropriate to
study the nature and impacts of these emerging issues in CE.”

Table 7
Theme 2 - Understanding Non-Positive Forms of Engagement.

Call for Research Commentary Quote of Commentary Author

Author

Investigate different 01 - Matthew “... research which problematizes engagement is scant. Much of the extant literature suggests engagement as
levels of engagement Alexander resulting from a genuine disposition, with actors motivated by positive experiences with a focal object.
However, it would be naïve for firms, and academics, to assume that these positive dispositions are
universal. Therefore, more research is needed to explore if disingenuous forms of engagement exist with
customers offering, or withdrawing, resources for more selfish or malicious reasons.”
02 - Sharon Beatty “... it is important to note that not everyone wants a relationship with a firm or to engage with it. It is
therefore important for a firm to not be overly aggressive with its engagement efforts, due to a possible
backlash effect. Again, this topic is available for study.”
“... firms may rely too much on their highly engaged customers to co-create value and to obtain viewpoints,
even though only a small percentage of customers truly engage with the firm or brand. Given the potential
differences between engaged individuals and those not engaged, this issue could be worthy of study.”
Address negative valence 03 - Jana Bowden “The literature is replete with theorising around positive engagement. However, exchange precipitates both
and its implications positive and negative forms of engagement in turn leading brand relationships to strengthen, weaken or end.
An increased research focus is needed on negative valences of engagement; including its variable levels of
emotional, cognitive and behavioural intensity; its hierarchical classification; its persistence, and contagion
effects, as well as an analysis of the array of brand damage that may ensue.
Interdisciplinary research is needed to investigate the roles of consumers within online brand communities,
and the way in which network nodes, ties and interrelationships shape, accelerate or decelerate negative
engagement. This needs to account for reputational cues that facilitate online socialisation, interaction and
exchange, as well as the types of consumer authenticity signals which aid this. This is especially important
from a firm perspective since negative engagement sentiment infiltrates both active and passive (lurker)
networks with extensive effect and requires a carefully tailored strategic response."

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

12 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 8
Theme 3 - Zooming Out: The Wider Perspective.

Call for Research Commentary Quote of Commentary Author

Author

Investigate broader range 10 - Marianna “...most research is interested in the ‘economic’ (e.g. customer lifetime value, customer loyalty) or functional
of factors impacted by Sigala (e.g. personalized experiences, enhanced quality) impacts of CE on firms and customers respectively, ignoring
engagement the potential impact of CE on the psychological, emotional and societal well-being of “engaged” people. The
latter is increasingly important as we see an increasing supply or conversion of traditional services into
transformational services (e.g. peer-to-peer economy, religious services, well-being/ spiritual services,
volunteering, second hand-exchange markets), whereby customers increasingly get engaged to uplift their
own and society’s well-being and satisfy higher order needs.”
Examine conditions 01 - Matthew “… understanding the conditions needed for firms to make engagement marketing a successful, and more
facilitating / inhibiting Alexander predictable activity, are essential.”
interactions 03 - Jana Bowden “For firms and researchers alike, enhancing participation necessitates an examination of the conditions that
facilitate and inhibit consumer interactions online. Because consumer engagement is established through
transient, iterative exchange throughout the consumer-brand journey, a key challenge lies in understanding
the nature, tonality and interplay of these interactions at various points of the consumer-brand experience.”
Investigate engagement 10 - Marianna “We are also experiencing a boom of smart services and advanced technologies (e.g. AI, anthropomorphic
with new forms of Sigala robots, chat boxes) replacing highly skilled jobs that require not only physical and cognitive/analytical skills
technology but also highly social and emotional capabilities. However, these autonomous, self-controlled, learning and
very soon self-reproducing technological agents are able to recognize and replicate (externalize) emotions
and social skills, calculate trade-offs and take decisions based on pre-programmed social values and ethics
but they are not able (yet) to understand the meaning and contextual merit of emotions, social values and
ethics or even to create and institutionalize them. Research in CE should urgently aim to understand people’s
perceptions and attitudes towards such agents, their perceptions and evaluations of service quality and
expectations, their working relations and expectations with robots as co-workers. Engagement happening
machine-to-machine is also an important research area.”
Investigate engagement 05 - Jodie Conduit “Several recent articles provide an agenda for the future direction of research on actor engagement,
in complex and diverse collective engagement, as well as customer engagement. What unites these agendas is the recognition of the
contexts need for empirical research that examines engagement in more complex and more diverse contexts.”
“... research is required to understand the cultural and contextual influences on engagement dispositions and
engagement behaviours and linking these concepts to outcome variables such as value-in-use, innovation,
and firm performance. This will lead to an exciting body of literature providing greater clarity and insight
into the nature of engagement.”
10 - Marianna “Research should also better understand the context, the factors and the stimuli that make people get or not
Sigala get engaged in different ways with the same focal object. In addition, does the nature, level and purpose of
people’s engagement with a focal object differ depending on the engagement platform, the touchpoint, the
relationship stage of the customer with the focal object?”
Investigate engagement 05 - Jodie Conduit “While there remains much more that can be investigated with the core concept of customer engagement,
in ecosystems recent articles have extended the original concept and introduced concepts such as actor engagement and
collective engagement that recognise engagement takes place within an ecosystem. The future direction of
engagement research is therefore likely to give consideration to the role of engagement in ecosystems, rather
than just between the customer and the firm.”
“... given the widespread recognition that engagement occurs at the micro, meso, and macro level of an
ecosystem, scant research considers the interplay of engagement between these levels of aggregation,
specifically examining how engagement develops and evolves at a meso and macro level through the
interactions of multiple actors and their engagement practices.”
06 - Julia Fehrer “I see great potential in exploring the dynamics of engagement in open networks. For example, how does AE
in entrepreneurial and innovation system settings look like? What is the role of engagement in
blockchain-based marketplaces, where all actors are micro-entrepreneurs? What are the engagement
practices in such entrepreneurial settings?”
Examine engagement 07 - Elina Jaakkola “...much of the extant research gives only a snapshot view on engagement. New insights could be developed
over time by examining how engagement evolves and manifests along a dynamic process of customer consumption
and/or purchase journeys that involve various touchpoints and interactions with a range of actors. It seems
plausible that the relevance and effect of the cognitive, emotional, behavioural, or social engagement varies
according to the phase of the customer journey, or type of purchase. Potential research questions include for
example the following:
1. What is the role of different dimensions of engagement across the customer journey?
2. How does engagement evolve as a response to different types of journey touchpoints?
3. How can companies design and manage customer journeys to optimally tap into, and facilitate positively
valenced engagement?”
Examine engagement for 08 - Edward “At the same time, there are many pressing global problems that where it would seem that CE could have a
social good Malthouse role in solving, such as fake news, climate change, obesity and other health issues, and inspiring and
empowering all to be educated and informed citizens.”

review, for instance, the inconsistent conceptualisation of CE, the Conclusion

lack of an encompassing approach that deals with the non-positive
side of CE, and also new forms of data, methodology and data anal-
ysis. To prevent a myopic perspective on CE, it is imperative for re-
searchers to not only cross disciplinary boundaries but also to chal-
lenge and extend theoretical lenses and mindsets that have built
the foundation for CE to date. New perspectives will help advance
our ability to understand emerging issues, with all their complexi-
ties and dynamism. Table 10 highlights several related areas iden-
tified as future research directions.
Much can be derived from our systematic review of the cus-
tomer and actor engagement literature, as well as from the future
research directions summarised above and detailed within each ta-
ble of commentary. While some future research directions are not
yet recognised in the current discourse, others have been noted
previously but remain critical for the future development of the
field, such as the concepts of A2A engagement across the ecosys-
tem, the impact of new technologies and AI on engagement, ad-

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS [m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]

S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

Table 9
Theme 4 - Methodological Approaches of CE.

Call for Research Commentary Quote of Commentary Author

Author

Apply various 04 - Christoph “Expanding the methodological repertoire of service research more general, and that of engagement research
methodological Breidbach in particular can initially built on approaches common in other fields, like experiments, mixed-method
approaches designs, or netnographies – all of which are still comparatively niche approaches. However, the more
significant advancements in engagement research will likely stem from the integration of computational
methods into the field’s discourse. Topic modelling with machine learning, any type of natural-language
processing, or simulations with agent-based modelling can reveal insights about actors and complex
engagement ecosystems and enable us to ask entirely new questions to generate unprecedented insights.”
06 - Julia Fehrer “... there is an urgent need to explore the process and nomological network of AE empirically. Thus, I would
like to encourage scholars to investigate AE using longitudinal case studies, simulations, ethnography and
other methods, that respond to the complexity of AE in a broader network setting.”
09 - Chatura “[Questions relating to conceptual clarity – raised in Table 6] can bring important insights, help move the
Ranaweera domain forward, and can be addressed through multiple methodological approaches."
Utilise advanced 04 - Christoph “The sources of data available to service researchers today are substantially different from a decade ago.
technologies Breidbach Virtually every interaction, physical movement, or behaviour of actors in service ecosystems can, and is,
recorded in one way or another. Mobile phones provide data about how customers move through physical
structures like shopping centres, photos taken and uploaded to social media include meta-data about the
location, time and date where the image was created, web-queries can identify trends about actor behaviour,
and unstructured natural language texts (i.e. recorded complaint calls, patent applications or government
records) can all be analysed. The next step for engagement research will be to identify which sources of data
are available, what questions can be answered with them, and which methods are needed to do so.”
“... the more significant advancements in engagement research will likely stem from the integration of
computational methods into the field’s discourse. Topic modelling with machine learning, any type of
natural-language processing, or simulations with agent-based modelling can reveal insights about actors and
complex engagement ecosystems and enable us to ask entirely new questions to generate unprecedented
insights.”
08 - Edward “There are great opportunities for future CE research to use these big data resources. At the same time there
Malthouse have been major advances in artificial intelligence (AI) toward questions that have eluded AI scholars for
decades, such as voice and image recognition, e.g., one can now use digital voice assistants for information
retrieval tasks and dictating messages. The fields of recommendation systems and predictive analytics have
enabled a better personalization. These AI approaches and others create the possibility for more relevant
ways for organizations to engage with their customers and prospects.”
12 - Heidi “Progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers firms a multitude of opportunities to more closely connect with
Winklhofer customers through intelligent agents (e.g. wearable technology, the internet of things), learn about customer
dispositions to engage (e.g. sentiment analysis) and their connectedness to other actors (e.g. customers,
family and friends, other brands). Drawing on a multitude of data sources, churn prediction modelling
powered by machine-learning algorithms can help identify disengaged customers. To increase the impact of
our research, we need to embrace these developments and team up with practitioners. I am proposing two
possible avenues. Firstly, monitoring CE through AI is a fast-growing industry that is still in its infancy, in
collaboration with practitioners we can translate our theorising and conceptual understanding of CE into
KPIs that capture the dynamic, systems-based nature of CE. There is still scope to shape the KPIs
practitioners are using. Secondly, working with companies who employ AI powered churn prediction models
could greatly facilitate our understanding of the dynamics of CE.”
Advance measurement of 02 - Sharon Beatty “One is the need to solidify the definition and measurement of CE further, given ongoing debate as to its
engagement nature. Noting that associated relational concepts, such as involvement and loyalty, took decades to settle, CE
may still be considered to be in its infancy. Thus, the construct and its measurement need further
assessment.”
05 - Jodie Conduit “Empirical measurement models are required for actor engagement, collective engagement, and engagement
in a B2B context. Further, the measurement of the engagement dimensions (e.g. emotional engagement)
requires further development, especially with regards to the role of emotions in both positively and
negatively valenced engagement.”
06 - Julia Fehrer “… scale development seems a critical future avenue of AE research. However, this will not be an easy task,
as a scale needs to reflect sets of versatile actors in various contexts.”

vances in measurement and the relevance of engagement to global
challenges. As such, this paper offers a useful basis for research on
the topic of engagement and related concepts that may evolve as
the rapid pace of change and evolution in marketing, management,
entrepreneurship and innovation, computer science and technology
continue. What will engagement mean in 2050?
Malthouse (Northwestern University), Chatura Ranaweera (Wilfrid
Laurier University), Marianna Sigala (University of South Australia),
Shiri Vivek (Eastern Michigan University) and Heidi Winklhofer
(University of Nottingham).
APPENDIX A

Acknowledgment
We would like to thank our contributors for their invaluable in-
put towards developing the future research priorities as offered in
this paper: Matthew Alexander (University of Strathclyde), Sharon
Beatty (The University of Alabama), Jana Bowden (Macquarie Uni-
versity), Christoph Breidbach (The University of Queensland), Jodie
Conduit (The University of Adelaide), Julia A. Fehrer (The Univer-
sity of Auckland), Elina Jaakkola (University of Turku), Edward C.
Commentary 1
Matthew Alexander, Reader, University of Strathclyde
Engaging customers is now a mainstream activity for firms.
Huge global success stories like Volvo’s ‘greatest interception’
at the 2015 Superbowl or Coca-Cola’s ‘share a coke’ campaign
achieved success through effective engagement of consumers.
However, recent research proposes engagement as an inconsistent
resource as customers shift their engagement disposition, and be-
haviours, between competing engagement foci and, therefore, the

Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
way in which firms understand, utilise and interpret this resource
is of critical importance. This suggests a number of future research
areas: firstly, understanding the conditions needed for firms to
make engagement marketing a successful, and more predictable
activity, are essential. Secondly, research which problematizes en-
gagement is scant. Much of the extant literature suggests engage-
ment as resulting from a genuine disposition, with actors mo-
tivated by positive experiences with a focal object. However, it
would be naïve for firms, and academics, to assume that these pos-
itive dispositions are universal. Therefore, more research is needed
to explore if disingenuous forms of engagement exist with cus-
tomers offering, or withdrawing, resources for more selfish or ma-
licious reasons.
Commentary 2
Sharon Beatty, Professor Emerita, The University of Alabama
I offer four areas of further interest to researchers in the cus-
tomer engagement (CE) area. One is the need to solidify the defini-
tion and measurement of CE further, given ongoing debate as to its
nature. Noting that associated relational concepts, such as involve-
ment and loyalty, took decades to settle, CE may still be considered
to be in its infancy. Thus, the construct and its measurement need
further assessment.
Second, it is important to note that not everyone wants a rela-
tionship with a firm or to engage with it. It is therefore important
for a firm to not be overly aggressive with its engagement efforts,
due to a possible backlash effect. Again, this topic is available for
study.
The third issue (related to the previous one) is that firms
should note that individuals have differing engagement proclivities,
viewed as an individual trait. Thus, studying CE proclivities or pref-
erences is useful.
Finally, firms may rely too much on their highly engaged cus-
tomers to co-create value and to obtain viewpoints, even though
only a small percentage of customers truly engage with the firm
or brand. Given the potential differences between engaged in-
dividuals and those not engaged, this issue could be worthy of
study.
Commentary 3
Jana Bowden, Associate Professor of Marketing, Macquarie
University
Today’s marketing landscape is driven by change. The rapid
pace of technological innovation has meant that firms are oper-
ating in an intensely competitive global environment dictated by
transformation, dynamism and instability. The way in which firm’s
shape their brands, offerings, and activities online is increasingly
organic, social and participatory. The fluid nature of networked ac-
tor interactions in online platforms, as well as their valence, direc-
tion, intensity, velocity and connectedness are critical factors for
organisational performance. From a strategic perspective, the fo-
cus should therefore be on designing formal and informal online
platforms in a way that enhances opportunities for authentic con-
sumer engagement, consumer contribution, sharing, support and
impact.
For firms and researchers alike, enhancing participation neces-
sitates an examination of the conditions that facilitate and in-
hibit consumer interactions online. Because consumer engagement
is established through transient, iterative exchange throughout the
consumer-brand journey, a key challenge lies in understanding
the nature, tonality and interplay of these interactions at various
points of the consumer-brand experience. The literature is replete
with theorising around positive engagement. However, exchange
precipitates both positive and negative forms of engagement in
turn leading brand relationships to strengthen, weaken or end. An
increased research focus is needed on negative valences of engage-
ment; including its variable levels of emotional, cognitive and be-
havioural intensity; its hierarchical classification; its persistence,
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
and contagion effects, as well as an analysis of the array of brand
damage that may ensue.
Interdisciplinary research is needed to investigate the roles
of consumers within online brand communities, and the way in
which network nodes, ties and interrelationships shape, accelerate
or decelerate negative engagement. This needs to account for rep-
utational cues that facilitate online socialisation, interaction and
exchange, as well as the types of consumer authenticity signals
which aid this. This is especially important from a firm perspec-
tive since negative engagement sentiment infiltrates both active
and passive (lurker) networks with extensive effect and requires
a carefully tailored strategic response.
Commentary 4
Christoph Breidbach, Senior Lecturer, The University of
Queensland
Service researchers were amongst the first to delineate the en-
gagement platform construct to study how virtual touch points
provide structural support for the exchange and integration of re-
sources, and thereby co-creation of value, between actors in a ser-
vice ecosystems. Today, technical developments enable us to not
only advance the interdisciplinary nature of service research, but
also to expand our ability to build and test better theory around
engagement platforms in ways previously unimaginable. This will
take place by i) using new sources of data, and ii) by adopting new
research methods.
The sources of data available to service researchers today are
substantially different from a decade ago. Virtually every interac-
tion, physical movement, or behaviour of actors in service ecosys-
tems can, and is, recorded in one way or another. Mobile phones
provide data about how customers move through physical struc-
tures like shopping centres, photos taken and uploaded to social
media include meta-data about the location, time and date where
the image was created, web-queries can identify trends about actor
behaviour, and unstructured natural language texts (i.e. recorded
complaint calls, patent applications or government records) can
all be analysed. The next step for engagement research will be to
identify which sources of data are available, what questions can
be answered with them, and which methods are needed to do
so.
Expanding the methodological repertoire of service research
more general, and that of engagement research in particular can
initially built on approaches common in other fields, like experi-
ments, mixed-method designs, or netnographies – all of which are
still comparatively niche approaches. However, the more significant
advancements in engagement research will likely stem from the in-
tegration of computational methods into the field’s discourse. Topic
modelling with machine learning, any type of natural-language
processing, or simulations with agent-based modelling can reveal
insights about actors and complex engagement ecosystems and en-
able us to ask entirely new questions to generate unprecedented
insights.
Commentary 5
Jodie Conduit, Professor of Marketing, The University of Ade-
laide
Customer engagement is a mid-range theory for which there
has been considerable conceptual and empirical research, provid-
ing a good foundational understanding of this important market-
ing concept. While there remains much more that can be investi-
gated with the core concept of customer engagement, recent arti-
cles have extended the original concept and introduced concepts
such as actor engagement and collective engagement that recog-
nise engagement takes place within an ecosystem. The future di-
rection of engagement research is therefore likely to give consid-
eration to the role of engagement in ecosystems, rather than just
between the customer and the firm. Several recent articles pro-
vide an agenda for the future direction of research on actor en-
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
gagement, collective engagement, as well as customer engagement.
What unites these agendas is the recognition of the need for em-
pirical research that examines engagement in more complex and
more diverse contexts.
Empirical measurement models are required for actor engage-
ment, collective engagement, and engagement in a B2B context.
Further, the measurement of the engagement dimensions (e.g.,
emotional engagement) requires further development, especially
with regards to the role of emotions in both positively and neg-
atively valenced engagement. In addition given the widespread
recognition that engagement occurs at the micro, meso, and macro
level of an ecosystem, scant research considers the interplay of en-
gagement between these levels of aggregation, specifically exam-
ining how engagement develops and evolves at a meso and macro
level through the interactions of multiple actors and their engage-
ment practices.
Finally, research is required to understand the cultural and con-
textual influences on engagement dispositions and engagement be-
haviours and linking these concepts to outcome variables such as
value-in-use, innovation, and firm performance. This will lead to
an exciting body of literature providing greater clarity and insight
into the nature of engagement.
Commentary 6
Julia A. Fehrer, Senior Lecturer, The University of Auckland
The new concept of AE comes with several interesting avenues
for future research. First, there is an urgent need to explore the
process and nomological network of AE empirically. Thus, I would
like to encourage scholars to investigate AE using longitudinal case
studies, simulations, ethnography and other methods, that respond
to the complexity of AE in a broader network setting. Further,
scale development seems a critical future avenue of AE research.
However, this will not be an easy task, as a scale needs to re-
flect sets of versatile actors in various contexts. Second, there is
a need for further exploring the institutionalization processes of
AE. For example, when do individual AE behaviours turn into ac-
cepted routines that all actors in the network adhere to? How
do these institutionalisation processes unfold? And how can they
be influenced? Finally, I see great potential in exploring the dy-
namics of engagement in open networks. For example, how does
AE in entrepreneurial and innovation system settings look like?
What us the role of engagement in blockchain-based marketplaces,
where all actors are micro-entrepreneurs? What are the engage-
ment practices in such entrepreneurial settings?
Commentary 7
Elina Jaakkola, Professor of Marketing, University of Turku
Research has shown that engagement is a dynamic and itera-
tive phenomenon where an actor’s emotional and cognitive dis-
positions spur behavioural engagement; and experienced value
outcomes trigger further engagement. Yet, much of the extant
research gives only a snapshot view on engagement. New in-
sights could be developed by examining how engagement evolves
and manifests along a dynamic process of customer consumption
and/or purchase journeys that involve various touchpoints and in-
teractions with a range of actors. It seems plausible that the rele-
vance and effect of the cognitive, emotional, behavioural, or social
engagement varies according to the phase of the customer journey,
or type of purchase. Potential research questions include for exam-
ple the following:
1 What is the role of different dimensions of engagement across
the customer journey?
2 How does engagement evolve as a response to different types
of journey touchpoints?
3 How can companies design and manage customer journeys to
optimally tap into, and facilitate positively valenced engage-
ment?
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
15
Commentary 8
Edward C. Malthouse, Erastus Otis Haven Professor, North-
western University
Over the past ten years or so there has been a large amount
of excellent research on customer engagement (CE) in services
and marketing. There have been numerous special issues in lead-
ing journals, research monographs with contributed chapters, and
many other articles and books published on the topic. We have
made great progress in defining the construct, proposing frame-
works specifying its antecedents and consequences, identifying and
developing theories, and measuring it (mostly with surveys).
We now live in a digital world where many of our behaviours
are chronicled in large databases. Every action (behavioural en-
gagement) we take on a mobile device, website, or other digitally
monitored environment is recorded. There are great opportunities
for future CE research to use these big data resources. At the same
time there have been major advances in artificial intelligence (AI)
toward questions that have eluded AI scholars for decades, such as
voice and image recognition, e.g. one can now use digital voice as-
sistants for information retrieval tasks and dictating messages. The
fields of recommendation systems and predictive analytics have
enabled a better personalization. These AI approaches and oth-
ers create the possibility for more relevant ways for organizations
to engage with their customers and prospects. At the same time,
there are many pressing global problems that where it would seem
that CE could have a role in solving, such as fake news, climate
change, obesity and other health issues, and inspiring and empow-
ering all to be educated and informed citizens.
Commentary 9
Chatura Ranaweera, Associate Professor of Marketing, Wil-
frid Laurier University
Although a lot has been written about the meaning of engage-
ment, conceptual confusion about its meaning still exists in the
marketing literature, with scholars offering different perspectives
(e.g. co-creation perspective, process view, etc.). Conceptual overlap
with other similar constructs, combined with redefining old con-
cepts under the umbrella of engagement can lead to further con-
fusion (e.g. from a definitional view point, many ‘engagement be-
haviours’ investigated are no different from what has been looked
at as ‘loyalty behaviours’ in the past; and the dimensions of en-
gagement often cited are no different from the dimensions of loy-
alty). While lack of conceptual clarity is very much part of the
early development of a scientific discipline, clarity is critical for
theory in the domain to move forward. If there are overlaps be-
tween these concepts (such as engagement and loyalty), what are
the unique attributes of each concept? Are there unique drivers
and unique consequences of each concept? Is one more suited than
the other to capture the scope of relationships between actors? Or
do they have their own distinct purposes, and if so what are they?
These questions can bring important insights, help move the do-
main forward, and can be addressed through multiple methodolog-
ical approaches.
Commentary 10
Marianna Sigala, Professor in Tourism, University of South
Australia
Despite the burgeoning research in Customer Engagement (CE),
we still know little about it. Most of the studies on CE focus on
its behavioural dimensions, less studies focus on its emotional and
psychological dimensions, while very limited is written about its
spiritual dimension. Similarly, most research is interesting on the
‘economic’ (e.g. customer lifetime value, customer loyalty) or func-
tional (e.g. personalized experiences, enhanced quality) impacts
of CE on firms and customers respectively, ignoring the potential
impact of CE on the psychological, emotional and societal well-
being of “engaged” people. The latter is increasingly important as
we see an increasing supply or conversion of traditional services
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
into transformational services (e.g. peer-to-peer economy, religious
services, well-being/ spiritual services, volunteering, second hand-
exchange markets), whereby customers increasingly get engaged
to uplift their own and society’s well-being and satisfy higher or-
der needs. Research should also better understand the context,
the factors and the stimuli that make people get or not get en-
gaged in different ways with the same focal object. In addition,
does the nature, level and purpose of people’s engagement with
a focal object differ depending on the engagement platform, the
touch-point, the relationship stage of the customer with the focal
object?
We are also experiencing a boom of smart services and ad-
vanced technologies (e.g. AI, anthropomorphic robots, chat boxes)
replacing highly skilled jobs that require not only physical and cog-
nitive/analytical skills but also highly social and emotional capa-
bilities. However, these autonomous, self-controlled, learning and
very soon self-reproducing technological agents are able to recog-
nize and replicate (externalize) emotions and social skills, calcu-
late trade-offs and take decisions based on pre-programmed so-
cial values and ethics but they are not able (yet) to understand the
meaning and contextual merit of emotions, social values and ethics
or even to create and institutionalize them. Research in CE should
urgently aim to understand people’s perceptions and attitudes to-
wards such agents, their perceptions and evaluations of service
quality and expectations, their working relations and expectations
with robots as co-workers. Engagement happening machine-to-
machine is also an important research area. Research in CE needs
to adopt a multi-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary or even an anti-
disciplinary perspective to understand this complex and highly dy-
namic phenomenon. However, we should also recognize that our
current theoretical lenses, constructs and mindsets may be limited
or inappropriate to study the nature and impacts of these emerg-
ing issues in CE.
Commentary 11
Shiri Vivek, Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Man-
agement, Eastern Michigan University
There has been an abundance of scholarly work since the pi-
oneering articles in early 20 0 0 (Brodie et al. 2011, Vivek, Beatty
and Morgan 2012) proposed the tridimensionality of customer en-
gagement emphasizing its cognitive, emotional and behavioural as-
pects equally. Since then ease of measurement and abundance of
data has led subsequent research to focus on the platforms of
engagement, such as social media and brand pages, to the ex-
tent that the platforms are often presented as synonymous to cus-
tomer engagement. Ease of obtaining data has further diverted at-
tention from the cognitive and emotional aspects of engagement,
presenting the behavioural indicators (likes, brand page loyalty
etc.) as synonymous to engagement. This attention to only one
aspect of customer engagement is perhaps the reason that aca-
demic investigation has not succeeded much in informing business
performance.
Behavioural indicators of engagement may result from several
other factors besides the cognitive and emotional investment made
by the customer. There is much scope for inquiring into the nature
of cognitive and emotional aspects of engagement, which can per-
haps better explain its influence on business outcomes.
Commentary 12
Heidi Winklhofer, Professor of Marketing, University of Not-
tingham
Progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers firms a multitude of
opportunities to more closely connect with customers through in-
telligent agents (e.g. wearable technology, the internet of things),
learn about customer dispositions to engage (e.g. sentiment analy-
sis) and their connectedness to other actors (e.g. customers, fam-
ily and friends, other brands). Drawing on a multitude of data
sources, churn prediction modelling powered by machine-learning
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
algorithms can help identify disengaged customers. To increase the
impact of our research, we need to embrace these developments
and team up with practitioners. I am proposing two possible av-
enues. Firstly, monitoring CE through AI is a fast-growing industry
that is still in its infancy, in collaboration with practitioners we can
translate our theorising and conceptual understanding of CE into
KPIs that capture the dynamic, systems-based nature of CE. There
is still scope to shape the KPIs practitioners are using. Secondly,
working with companies who employ AI powered churn prediction
models could greatly facilitate our understanding of the dynamics
of CE.
References
Abdul-Ghani, E., Hyde, K.F., Marshall, R., 2019. Conceptualising engagement in a con-
sumer-to-consumer context. Aus. Market. J. 27 (1), 2–13.
Alexander, M.J., Jaakkola, E., Hollebeek, L.D., 2018. Zooming out: actor engagement
beyond the dyadic. J. Serv. Manag. 29 (3), 333–351.
Alvarez-Milán, A., Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P.A., Hinsch, C., 2018. Strategic customer
engagement marketing: a decision-making framework. J. Bus. Res. 92, 61–70.
Bednall, D.H.B., Oppewal, H., Laochumnanvanit, K., Nguyen, C., 2018. A trial engage-
ment? Innovative free and other service trials. J. Serv. Market. 32 (1), 46–56.
Benjarongrat, P., Neal, M., 2017. Exploring the service profit chain in a Thai Bank.
Asia Pacif. J. Market. Logist. 29 (2), 432–452.
Berry, L.L., 1983. Relationship Marketing. In: Berry, L.L., Shostack, G.L., Upah, G.
(Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. American Marketing As-
sociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 25–28.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K., Grewal, D., 2002. Understanding service convenience. Journal
of Marketing 66 (3), 1–17.
Bijmolt, T.H.A, Leeflang, P.S.H., Block, F., Eisenbeiss, M., Hardie, B.G.S., Lemmens, A.,
Saffert, P., 2010. Analytics for customer engagement. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3),
341–356.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-Ortega, B.I., Jimenez-Martinez, J., 2016. Engagement
platforms: the role of emotions in fostering customer engagement and brand
image in interactive media. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 26 (5), 559–589.
Bolton, R.N., 2011. Customer engagement. J. Serv. Res. 14 (3), 272–274.
Bowden, J.L., 2009. The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework.
J. Market. Theory Pract. 17 (1), 63–74.
Bowden, J.L.H., Gabbott, M., Naumann, K., 2015. Service relationships and the cus-
tomer disengagement – Engagement conundrum. J. Market. Manag. 31 (7–8),
774–806.
Bougie, R., Pieters, R., Zeelenberg, M., 2003. Angry customers don’t come back, they
get back: the experience and behavioral implications of anger and dissatisfac-
tion in services. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 31 (4), 377–393.
Briner, R.B., Denyer, D., Rousseau, D.M., 2009. Evidence-based management: concept
cleanup time. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 19–32 Nov.
Brodie, R.J., Fehrer, J.A., Jaakkola, E., 2019. Actor engagement in networks: defining
the conceptual domain. J. Serv. Res. 22 (2), 173–188.
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B., Ilic, A., 2011. Customer engagement: conceptual
domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 14
(3), 252–271.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., Hollebeek, L., 2013. Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community. J. Bus. Res. 66, 105–114.
Carvalho, A., Fernandes, T., 2018. Understanding customer brand engagement with
virtual social communities: a comprehensive model of drivers, outcomes and
moderators. J. Market. Theory Pract. 26 (1–2), 23–37.
Choudhury, M.M., Harrigan, P., 2014. CRM to social CRM: the integration of new
technologies into customer relationship management. J. Strateg. Market. 22 (2),
149–176.
Crossan, M.M., Apaydin, M., 2010. A Multi-dimensional framework of organisational
innovation: a systematic review of literature. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (6), 1154–1191.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L., Yague-Guillen, M.J., 2003. Development
and validation of a trust scale. Int. J. Market Res. 45 (1), 35–58.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., Morgan-Thomas, A., 2016. Capturing consumer engage-
ment: duality, dimensionality and measurement. J. Market. Manag. 32 (5–6),
399–426.
Echeverri, P., Skalen, P., 2011. Co-creation and Co-destruction: a practice-theory
based study of interactive value formation. Market. Theory 11 (3), 351–373.
Farquhar, J.D., Robson, J., 2017. Selective demarketing: when customers destroy
value. Market. Theory 17 (2), 165–182.
Fehrer, J.A., Woratschek, H., Germelmann, C.C., Brodie, R.J., 2018. Dynamics and
drivers of customer engagement: within the dyad and beyond. J. Serv. Manag.
29 (3), 443–467.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Hilton, T., Davidson, A., Payne, A., Brozovic, D., 2014.
Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective. Market. Theory 14 (3),
327–351.
Frow, P., McColl-Kennedy, Payne, A., Govind, R., 2019. Service ecosystem well-being:
conceptualization and implications for theory and practice. Eur. J. Market. 53
(12), 2657–2691.
Gong, T., 2018. Customer brand engagement behavior in online brand communities.
J. Serv. Market. 32 (3), 286–299.
Greenberg, P., 2010. The impact of CRM 2.0 on customer insight. J. Bus. Ind. Market.
25, 410–419.
JID: AMJ
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa / Australasian Marketing Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L., Sisodia, R., Nordfält, J., 2018. Enhancing customer en-
gagement through consciousness. J. Retail. 93 (1), 55–64.
Groeger, L., Moroko, L., Hollebeek, L.D., 2016. Capturing value from non-paying con-
sumers’ engagement behaviours: field evidence and development of a theoreti-
cal model. J. Strateg. Market. 24 (3–4), 190–209.
Grönroos, C., Voima, P., 2013. Critical service logic: making sense of value creation
and Co-creation. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 41, 133–150.
Grönroos, C., Gummerus, J., 2014. The service revolution and its marketing im-
plications: service logic Vs service-dominant logic. Manag. Serv. Qual. 24 (3),
206–229.
Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., 1992. Observational data collection methods for services mar-
keting: an overview. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 20 (3), 217–224.
Guesalaga, R., 2016. The use of social media in sales: individual and organizational
antecedents, and the role of customer engagement in social media. Ind. Market.
Manag. 54, 71–79.
Harmeling, C.M., Moffett, J.W., Arnold, M.J., Carlson, B.D., 2017. Toward a theory of
customer engagement marketing. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 45, 312–335.
Harwood, T., Garry, T., 2015. An Investigation into Gamification as a customer en-
gagement experience environment. J. Serv. Market. 29 (6/7), 533–546.
Heinonen, K., 2018. Positive and negative valence influencing consumer engage-
ment. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 28 (2), 147–169.
Hollebeek, L.D., Chen, T., 2014. Exploring positively- versus negatively-valenced
brand engagement: a conceptual model. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 23 (1), 62–74.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K., Chen, T., 2019. SD logic–informed customer engage-
ment: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application
to CRM. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 47 (1), 161–185.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., Brodie, R., 2014. Consumer brand engagement in social
media: conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Market.
28, 149–165.
Hollebeek, L.D., Andreassen, T.W., 2018. The S-D Logic-Informed “Hamburger” Model
of Service Innovation and Its Implications for Engagement and Value. J. Serv.
Market. 32 (1), 1–7.
Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., 2016. Linking customer engagement to trust and word-of–
mouth on facebook brand communities: an empirical study. J. Internet Commer.
15 (1), 40–58.
Jaakkola, E., Alexander, M., 2014. The role of customer engagement behaviour in
value co-creation: a service system perspective. J. Serv. Res. 17 (3), 247–261.
Jaakkola, E., Conduit, J., Fehrer, J., 2018. Tracking the evolution of engagement
research: illustration of midrange theory in service-dominant paradigm. In:
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic.
SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 580–598.
Johnson, M.D., Fornell, C., 1991. A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction
Across Individuals and Product Categories. J. Econ. Psychol. 12 (2), 267–286.
Karpen, I.O., Bove, L.L., Lukas, B.A., 2012. Linking service-dominant logic and strate-
gic business practice: a conceptual model of a service-dominant orientation. J.
Serv. Res. 15 (1), 21–38.
Kim, S.Y., Yi, Y., 2017. Embarrassed customers: the dark side of receiving help from
others. J. Serv. Manag. 28 (4), 788–806.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., Tillmanns, S., 2010. Un-
dervalued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value.
J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 297–310.
Kumar, V., Pansari, A., 2016. Competitive advantage through Engagement. J. Market.
Res. LIII, 497–514.
Lariviere, B., Joosten, H., Malthouse, E.C., van Birgelen, M., Aksoy, P., Kunz, W.H.,
Huang, M., 2013. Value fusion: the blending of consumer and firm value in the
distinct context of mobile technologies and social media. J. Serv. Manag. 24 (3),
268–293.
Letheren, K., Russell-Bennett, R., Mulcahy, R.F., McAndrew, R., 2019. Rules of (house-
hold) engagement: technology as manager, assistant and intern. Eur. J. Market.
53 (9), 1934–1961.
Li, L.P., Juric, B., Brodie, R.J., 2017. Dynamic multi-actor engagement in networks: the
case of united breaks guitars. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 27 (4), 738–760.
Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Malthouse, E.C., Haenlein, M., Skiera, B., Wege, E., Zhang, M., 2013. Managing cus-
tomer relationships in the social media Era: introducing the social CRM house.
J. Interact. Market. 27, 270–280.
Marbach, J., Lages, C.R., Nunan, D., 2016. Who are you and what DO you value? In-
vestigating the role of personality traits and customer-perceived value in online
customer engagement. J. Market. Manag. 32 (5–6), 502–525.
Marketing Science Institute (2018). Research Priorities 2018-2020. Accessed 12 Jan-
uary 2019. Available at https://www.msi.org/uploads/articles/MSI_RP18-20.pdf.
Marketing Science Institute (2010). 2010–2012 research priorities. Accessed 23
December 2018. Available athttp://image.sciencenet.cn/olddata/kexue.com.cn/
upload/blog/file/2010/9/201091515178616316.pdf.
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E.C., Collinger, T., 2016. The customer engagement ecosys-
tem. J. Market. Manag. 32 (5–6), 469–501.
Mattila, A.S., Wu, L., Choi, C., 2016. Powerful or powerless customers: the influence
of gratitude on engagement with CSR. J. Serv. Market. 30 (5), 519–528.
McColl-Kennedy, J.R., Vargo, S.L., Dagger, T.S., Sweeney, J.C., van Kasteren, Y., 2012.
Health care customer value cocreation practice styles. J. Serv. Res. 15 (Novem-
ber), 370–389.
Please cite this article as: S.C. Ng, J.C. Sweeney and C. Plewa, Customer engagement: A systematic review and future research priorities,
Australasian Marketing Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.05.004
[m5G;June 18, 2020;0:58]
17
Meshram, K., O’Cass, A., 2018. Senior citizen’s perspective on the value offerings of
third place via Customer to Customer (C-2-C) engagement. J. Serv. Market. 32
(2), 175–194.
Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship market-
ing. J. Market. 58 (3), 20–38.
Naumann, K., Bowden, J.L., Gabbott, M., 2017. Exploring customer engagement va-
lences in the social services. Asia Pacif. J. Market. 29 (4), 890–912.
Ng, S.C., Plewa, C., Sweeney, J.C., 2016. Customer engagement with a service offer-
ing: a framework for complex services. In: Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Con-
duit, J. (Eds.), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and Challenges.
Routledge, UK, pp. 193–210.
Ng, S.C., Plewa, C., Sweeney, J.C., 2016. Professional service providers’ resource inte-
gration styles (PRO-RIS): Facilitating customer experiences. J. Serv. Res. 19 (4),
380–395.
Ng, S.C., Sweeney, J.C., Plewa, C., 2019. Managing customer resource endowments
and deficiencies for value cocreation: Complex relational services. J. Serv. Res.
22 (2), 156–172.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 36, 83–96.
Peloza, J., Shang, J., 2011. How Can Corporate social responsibility activities create
value for stakeholders? A systematic review. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 39, 117–135.
Pongpaew, W., Speece, M., Tiangsoongnern, L., 2017. Social presence and customer
brand engagement on facebook Brand Pages. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 26 (3),
262–281.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 20 0 0. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Bus.
Rev. 78 (1), 79–87.
Prentice, C., Loureiro, S.M.C., 2018. Consumer-based approach to customer engage-
ment: the case of luxury brands. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 43, 325–332.
Rehnen, L., Bartsch, S., Kull, M., Meyer, A., 2017. Exploring the impact of rewarded
social media engagement in loyalty programs. J. Serv. Manag. 28 (2), 305–328.
Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R.M., Krishnan, V., 2012. Social Media’s Influence on busi-
ness-to- business sales performance. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 32, 365–378.
Rousseau, D.M., Manning, J., Denyer, D., 2008. Evidence in management and organi-
zational science. Acad. Manag. Annal. 2 (1), 475–515.
Roy, S.K., Vaibhav, S., Lassar, W.M., Chen, T., 2018. Customer engagement behaviours:
the role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 44,
293–304.
Schneider, B., Bowen, D.E., 1999. Understanding customer delight and outrage. MIT
Sloan Manag. Rev. 41 (1), 35–45.
Seiders, K., Berry, L.L., 1998. Service fairness: what it is and why it matters. Acad.
Manag. Execut. 12 (2), 8–20.
Shah, S.K., Corley, K.G., 2006. Building better theory by bridging the quantita-
tive-qualitative divide. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (8), 1821–1835.
So, K.K.F., King, C., Sparks, B.A., Wang, Y., 2016. Enhancing customer relationships
with retail service brands: the role of customer engagement. J. Serv. Manag. 27
(2), 170–193.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R.J., Bohmann, T., Maglio, P.P., Nenonen, S., 2016. Actor engage-
ment as a microfoundation for value Co-creation. J. Bus. Res. 69, 3008–3017.
Straker, K. and Wrigley, C. (2016). J. Fashion Market. Manag., 20(3), 276-299.
Thakur, R., 2016. Understanding customer engagement and loyalty: a case of mobile
devices for shopping. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 32, 151–163.
Transfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing ev-
idence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Brit.
J. Manag. 14, 207–222.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., Verhoef, P., 2010.
Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research direc-
tions. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 253–266.
Vargo, S.L., 2009. Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a ser-
vice-dominant logic perspective. J. Bus. Ind. Market. 24 (5–6), 373–379.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J.
Market. 68, 1–17.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J.
Acad. Market. Sci. 36, 1–10.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R., 2011. It’s All B2B… and beyond: toward a systems perspective
of the market. Ind. Market. Manag. 40, 181–187.
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., Krafft, M., 2010. Customer engagement as a new per-
spective in customer management. J. Serv. Res. 13 (3), 247–252.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P., Rangarajan, D., 2014. Managing engagement behaviors in a
network of customers and stakeholders: evidence from the nursing home sec-
tor. J. Serv. Res. 17 (1), 68–84.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Dalela, V., Morgan, R.M., 2014. A generalized multidimen-
sional scale for measuring customer engagement. J. Market. Theory Pract. 22
(4), 401–420.
Vivek, S.D., Beatty, S.E., Morgan, R.M., 2012. Customer engagement: exploring cus-
tomer relationships beyond purchase. J. Market. Theory Pract. 20 (2), 127–145.
Wirtz, J., Lovelock, C.H., 2018. Essentials of Services Marketing, 3rd Edition Pearson
Education Limited, Harlow, United Kingdom.
Zhang, T., Lu, C., Torres, E., Chen, P., 2018. Engaging customers in value co-creation
or co-destruction online. J. Serv. Market. 32 (1), 57–69.