The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-5818.htm
JOSM
33,4/5
774
Received 9 January 2022
Revised 3 March 2022
2 April 2022
11 April 2022
Accepted 13 April 2022
Journal of Service Management
Vol. 33 No. 4/5, 2022
pp. 774-786
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-5818
DOI 10.1108/JOSM-01-2022-0009
The role of proximity in
omnichannel customer experience:
a service logic perspective
Ilaria Dalla Pozza
Department of Marketing, IPAG Business School, Paris, France
Abstract
Purpose – This article proposes a new theoretical background against which to measure customer experience
for omnichannel service deliveries and communications based on the concept of proximity. This represents a
first step in developing a new measurement approach for omnichannel customer experience.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodological approach is based on literature review and theory
development. Various streams of literature are integrated on the basis of their interactionist nature (service
logic, psychological distance theory, and omnichannel customer experience literature), and theory is developed
based thereon.
Findings – Successful omnichannel service deliveries and communications should build proximity with the
customer during interactions at the different touchpoints. Proximity represents the value-in-use for the
customer, who is coproducer of value at each interaction. Proximity can be applied to all touchpoints, thus
strengthening seamlessness for omnichannel service deliveries and communications.
Originality/value – This research advances knowledge by integrating the concepts of omnichannel and
proximity under the lenses of service logic. The author proposes a new theoretical background for the
measurement of omnichannel customer experience that contributes to the literature. In modern omnichannel
service deliveries and communications, a measurement approach based on proximity fulfills the need to
reconcile customer experiences at both remote and physical touchpoints for a holistic and coherent customer
experience. Use of the four proximity dimensions (social, temporal, spatial, and hypothetical) gives flexibility to
managers to build proximity across remote and physical touchpoints in different industries.
Keywords Omnichannel service deliveries, Omnichannel communications, Customer experience, Proximity,
Psychological distance, Service logic
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Today, company–customer encounters and communications can take place through myriad
touchpoints (Cui et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021b; Gasparin et al., 2022; Gao and Huang, 2021; De
Keyser et al., 2019).
The term “omnichannel” has become commonplace (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Shi et al.,
2020; Cui et al., 2021; Gao et al., 2021a, b). In discussing the meaning of the term, Ailawadi and
Farris (2017, p. 120) noted that omnichannel marketing encompasses not only the channels of
distribution through which manufacturers’ products reach the customer, but also the
channels of communication therein. Omnichannel communications rely on diverse
communication options, such as emails, websites, mobile phones, digital advertisements,
social media, search engines, chatbots, videoconferencing solutions, text messages, telephone
calls, letters, and face-to-face (Moffett et al., 2021). Cui et al. (2021, p. 104) defined omnichannel
marketing as the:
synergistic management of all customer touchpoints and channels both internal and external to the
firm to ensure that the customer experience across channels and firm-side marketing activity,
including marketing-mix and marketing communication (owned, paid and earned), is optimized for
both firms and their customers.
The understanding of customer experience in an omnichannel journey has been set as a key
research priority by the Marketing Science Institute (2020) for 2020–2022.
 Despite the abundant literature on customer experience, measurement approaches that Customer
are able to capture the customer experience in an omnichannel system remain unsatisfactory, experience for
as they lack generalizability for multiple industries and actionability for managers (Lemon
and Verhoef, 2016; De Keyser et al., 2020). In addition, they are not able to accurately and
omnichannel
succinctly capture the richness of the customer experience across touchpoints (Lemon and service
Verhoef, 2016; De Keyser et al., 2020; Becker and Jaakkola, 2020).
It follows that the understanding of the omnichannel customer experience need to be
improved; this could be done by adopting different perspectives and theoretical lenses that 775
could shed a different light on omnichannel and its dynamics. Important research gaps
remain, in particular with respect to the conceptual association of omnichannel vis-
a-vis other
theoretical entities such as the service logic (Gr€onroos, 1982, 2004, 2006; Vargo and Lusch,
2004, 2008a, b, 2009; Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Gummesson and Gr€onroos, 2012; Gr€onroos
and Voima, 2013; Vargo, 2009) and the concept of proximity (Trope and Liberman, 2010; Bar-
Anan et al., 2007; Lenglet and Mencarelli, 2020) that all share an interactionist perspective.
To address the aforementioned research gaps, the objective of this research is twofold.
First of all, it aims to propose a new theoretical background for the development of a new
measurement approach of the omnichannel customer experience based on the concept of
proximity and its four dimensions of spatial, temporal, social and hypothetical proximity
(Trope and Liberman, 2010). Rooted in the psychological distance literature, proximity is
defined as a subjective experience representing the degree of closeness or remoteness an
individual cocreates with stimuli in their environment (Bar-Anan et al., 2007). As omnichannel
encounters develop, distance between the customer and the company can take multiple
forms; in digital encounters, customers can be spatially and temporally distant from the offer,
since the act of possession is postponed. Remote encounters with technology-based service
frontlines might increase social distance and uncertainty. However, distance can be
negatively correlated with purchase intentions and an individual’s perceptions of value (Didi
Alaoui and Cova, 2021), and it also negatively affects trust (Darke et al., 2016). A successful
omnichannel strategy should build proximity across all touchpoints.
Second, by focusing on their interactionist nature, this research aims to integrate the
omnichannel and proximity concepts by adopting a service logic (Gr€onroos, 1982, 2004, 2006;
Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a, b, 2009; Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Gummesson and
Gr€onroos, 2012; Gr€onroos and Voima, 2013; Vargo, 2009). Omnichannel, proximity and
service logic share a theoretical focus on interactions between actors (e.g. customers,
company, employees), thus reflecting a significant conceptual fit of these perspectives,
warranting their joint investigation. This opens up several interesting opportunities for
enriching our understanding of today’s complex dynamics in omnichannel environments.
This research contributes to the existing literature in three ways. First, we develop an
integrative perspective that consolidates and harmonizes the omnichannel and proximity concepts
under the lenses of the service logic. MacInnis (2011, p. 138), when presenting the conceptual
contributions in marketing, defined “integrating” as viewing “previously distinct pieces as similar,
often in terms of a unified whole whose meaning is different from its constituent parts.”
Second, since much uncertainty still exists about the formation of the omnichannel
customer experience, and research on optimization of the customer experience in
omnichannel settings is still in an emerging phase (Gao et al., 2021a), the present study
advances understanding of the customer experience in an omnichannel setting by
introducing the concept of proximity.
Third, our work contributes to marketing practice by presenting proximity and its four
dimensions as actionable levers for managers to improve the omnichannel customer
experience.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we apply service
logic to the omnichannel domain by revising and integrating the major literature, followed by
JOSM a discussion of the omnichannel customer experience. We then introduce the concept of
33,4/5 proximity, which is rooted in the psychological distance literature, to the omnichannel
domain through the lens of service logic, thus contributing to the theoretical consolidation of
omnichannel customer experience and service logic. We then discuss our propositions and
present an agenda for future research. The paper concludes with an overview of managerial
implications arising from our analyses.
776
2. Introducing a service logic perspective in omnichannel
It is generally acknowledged that the foundation of omnichannel management, as an
academic concept, is grounded in the distribution channel and channel management
literature (Banerjee, 2014; Ailawadi and Farris, 2017; Palmatier et al., 2019; Ailawadi, 2021;
Cui et al., 2021). This has been determined in omnichannel literature that has placed a stronger
focus on channels of distribution, as opposed to communication channels (Ailawadi, 2021)
that were often treated separately in a multimedia communication approach (Moffett
et al., 2021).
As the omnichannel literature began to focus on the customer experience, distinctions
among channels (notably distribution and communication) started to become blurred. This
led to definition of the broader concept of “touchpoint” (rather than “channel”), which has
been defined as “an episode of direct or indirect contact with a brand or firm” (Verhoef et al.,
2015). In a broader sense, all touchpoints that provide sales, experience, service, and
communications become indistinguishable from the customer point of view in creating the
customer experience (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Ailawadi, 2021; Cui et al., 2021). However, the
inherent conceptual difficulty of integrating all channels under a unique conceptualization of
“touchpoint” is still evident in recent research on omnichannel marketing. Distribution and
communication channels are typically seen to be separate (Cui et al., 2021), while a successful
omnichannel strategy builds customer experiences across indistinguishable touchpoints.
The adoption of a service logic perspective in omnichannel enables us to transcend the
distinction among channels and reinforce the focus on the customer.
By relying on service logic, we focus our attention on the concepts of “process, customer
cocreation of value, interactions, and value-in-use” (Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a, 2008b,
2009; Lusch and Vargo, 2011; Gr€onroos and Voima, 2013). According to the service-dominant
logic (SDL) approach proposed by Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008a, b), service comprises a
firm’s focus on a continuous series of social and economic processes. More precisely, when
introducing a touchpoint perspective to SDL, Duncan and Moriarty (2006) presented a service
as being a communication experience and an ongoing process of social and economic
interactions.
During the omnichannel journey, customers interact with several channels and
touchpoints of the brand, thus ascribing their entire purchase journey to service logic
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Verhoef et al., 2015; Ailawadi and Farris, 2017; Ailawadi, 2021; Cui
et al., 2021). During the different interactions of the omnichannel journey, simultaneous
production and consumption of the service occurs (Gr€onroos, 1982, 2006; Vargo and Lusch,
2008a, b; Vargo, 2009). Services can be defined as:
processes that consist of a set of activities which take place in interactions between a customer and
people, goods and other physical resources, systems and or infrastructures, representing the service
provider and possibly involving other customers, which aims at solving customers’ problems.
(Gr€onroos, 2006, p. 6)
Adopting this logic, the customer’s omnichannel journey, with its series of interactions, can be
seen as an ongoing process during which value for the customer emerges. Value is no longer
embedded in the product, but is rather cocreated by the consumer (Vargo and Lusch, 2004,
2008a, b; Gr€onroos, 2006; Vargo, 2009; Gummesson and Mele, 2010; Gr€onroos and Voima, 2013). Customer
The concept of value-in-use reflects an approach whereby the supplier does not create value in experience for
their processes, but makes resources available to the consumer to create value for themselves
(Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2009). During the omnichannel journey, channels can be used
omnichannel
interchangeably by the customer as drivers of value creation (Neslin et al., 2006). The concept of service
value-in-use reflects the customer’s subjective perspective. The customers can freely choose the
channel they want to use to solve their problems in any circumstances. Thus, the customer is
the sole creator of value (Gr€onroos, 1982; Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008a, b; Gummesson and 777
Gr€onroos, 2012).
Nowadays, due to the proliferation of digital channels, the customer interface has grown.
Therein, several new interactions between the customer and the company have been
introduced, such as distance employee–customer interactions, AI-powered chatbots, virtual
reality systems, websites, emails, and service robots. Technology infused into frontline
encounters can partially or entirely substitute for human employees (De Keyser et al., 2019).
The adoption of service logic is justified whenever the customer interface includes more
content than the physical product alone, and when it includes myriad touchpoints, each of
which contributes to extending the customer’s contact—such as call center support, product
returns, complaints, service failures, and communications with human and technology-based
service frontlines (Gr€onroos, 1982, 2004, 2006). As touchpoints multiply, the value-generation
process becomes more complex. The customer omnichannel journey represents a service
interface to which service marketing concepts can be applied. It is this ongoing service
process that the customer consumes, thus creating value. The omnichannel process is the
service (Gr€onroos, 2006); thus, in this paper we adopt the term “omnichannel service.”

3. The omnichannel customer experience

A successful omnichannel strategy aims to provide a superior customer experience (Lemon
and Verhoef, 2016; De Keyser et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021a). Although omnichannel
management has received considerable attention from academics and practitioners in recent
years, the dilemma regarding how to measure omnichannel customer experience remains (De
Keyser et al., 2020). As Lemon and Verhoef (2016) pointed out, one critical aspect of managing
customer experience is the ability to measure and then monitor customer reactions to the
multitude of interactions that occur along the customer journey. While interest in measuring
the customer experience arises from the need to provide actionable insights for managers
(Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; De Keyser et al., 2020), current customer experience definitions are
still too broad to ensure their applicability to business (Becker and Jaakkola, 2020; De Keyser
et al., 2020).
Several authors have proposed measurements of customer experience (Brakus et al., 2009;
Maklan, 2012; Klaus and Maklan, 2013) with no one measure dominating others. More
recently, several studies on the omnichannel customer experience have appeared in the
emerging omnichannel marketing literature (Hickman et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2020; Gao and
Huang, 2021; Gao et al., 2021a, b). This field of research has generated several and varied
definitions of the omnichannel customer experience, thus leading to fragmentation and
theoretical confusion. For instance, Le and Nguyen-Le (2020) defined the omnichannel
customer experience as satisfaction with the experience and positive emotions, whereas Gao
et al. (2021a) described it as a two-dimensional construct composed of cognitive and affective
experience, and Shi et al. (2020) posited it as a five-dimensional construct comprising
connectivity, integration, consistency, flexibility, and personalization. Quach et al. (2020)
operationalized omnichannel customer experience as flow and perceived privacy risk. Gao
et al. (2021b) proposed a two-dimensional construct composed of online and offline
experiences, while Rodrıguez-Torrico et al. (2020) conceptualized the omnichannel customer
JOSM experience as consistency, freedom in channel selection, and synchronization across
33,4/5 channels. The majority of these studies have been conducted in the retail industry (Shi et al.,
2020; Gao et al., 2021a), and are not consistent across industries and touchpoints to a higher
level of generalizability (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016).
The omnichannel customer experience can be holistically delineated during a customer
journey across multiple touchpoints, in which seamless switching among channels is the
central feature (Le and Nguyen-Le, 2020).
778

4. Proximity as a new theoretical background against which to measure

omnichannel customer experience
We propose a new theoretical background against which to measure omnichannel customer
experience based on the concept of proximity, as opposed to remoteness or distance.
Intuitively, people experience proximity every day with a variety of stimuli from companies
(Didi Alaoui and Cova, 2021). For instance, we experience physical proximity when we
observe and touch products in a store, or temporal proximity when we receive a rapid answer
from a customer service representative. We might experience social distance after receiving a
cold or irrelevant answer from a vendor. In an omnichannel setting, we refer to the proximity
experienced by the customer at each interaction with a touchpoint. This approach is
customer-centric, as the customer experiences a subjective state of proximity across
touchpoints, both digital and physical. According to Lenglet and Mencarelli (2020), in today’s
competitive markets, building proximity with customers can be seen as a new form of
competitive advantage.
Based on three different streams of literature— service logic, omnichannel customer
experience and psychological distance (Figure 1)—we highlight the reasons why proximity is
suitable for providing a new theoretical background against which to measure omnichannel
customer experience.
Table 1 indicates the three different streams of literature with the related concepts and
authors.
First, the concept of proximity can be ascribed to the service logic literature, since it
reflects critical aspects of service logic—namely, process, customer cocreation of value,
interaction, and value-in-use. Second, in the same way that the omnichannel customer
experience is by nature interactionist, seamless, and dynamic (Gao et al., 2021a), the concept
of proximity reflects these three characteristics. Third, based on psychological distance

Psychological distance

PROXIMITY

Omnichannel
O
customer
Figure 1. Service logic experience
Theoretical
background of
PROXIMITY
Concepts Authors
Customer
experience for
Service logic omnichannel
Process, customer co-creation of value, Gr€onroos (1982, 2004, 2006), Gummesson and Mele (2010),
interaction, value-in-use Gummesson and Gr€onroos (2012), Gr€onroos and Voima (2013), service
Lusch and Vargo (2011), Vargo (2009), Vargo and Lusch (2004,
2008a, b, 2009)
Omnichannel customer experience
779
Seamlessness, interactionist nature, Becker and Jaakkola (2020), Calder et al. (2016), Lemon and
dynamic Verhoef (2016), Gasparin et al. (2022), De Keyser et al. (2020), Gao
and Huang (2021), Gao et al. (2021a, b), Hickman et al. (2020), Le
and Nguyen (2020), Quach et al. (2020), Rodriguez-Torrico et al.
(2020), Shi et al. (2020)
Table 1.
Psychological distance Theoretical
Spatial, temporal, social and hypothetical Bar-Anan et al. (2007), Didi Alaoui and Cova (2021), Lenglet and background of
distance Mencarelli (2020), Maglio et al. (2013), Trope et al. (2007), Trope PROXIMITY, concepts
and Liberman (2010) and authors

theory, proximity comprises four dimensions—spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical—

on which managers can act to improve each touchpoint.

4.1 Proximity defined according to the psychological distance literature

The academic concept of proximity (as opposed to remoteness or distance) is rooted in the
academic literature on psychological distance (Bar-Anan et al., 2007; Trope et al., 2007; Trope
and Liberman, 2010). According to Trope and Liberman (2010, p. 440):
Psychological distance is a subjective experience that something is close or far away from the self,
here and now. Psychological distance is egocentric: its reference point is the self, here and now, and
the different ways in which an object might be removed from this point–in time, space, social
distance, and hypotheticality- constitute different distance dimensions.
According to the literature, psychological distance has four dimensions: spatial distance,
temporal distance, social distance, and hypothetical distance (Bar-Anan et al., 2007). During
omnichannel service interactions, the four dimensions of proximity can be experienced by
consumers. Spatial distance refers to the physical distance between an individual and an
entity (object, event, or person) (Bar-Anan et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2010). In an
omnichannel service, interactions frequently occur without physical presence, in the context
of a distance relationship. Temporal distance refers to the time interval between the present
action, or choice on the part of the consumer, and the effective moment at which the desired
result is obtained. For instance, when a consumer seeks product support via the Internet,
high/low accessibility of product support indicates low/high temporal distance. Long
delivery times represent high temporal distance, while instantaneity or immediateness of a
customer service response resonates with proximity. Temporal distance also reflects the
possibility for the customer of easily and immediately interacting with the company
whenever the need arises (representing accessibility).
Social distance (interpersonal space) refers to how distinct a social object or person is from
the consumer (Bar-Anan et al., 2007). In the literature, it has been conceptualized, for instance,
as similarity in relation to another person with respect to culture, politeness, and power (for a
review, see Didi Alaoui and Cova, 2021). In an omnichannel service context, social distance
can represent the degree of politeness, benevolence, or empathy felt during an encounter, and
the degree to which a customer’s requests are listened to and considered. The degree of
JOSM consumer knowledge the company shows by personalizing offers and messages increases the
33,4/5 social proximity. Personalized and appropriate content sent to the customer with a suitable
posture strengthens social proximity. Hypothetical distance (Bar-Anan et al., 2007) represents
uncertainty, such as the probability of an event occurring or the likelihood that an object
exists. In an omnichannel service context, it indicates the uncertainty related to the customer
being able to get in touch with the company, the probability of not being well-served, the fear
of not finding a solution, and the fear of not receiving the product on time after placing an
780 online order. It also represents the uncertainty of correctly using the different available
channels.
According to Maglio et al. (2013), a consumer can experience more than one distance at a
time, and the four dimensions form a unique construct of distance (or proximity). Each
touchpoint might perform differently on the four dimensions of proximity, thus giving
flexibility to managers on the levers that can be used. Although previous studies have applied
proximity to the marketing sphere (Darke et al., 2016; Didi Alaoui and Cova, 2021), this
concept has never been associated with omnichannel service.

4.2 Proximity and service logic

Proximity is egocentric; that is, it refers to the distance between an individual and a stimulus,
thus involving an interaction between two entities (Lenglet and Mencarelli, 2020). Proximity
is experienced and cocreated by the consumer in each interaction during which creation and
consumption of value occur at the same time, thus acknowledging value-in-use (Vargo and
Lusch, 2008a, 2008b). This concept of value-in-use is customer-oriented (Vargo and Lusch,
2008a, 2008b), which reinforces the focus on the customer in an omnichannel service context.
Proximity represents the value-in-use the customer derives from the omnichannel process.
Each touchpoint should build proximity, which is the value-in-use generated by the
omnichannel service. The fact that the concept of proximity can be ascribed to service logic
(according to the concept of process, interaction, value-in-use, and value cocreation),
legitimates its use in an omnichannel service context and justifies the choice of service logic as
a theoretical background.

4.3 Proximity and the omnichannel customer experience literature

The concept of proximity reflects all three omnichannel customer experience
characteristics—that is, nature interactionist, seamless, and dynamic (Gao et al., 2021a).
Proximity’s interactionist nature is revealed in a consumer’s interaction with a company’s
products, services, channels, and personnel over time (Gao et al., 2021a). Seamlessness in the
omnichannel service context implies dismantling barriers between company touchpoints to
provide superior customer experiences (Rodrıguez-Torrico et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021a). The
customer receives a superior omnichannel experience when distinctions among channels are
blurred. Thus, the primary objective of an omnichannel service is to eliminate distinctions
between channels and create synergy among them for the customer (Gao et al., 2021a; Verhoef
et al., 2015).
The concept of proximity can be applied to all touchpoints. Touchpoints can be evaluated
according to the same criteria, as the distinction between them vanishes to provide a seamless
experience. Proximity is also dynamic as it has the potential to evolve over time.

5. Discussion and agenda for future research

By adopting a service logic perspective and relying on the concept of proximity, this
conceptual study contributes to the understanding of the omnichannel concept in the
following ways. First, we contribute to omnichannel literature by integrating it with the
concept of proximity under a service logic perspective. The adoption of a service logic Customer
perspective in omnichannel enables us to transcend distinction among channels. Prior studies experience for
on the omnichannel concept have been rooted in the distribution channel literature, thus
missing a holistic perspective on distribution and communication channels. Such channels
omnichannel
have been viewed as separate (Cui et al., 2021), while an omnichannel strategy should build service
seamlessness across indistinguishable touchpoints. Omnichannel service deliveries,
omnichannel communications, and omnichannel distribution harmonize through
interactions to create a unified omnichannel customer experience (Cui et al., 2021). 781
A successful omnichannel service is one that builds proximity among the parties involved
during interactions at the different touchpoints. Proximity represents the value-in-use for the
customer, who is a coproducer of value at each interaction. From the customer’s point of view,
touchpoints are indistinguishable.
Second, this study contributes to the understanding and measurement of the omnichannel
customer experience by providing a new theoretical background for the development of a
measurement approach according to proximity. Previous studies have indicated that there is an
urgent need for a measure of customer experience that remains consistent across industries and
touchpoints with a higher level of generalizability (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Becker and
Jaakkola, 2020). The concept of proximity and its four dimensions can be applied to all
touchpoints (distance channels, such as online channels; and physical touchpoints, such as
stores) in all industries, and different touchpoints can be evaluated according to the same criteria.
Although this research has highlighted the virtues of adopting proximity for omnichannel
management, several limitations leave room for further investigation. First, more work is
needed to provide a measurement instrument that describes the four dimensions of proximity
in the context of omnichannel service. Even if the four dimensions form a unitary construct,
since they give rise to the same meaning in the consumer’s mind (psychological distance)
(Bar-Anan et al., 2007), they might have a different level of importance in different contexts for
different consumers. A mixed-methods design can be used, composed of both qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Qualitative data can also be collected to obtain valuable insights
into the construct of proximity in an omnichannel setting, while quantitative data can be used
to validate the instrument.
To sum up, a future research agenda could seek to answer the following research
questions:
(1) How can the four dimensions of proximity be operationalized for an omnichannel
service?
(2) Are all dimensions equally important in forming the construct of proximity, or does
one dimension have a stronger influence on proximity than the others?
(3) How can proximity be measured across different services and industrial settings?
Second, in defining proximity the construct should be distinguished from related constructs.
The nomological net of the construct in the context of an omnichannel service should be
defined, with antecedents and consequences. According to the literature, proximity fosters
the development of trust (Darke et al., 2016; Srivastava and Singh, 2010), commitment,
loyalty, and satisfaction (Lenglet and Mencarelli, 2020), purchase intentions (Huyghe et al.,
2017), positive word-of-mouth (Gao et al., 2021a), and purchasing behavior (Didi Alaoui and
Cova, 2021). More precisely, the relationship between proximity and customer engagement
should also be investigated. Although these constructs share an interactive nature (Hollebeek
et al., 2019), proximity should be seen separate from customer engagement. Hollebeek et al.
(2019) noted the highly voluntary motivational nature of customer engagement, since
customers choose to invest resources in a company’s interactions; while Brakus et al. (2009)
JOSM stated that brand experience does not presume any motivational state. Hollebeek et al. (2019)
33,4/5 included customer cocreation as an outcome and benefit (such as proximity) of customer
engagement. However, when analyzing the relationship between customer engagement and
proximity, the existence of multiple customer engagement conceptualizations and
measurement tools should be considered. For instance, according to Calder et al. (2016)
customer engagement arises from experiences with a product or service.
Third, since proximity is presented in this research as the value-in-use generated during
782 omnichannel service, it also contributes to extant research on the cocreation process and its
outcome of cocreated value (Hollebeek et al., 2021). Future research should investigate the
concept of proximity from the perspective of the value cocreation literature (Ranjan and Read,
2016). In this regard, Hollebeek et al. (2021) defined customer digital cocreated value (CDCV)
as the consumer-perceived value that arises by interacting, collaborating, or communicating
with or through digital platforms (touchpoints). According to Hollebeek et al. (2021), intimacy
reflects a digital platform’s consumer-perceived ability to spark warmth and closeness, while
“immediacy is a digital platform’s perceived capacity to give urgency or importance to an
exchange” (p. 7). Thus, while intimacy is synonymous with closeness (social distance),
immediacy may reflect temporal distance. Further research could better delineate the links
among these variables and proximity with its dimensionality.

6. General conclusions and managerial implications

Today, omnichannel service has become the norm. However, companies still face the
challenge of fully capturing and measuring the omnichannel customer experience across
several touchpoints. Based on the service logic and psychological distance literature, we
propose a new theoretical background against which to measure omnichannel customer
experience based on the concept of proximity.
In addition to theoretical contributions, this study has practical implications for
omnichannel businesses. First, in a context where the marketing discipline is strongly
focused on examining how companies interact with their customers and how these
interactions affect the customer experience, proximity, with its interactionist nature, provides
a customer-centric view of omnichannel management; this will help practitioners to build
customer-oriented omnichannel strategies.
Second, as contact channels and touchpoints proliferate, the concept of proximity with its
four dimensions can be applied by managers across industries and touchpoints, facilitating
comparability and seamlessness of the omnichannel service. The four dimensions of
proximity (spatial, temporal, social, and hypothetical distance) represent actionable levers for
managers to improve the omnichannel customer experience across touchpoints.
By relying on the four dimensions of proximity, managers can enhance the overall
customer perception of proximity. For instance, in distance (remote) customer–company
relationships, in the absence of spatial proximity, social proximity can be enhanced by
relying on personalization. The content, the tone of the message, and the channel of
communication used can be personalized to deliver a message that is more friendly, intimate,
and closer to the customer. The tone and the type of conversation might be adapted to the age
of the customer, and companies could explore the benefits of communicating with customers
in their native language.
Third, by adopting proximity, managers can efficiently allocate their resources among
channels and customer segments according to the perceived proximity and its four
dimensions (Palmatier et al., 2019). A segmentation approach to customers based on
perceived proximity could be considered in conjunction with customer lifetime value. If high-
value customers place worth on temporal proximity (for instance, receiving an order more
quickly), companies should invest in channels that improve efficiency and reducing customer
effort.
 As omnichannel strategies develop through complex interactions, we expect proximity to Customer
become a variable of central interest for managers wishing to succeed in the omnichannel experience for
service context in the 21st century.
omnichannel
service
References
Ailawadi, K.L. (2021), “Commentary: omnichannel from a manufacturer’s perspective”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 121-125. 783
Ailawadi, K.L. and Farris, P.W. (2017), “Managing multi-and omni-channel distribution: metrics and
research directions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 120-135.
Banerjee, M. (2014), “Misalignment and its influence on integration quality in multichannel services”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 460-474.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y. and Algom, D. (2007), “Automatic processing of psychological
distance: evidence from a Stroop task”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 136
No. 4, pp. 610-622.
Becker, L. and Jaakkola, E. (2020), “Customer experience: fundamental premises and implications for
research”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 630-648.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 52-68.
Calder, B.J., Isaac, M.S. and Malthouse, E.C. (2016), “How to capture consumer experiences: a context-
specific approach to measuring engagement: predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively
different experiences”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 39-52.
Cui, T.H., Ghose, A., Halaburda, H., Iyengar, R., Pauwels, K., Sriram, S., Tucker, C. and Venkataraman,
S. (2021), “Informational challenges in omnichannel marketing: remedies and future research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 103-120.
Darke, P.R., Brady, M.K., Benedictus, R.L. and Wilson, A.E. (2016), “Feeling close from Afar: the role of
psychological distance in offsetting distrust in unfamiliar online retailers”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 287-299, doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2016.02.001.
De Keyser, A., K€ocher, S., Alkire, L., Verbeeck, C. and Kandampully, J. (2019), “Frontline Service
technology infusion: conceptual archetypes and future research directions”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 156-183.
De Keyser, A., Verleye, K., Lemon, K.N., Keiningham, T.L. and Klaus, P. (2020), “Moving the customer
experience field forward: introducing the touchpoints, context, qualities (No. TCQ)
nomenclature”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 433-455.
Didi Alaoui, M. and Cova, V. (2021), “La distance psychologique comme outil actionnable par les
managers”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 58-82, doi: 10.1177/
0767370121992803.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (2006), “How integrated marketing communication’s ‘touchpoints’ can
operationalize the service-dominant logic”, The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog,
Debate, and Directions, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 236-249.
Gao, M. and Huang, L. (2021), “Quality of channel integration and customer loyalty in omnichannel
retailing: the mediating role of customer engagement and relationship program receptiveness”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 63, 102688.
Gao, W., Fan, H., Li, W. and Wang, H. (2021a), “Crafting the customer experience in omnichannel
contexts: the role of channel integration”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 126, pp. 12-22,
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.056.
Gao, W., Li, W., Fan, H. and Jia, X. (2021b), “How customer experience incongruence affects
omnichannel customer retention: the moderating role of channel characteristics”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 60, 102487.
JOSM Gasparin, I., Panina, E., Becker, L., Yrj€ol€a, M., Jaakkola, E. and Pizzutti, C. (2022), “Challenging the
‘integration imperative’: a customer perspective on omnichannel journeys”, Journal of Retailing
33,4/5 and Consumer Services, Vol. 64, 102829.
Gr€onroos, C. (1982), “An applied service marketing theory”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 16
No. 7, pp. 30-41.
Gr€onroos, C. (2004), “The relationship marketing process: communication, interaction, dialogue,
value”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
784
Gr€onroos, C. (2006), “Adopting a service logic for marketing”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-16.
Gr€onroos, C. and Voima, P. (2013), “Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and co-
creation”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 133-150, doi: 10.1007/
s11747-012-0308-3.
Gummesson, E. and Gr€onroos, C. (2012), “The emergence of the new service marketing: Nordic School
perspectives”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 479-497.
Gummesson, E. and Mele, C. (2010), “Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and
resource integration”, Journal of Business Market Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 181-198.
Hickman, E., Kharouf, H. and Sekhon, H. (2020), “An omnichannel approach to retailing: demystifying
and identifying the factors influencing an omnichannel experience”, The International Review of
Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 266-288.
Hollebeek, L.D., Srivastava, R.K. and Chen, T. (2019), “SD logic-informed customer engagement:
integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-185.
Hollebeek, L.D., Clark, M.K. and Macky, K. (2021), “Demystifying consumer digital cocreated value:
social presence theory-informed framework and propositions”, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing (English Edition), Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 24-42.
Huyghe, E., Verstraeten, J., Geuens, M. and Van Kerckhove, A. (2017), “Clicks as a healthy alternative
to bricks: how online grocery shopping reduces vice purchases”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Klaus, P. and Maklan, S. (2013), “Towards a better measure of customer experience”, International
Journal of Market Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 227-246.
Le, A.N.H. and Nguyen-Le, X.-D. (2020), “A moderated mediating mechanism of omnichannel customer
experiences”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 49 No. 5,
pp. 595-615.
Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2016), “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer
journey”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 69-96, doi: 10.1509/jm.15.0420.
Lenglet, F. and Mencarelli, R. (2020), “Proximity in marketing: an integrating theoretical framework
and research agenda”, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 99-124, doi: 10.
1177/2051570720957152.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2011), “Service-dominant logic: a necessary step”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 7/8, pp. 1298-1309.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011), “A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-154.
Maglio, S.J., Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2013), “Distance from a distance: psychological distance
reduces sensitivity to any further psychological distance”, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, Vol. 142 No. 3, pp. 644-657.
Maklan, S. (2012), “EXQ: a multiple-item scale for assessing service experience”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 5-33.
Marketing Science Institute (2020), Research Priorities 2020-2022, Marketing Science Instituite,
Cambridge, MA, available at: https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MSI_RP20-
22.pdf.
Moffett, J.W., Folse, J.A.G. and Palmatier, R.W. (2021), “A theory of multiformat communication: mechanisms, Customer
dynamics, and strategies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 441-461.
experience for
Neslin, S.A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M.L., Thomas, J.S. and Verhoef, P.C. (2006),
“Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management”, Journal of Service
omnichannel
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 95-112. service
Palmatier, R.W., Sivadas, E., Stern, L.W. and El-Ansary, A.I. (2019), Marketing Channel Strategy: An
Omni-Channel Approach, Routledge, New York.
785
y, D.V. and Quach, K. (2020), “Service integration in omnichannel retailing
Quach, S., Barari, M., Moudr
and its impact on customer experience”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 65,
102267.
Ranjan, K.R. and Read, S. (2016), “Value co-creation: concept and measurement”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 290-315.
Rodrıguez-Torrico, P., Trabold Apadula, L., San-Martın, S. and San Jose Cabezudo, R. (2020), “Have an
omnichannel seamless interaction experience! Dimensions and effect on consumer satisfaction”,
Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 36 Nos 17-18, pp. 1731-1761.
Shi, S., Wang, Y., Chen, X. and Zhang, Q. (2020), “Conceptualization of omnichannel customer
experience and its impact on shopping intention: a mixed-method approach”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 50, pp. 325-336.
Srivastava, V. and Singh, T. (2010), “Value creation through relationship closeness”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-17.
Trope, Y. and Liberman, N. (2010), “Construal-level theory of psychological distance”, Psychological
Review, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 440-463, doi: 10.1037/a0018963.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N. and Wakslak, C. (2007), “Construal levels and psychological distance: effects
on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 83-95, doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408.No.0770013-X.
Vargo, S.L. (2009), “Toward a transcending conceptualization of relationship: a service-dominant logic
perspective”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6, pp. 373-379.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 1-17, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008a), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008b), “Why ’service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 25-38, doi: 10.1007/s11747-007-0068-7.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2009), A Service-Dominant Logic for Marketing, SAGE Publications,
London.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K. and Inman, J.J. (2015), “From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel
retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 174-181.

Further reading
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B. and Ilic, A. (2011), “Customer engagement: conceptual domain,
fundamental propositions, and implications for research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 252-271.
De Haan, E., Verhoef, P.C. and Wiesel, T. (2015), “The predictive ability of different customer feedback
metrics for retention”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 195-206.
Jiang, C., Rashid, R.M. and Wang, J. (2019), “Investigating the role of social presence dimensions and
information support on consumers’ trust and shopping intentions”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 51, pp. 263-270.
JOSM Reichheld, F.F. (2003), “The one number you need to grow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 12,
pp. 46-55.
33,4/5
About the author
Ilaria Dalla Pozza is Professor of Marketing at IPAG Business School, where she is responsible for the
development of research activities for marketing in the insurance and bancassurance sector. She holds a
Master’s degree in Engineering and a Doctorate in Marketing from Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Prior to
786 joining IPAG, she was Assistant Professor at the University of Connecticut (USA). Ilaria develops
research in the areas of digital and omnichannel customer relationship management and customer value.
She is specialized in marketing in the insurance industry. She is a speaker on topics of marketing in the
insurance industry. She is the founder of the Association for Insurance Marketing, an international
network of insurance marketing researchers. Her research has been published in Journal of Retailing,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Journal of Strategic Marketing and International Journal of Bank Marketing. Ilaria Dalla
Pozza can be contacted at: ilaria.dallapozza@ipag.fr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.