Search

Interest in customer reacquisition has increased as firms embrace the concept of customer relationship management. Using survey and transactional data from defected subscribers of a publishing company, we investigate how defected customers evaluate their propensity to return to the company prior to any win-back offer. We introduce a new variable for relationship marketing, general willingness to return (GWR), and show that it is strongly and positively related to the actual return decision and the duration of the restarted relationship. Combining attribution theory elements with existing win-back explanations, which focus on economic, social, and emotional value perceptions, provides a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the GWR to a former relationship. Importantly, we learn that regardless of whose fault it is, if the reasons for the relationship termination can change or are preventable and the firm can control those changes, then the defected customer has a higher general willingness to return to the former relationship. Also, we show that the duration of time absence before relationship revival moderates the impact of GWR on second relationship duration. Furthermore, we demonstrate that satisfaction prior to defection and the length of time absence provide a reasonable basis for distinguishing defected customers who differ in their GWR. By applying our findings, we derive recommendations for firms on how to position marketing communications to recapture defected customers according to their general willingness to return., Author(s): Doreen Pick[sup.1] , Jacquelyn S. Thomas[sup.2] , Sebastian Tillmanns[sup.3] , Manfred Krafft[sup.3] Author Affiliations: (1) Freie Universität Berlin, Boltzmannstr. 20, 14195, Berlin, Germany (2) Cox School of Business, Southern [...]

We study the relative importance of online word of mouth and advertising on firm performance over time since product introduction. The current research separates the volume of consumer-generated online word [...]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.10.001 Byline: Martin Reimann (a), Oliver Schilke (b), Jacquelyn S. Thomas (c) Keywords: Marketing strategy; Survey research Abstract: This paper aims to improve current knowledge on the commoditization of industries, a unique phenomenon of evolving marketing competition characterized by increasing homogeneity of products, higher price sensitivity among customers, lower switching costs, and greater industry stability. As commoditization is relevant to an ever-greater number of diverse industries, this research addresses two main questions: (1) How can managers assess their industry's level of commoditization to be better informed about their firm's competitive environment? and (2) How does the level of commoditization in an industry affect the effectiveness of marketing strategies? Initially, in-depth field interviews identified the characteristics of the commoditization phenomenon. Subsequently, a survey study among 141 companies from ten industries applied a measure to assess an industry's commoditization level. The results showed significant differences between high and low commodity markets in terms of the impact of three different strategic orientations on firm performance. The application of the value disciplines framework revealed that as commoditization increases, operational excellence and product leadership lose impact, while customer intimacy becomes a more vital performance driver. The results indicate that commoditization assessment may become a vital part of a firm's strategic efforts to address evolving marketing competition. Author Affiliation: (a) University of Southern California, Seeley G. Mudd Building, 3620 McClintock Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90089-1061, United States, Tecnologico de Monterrey, EGADE Business School, Campus Monterrey, 66269 Monterrey, Mexico (b) Stanford University, Building 370, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, California 94305, United States, RWTH Aachen University, Center for Entrepreneurship, 52056 Aachen, Germany (c) Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 750333, Dallas, TX 75275-0333, United States Article History: Received 13 December 2008 Article Note: (miscellaneous) Area editor: Aradhna Krishna

As managers and academics increasingly raise issues about the real value of CRM, the authors question its direct and unconditional performance effect. The study advances research on CRM by investigating the role of critical mechanisms underlying the CRM-performance link. Drawing from the sources--positions--performance framework, the authors build a research model in which two strategic postures of firms--differentiation and cost leadership--mediate the effect of CRM on firm performance. This investigation also contributes to the literature by drawing attention to the differential impact of CRM in diverse industry environments. The study analyzes data from in-depth field interviews and a large-scale, cross-industry survey, and results reveal that CRM does not affect firm performance directly. Rather, the CRM-performance link is fully mediated by differentiation and cost leadership. In addition, CRM's impact on differentiation is greater when industry commoditization is high. Keywords CRM * Customer relationship management * Business strategy * Structural equation modeling * Mediation * Industry commoditization, Introduction Understanding how firms can profit from their customer relationships is highly important for both marketing practitioners and academics (Boulding et al. 2005; Payne and Frow 2005). Prior research has [...]

Organizational factors moderating the relationship between international marketing standardization and firm performance are investigated. Standardization is most beneficial for firms with a homogeneous product offering, a high level of global market penetration, a cost leadership strategy, and strong coordination capabilities.

The article presents guidelines for maximizing direct-marketing investments, focusing on managing customer acquisition and retention together rather than separately.