When Acquisition Spoils Retention: Direct Selling vs. Delegation Under CRM
Yan Dong, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20850,
Yuliang Yao, College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Tony Haitao Cui, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Mots clés : customer acquisition; customer retention; customer value; customer relationship management; incentive mechanism
Cet article met en avant différences que l’on rencontre entre l’acquisition client et la fidélisation. Cet article examine l’impact d’un effet négatif de l’acquisition sur la fidélisation. Cet effet négatif d’acquisition sur la fidélisation a un impact certain sur les efforts d’acquisition et de fidélisation, ainsi que sur le profit de l’entreprise concernée. Lorsque l’acquisition et la fidélisation sont indépendant, l’article nous apprend que les profits de l’entreprise sont plus élevés sous la vente directe, que sous une délégation.
Pendant des décennies, les entreprises ont centralisé leurs stratégies marketing sur l’acquisition client. Depuis 1980, elles se rendent petit à petit compte que recruter de nouveaux clients coûtaient plus cher que de fidéliser les clients existants. Elles ont alors décider de répartir les consommateurs en identifiant les consommateurs à forte valeur ajoutée, ayant pour objectif de ne pas les perdre. Ces efforts ont été soutenu par la création de logiciels d’aide à la relation clients, les logiciels de CRM. Ces derniers ont pour objectif l’acquisition client, et la fidélisation.
Le CRM aide fortement l’entreprise en lui fournissant un maximum de données sur ses prospects, et sur ses clients. L’acquisition et la fidélisation doivent se coordonner afin d’augmenter la rentabilité et le profit de l’organisation.
Cependant, ils peuvent parfois être en conflit. Augmenter les capacités de l’un risque de diminuer les performances de l’autre. L’étude faite et expliquée dans cet article met en avant deux structures possibles pour l’acquisition client : centralisée au ein de l’entreprise, ou bien déléguée.
Ces deux entités extrêmement importantes dans une entreprise doivent se coordonner sans avoir négatif l’un sur l’autre. Les entreprises doivent indéniablement construire une stratégie adaptée à leurs objectifs ainsi qu’à leur structure. Lorsque les efforts diminuent en acquisition, ils ne sont forcément renforcés en fidélisation.
C’est ici que nait l’intérêt de l’importance de la connaissance clients au sein de l’entreprise, afin d’améliorer la stratégie marketing. La connaissance client permettra de mieux cibler en acquisition, et de mieux satisfaire les clients existants.
- Anderson, E. T., D. I. Simester. 2004. Long-run effects of promotion depth on new versus established customers: Three field studies. Marketing Sci. 23(1) 4–20.
- Anderson, E. T., D. I. Simester. 2010. Price stickiness and customer antagonism. Quart. J. Econom. 125(2) 729–765.
- Bendoly, E., J. D. Blocher, K. M. Bretthauer, S. Krishnan, M. A. Venkataramanan. 2005. Online/in-store integration and customer retention. J. Service Res. 7(4) 313–327.
- Bhardwaj, P. 2001. Delegating pricing decisions. Marketing Sci. 20(2) 143–169.
- Blattberg, R. C., J. Deighton. 1996. Manage marketing by the customer equity test. Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(4) 136–144.
- Bowman, D., D. Narayandas. 2004. Linking customer management effort to customer profitability in business markets. J. Marketing Res. 41(4) 433–447.
- Campbell, D., F. Frei. 2010. Cost structure, customer profitability, and retention implications of self-service distribution channels: Evidence from customer behavior in an online banking channel. Management Sci. 56(1) 4–24.
- Chen, F. 2005. Salesforce incentives, market information, and production/ inventory planning. Management Sci. 51(1) 60–75.
- Chu, W., P. S. Desai. 1995. Channel coordination mechanisms for customer satisfaction. Marketing Sci. 14(4) 343–359.
- Collett, S. 2004. Turning data into dollars. Computerworld (September 20), http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/95954/Turning_Data_Into_Dollars.
- Coyles, S., T. C. Gokey. 2005. Customer retention is not enough. J. Consumer Marketing 22(2) 101–105.
- Crosby, L. A., N. Stephens. 1987. Effects of relationships marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in the life insurance industry. J. Marketing Res. 24(4) 404–411.
- Dearden, J. A., D. Klotz. 2002. Contracting, gatekeepers, and unverifiable performance. RAND J. Econom. 33(4) 723–740.
- DeCastro, M. 2009. Digital services play a key part in customer acquisition and retention. White paper, IDC Financial Insights, Framingham, MA. http://www.adobe.com/financial/pdfs/idc_digitalservices.pdf.
- Demski, J., D. Sappington. 1991. Resolving double moral hazard problems with buyout agreements. RAND J. Econom. 22(2) 232–240.
- Durkin, M., D. McCartan-Quinn, A. O’Donnell, B. Howcroft. 2003. Retail bank customer preferences: Personal and remote interactions. Internat. J. Retail Distribution Management 31(4) 177–189.
- Dwyer, F. R. 1989. Customer lifetime valuation to support marketing decision making. J. Direct Marketing 11(4) 6–13.
- Fader, P. S., B. G. S. Hardie, K. L. Lee. 2005. RFM and CLV: Using iso-value curves for customer base analysis. J. Marketing Res. 42(4) 415–430.
- Farquhar, J. 2005. Retaining customers in UK financial services: The retailers’ tale. Service Indust. J. 25(8) 1029–1044.
- Farquhar, J., T. Panther. 2008. Acquiring and retaining customers in UK banks: An exploratory study. J. Retailing Consumer Services 15(1) 9–21.
- Feinberg, F. M., A. Krishna, Z. J. Zhang. 2002. Do we care what others get? A behaviorist approach to targeted promotions. J. Marketing Res. 39(3) 277–291.
- Fruchter, G. E., Z. J. Zhang. 2004. Dynamic targeted promotions: A customer retention and acquisition perspective. J. Service Res. 7(1) 3–19.
- Gounaris, S. P. 2005. Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: Insights from business-to-business services. J. Bus. Res. 58(2) 126–140.
- Gupta, S. 1988. Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. J. Marketing Res. 25(4) 342–355.
- Gupta, S., D. R. Lehmann, J. A. Stuart. 2004. Valuing customers. J. Marketing Res. 41(1) 7–18.
- Hauser, J., D. Simester, B. Wernerfelt. 1994. Customer satisfaction incentives. Marketing Sci. 13(4) 327–350.
- Heim, G. R., K. K. Sinha. 2001. Operational drivers of customer loyalty in electronic retailing: An empirical analysis of electronic food retailers. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 3(3) 264–271.
- Holmstrom, B., P. Milgrom. 1991. Multitask principal-agent analysis: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 7(Special Issue) 25–52.
- Joseph, K. 2001. On the optimality of delegating pricing authority to the sales force. J. Marketing 65(1) 62–70.
- Joseph, K., A. Thevaranjan. 1998. Monitoring and incentives in sales organizations: An agency-theoretic perspective. Marketing Sci. 17(2) 107–123.
- Kalra, A., M. Shi. 2001. Designing optimal sales contests: A theoretical perspective. Marketing Sci. 20(2) 170–193.
- Kalra, A., M. Shi, K. Srinivasan. 2003. Salesforce compensation scheme and consumer inferences. Management Sci. 49(5) 655–672.
- Lal, R. 1986. Delegating pricing responsibility to the sales force. Marketing Sci. 5(2) 159–168.
- Lewis, M. 2004. The influence of loyalty programs and shortterm promotions on customer retention. J. Marketing Res. 41(3) 281–292.
- Lim, N., M. J. Ahearne, S. H. Ham. 2009. Designing sales contests: Does the prize structure matter? J. Marketing Res. 46(3) 356–371.
- McGahan, A., R. Ghemawat. 1994. Competition to retain customers. Marketing Sci. 13(2) 165 176.
- Mishra, B. K., A. Prasad. 2004. Centralized pricing versus delegating pricing to the salesforce under information asymmetry. Marketing Sci. 23(1) 21–27.
- Mishra, B. K., A. Prasad. 2005. Delegating pricing decisions in competitive markets with symmetric and asymmetric information. Marketing Sci. 24(3) 490–497.
- Mittal, V., W. A. Kamakura. 2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effort of customer characteristics. J. Marketing Res. 38(1) 131–142.
- Musalem, A., Y. V. Joshi. 2009. How much should you invest in each customer relationship? A competitive strategic approach. Marketing Sci. 28(3) 555–565.
- Nagar, V. 2002. Delegation and incentive compensation. Accounting Rev. 77(2) 379–395.
- Narasimhan, C. 1988. Competitive promotional strategies. J. Bus. 61(4) 427–449.
- Novo, J. 2005. When acquisition spoils retention. Drilling down newsletter 53. Accessed May 12, 2011, http://www.jimnovo.com/newsletter-1-2005.htm.
- Park, Y.-H., P. S. Fader. 2004. Modeling browsing behavior at multiple websites. Marketing Sci. 23(3) 280–303.
- Pfeifer, P. E., R. L. Carraway. 2000. Modeling customer relationships as Markov chains. J. Interactive Marketing 14(2) 43–55.
- Raju, J. S., V. Srinivasan, R. Lal. 1990. The effects of brand loyalty on competitive price promotional strategies. Management Sci. 36(3) 276–304.
- Rao, R. C. 1990. Compensating heterogeneous salesforces: Some explicit solutions. Marketing Sci. 9(4) 319–341.
- Reichheld, F. F., R. G. Markey, C. Hopton. 2000. The loyalty effect— The relationship between loyalty and profits. Eur. Bus. J. 12(4) 134–139.
- Reinartz, W., J. S. Thomas, V. Kumar. 2005. Balancing acquisition and retention resources to maximize customer profitability. J. Marketing 69(1) 63–79.
- Schweidel, D. A., P. S. Fader, E. T. Bradlow. 2008a. Understanding service retention within and across cohorts using limited information. J. Marketing 72(1) 82–94.
- Schweidel, D. A., P. S. Fader, E. T. Bradlow. 2008b. A bivariate timing model of customer acquisition and retention. Marketing Sci. 27(5) 829–843.
- Shankar, V., A. K. Smith, A. Rangaswamy. 2003. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. Internat. J. Res. Marketing 20(2) 153–176.
- Simester, D., J. Zhang. 2010. Why are bad products so hard to kill? Management Sci. 56(7) 1161–1179.
- Slade, M. E. 1996. Multitask agency and contract choice: An empirical exploration. Internat. Econom. Rev. 37(2) 465–486.
- Thomas, J. S. 2001. A methodology for linking customer acquisition to customer retention. J. Marketing Res. 38(2) 262–268.
- Thomas, J. S., R. C. Blattberg, E. J. Fox. 2004. Recapturing lost customers. J. Marketing Res. 41(1) 31–45.
- Venkatesan, R., V. Kumar. 2004. A customer lifetime value framework for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. J. Marketing 68(4) 104–125.
- Verhoef, P. C. 2003. Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer share development. J. Marketing 67(4) 30–45.
- Villanueva, J., P. Bhardwaj, S. Balabsuramanian, Y. Chen. 2007. Customer relationship management in competitive environments: The positive implications of a short-term focus. Quant. Marketing Econom. 5(2) 99–129.
ISSN 1407-7337 ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS 2009-7337
BENEFITS OF CRM DIFFERENTIATED ON THE BASIS OF CUSTOMER LIFETIME VALUE
Hana Lošťáková : Professor, Ing., Ph.D. University of Pardubice, Faculty of Chemical Technology, Department of Economy and Management of Chemical and Food Industries, Studentská 95, 532 10 Pardubice, Czech Republic
Mots clés : CRM, Differentiated Care about Customers, Customer Life-time Value, Benefits of Differentiated CRM
La crise économique du XXIe siècle a conduit à de nombreux changements au sein des entreprises et notamment au sein de la relation client. Aujourd’hui les conommateurs peuvent trouver les biens et services dont ils ont besoin n’importe où. La demande est internationale et la demande l’est également. Acquérir et garder des clients est devenu de plus en plus difficile. Quelle que soit la qualité du produits, les consommateurs se gardent le droit de changer de fournisseurs, et sont de plus en plus difficiles à fidéliser car toujours à la recherche de comparaison pour profiter du meilleur prix.
Désormais, l’offre n’est plus la seule façon de fidéliser ses clients. Les entreprises doivent constamment innover dans leurs offres pour satisfaire un consommateur de plus en plus exigeant. Aujourd’hui nous pouvons affirmer que la survie d’une entreprise est entièrement liée à sa satisfaction client. Cette satisfaction client ne provient pas uniquement du produit seul. A travers cet article est mis en exergue l’indéniable différence qu’il existe entre la satisfaction client et la fidélisation.
La cible est de plus en plus restreinte à mesure que l’offre (et notamment médiatique) augmente. Aujourd’hui, il est possible de personnaliser l’offre à la demande du consommateur, et de construire une relation personnel avec ce consommateur.
« The augmented product involves the provision of benefits that support the purchase or consumption experience, but are not part of actual product. ». En effet, le produit en lui seul le suffit plus, les consommateurs attendent plus qu’un simple achat, même sur un site de prix discount.
Cet article nous présente les raisons de la nécessité absolue d’une stratégie CRM différenciante :
- Crise économique et récession
- Globalisation et internalisation des marchés.
- Libéralisation et dérégulation de nombreuses industries.
- Plus de possibilité de développer une relation avec les consommateurs.
- Expansion des ordinateurs et des technologies de communication.
- Accroître la présence de la marque auprès du consommateur et créer un réel lien.
- Réaliser que la satisfaction client ne mène pas à la loyauté.
- Fragmentation des médias.
- La recherche permanente de valeur ajoutée client et d’avantages compétitif (ce qui est très dur à avoir).
- Augmente dramatiquement la vitesse du business.
L’entreprise doit réellement accroître sa valeur ajoutée afin de donner à ses clients l’envie de revenir.
Aujourd’hui le CRM, est un outil de différenciation absolument indispensable qui permet aux entreprises de se différencier. Dans un monde où la concurrence est de plus en plus présente et la demande de plus en plus exigeante, la différenciation à travers le CRM permet d’accroître toute l’efficacité du business. Il conduit a la plus haute satisfaction client, et donc, accroît leur loyauté.
- Burnett K. Handbook of Key Customer Relationship Management. (in Czech) Praha: Computer Press, 2002.
- Dool, I., Lancaster, P., Lowe, R.. Understanding and Managing Customers. Harlow: Prectice Hall, 2005.
- Chlebovský, V. CRM – Customer Relationship Management. (in Czech) Brno: Computer Press, 2005.
- Lošťáková, H. et all: Differentiated CRM (in Czech), Prague, Grada Publishing, 2009.
- Little E., Marandi E.: Relationship Marketing Management. London: Thompson Learning, 2003.
- Kotler, P., Keller, K. L. (2007) Marketing management. (in Czech) Prague: Grada Publishing, 2007.
- Peppers D., Rogers M.: One-toOne B2B: Customer Development Strategie for B2B World.New York: Capstone, 2001, 347 p.
- Best, J.R. Marketing – Based Management. New Jersey: Prectise Hall, 2008.
- Peppers D., Rogers, M.: Managing Customer Relationships. New Jersey: John Wiley&Sons, 2004, 516 p.
Reference: Sook Kwon, S., Kim, E., Sung, Y., & Yun Yoo, C. (2014). Brand followers: Consumer motivation and attitude towards brand communications on Twitter. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 657-680
Nowadays, with the rise of social media and social networking sites and applications, there is an importance of building and sustaining relationships with the customers, and is possible with the existence of social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. It is now an advantage for brands to be present on social networking sites, and in this article the focus goes for one particular social networking site, Twitter. Twitter combines the social network sites, blogging, and text messaging, with the ability to follow brands, family, friends, companies, celebrities. People can also unfollow, recommend things or places, tweet about what are their thoughts of the day, re-tweet what others might have said and could also just be passive users and not contribute to any of the above mentioned. With more than 2oo million active users tweeting 400 million messages a day, nearly 90% of those users are brand followers on Twitter. This study revolves around twitter and it tries to identify the reason behind consumer’s motivation to follow brands on Twitter since consumer’s attitudes are always changing it is essential to keep up with their attitudes in order to have a relationship and sustain it. So the two main objectives behind this article are “identify and explore consumer motivation for following brands on Twitter, and determine how and which consumer motivation and attitudinal factors may affect the effectiveness of social media marketing on Twitter.
A survey of 400 brand followers on Twitter with an aim for this study to provide a baseline understanding of both motivation and relationship between identified motivations and key consumer-brand relationship variables including: “brand identification, brand community commitment, relationship continuance intention and brand recommendation intentions.” Moreover, what was found concerning the reasons behind people’s motivation to following a certain brand are four main reasons which are, incentive seeking, social-interaction seeking, brand usage/ likability, and information seeking. The latter three reasons were found to be significant predictors of the consumer-brand relationship variables.
Reference: Zhu, Y., Chen, H. (2015). Social media and human need satisfaction: Implications for social media marketing in Business Horizons, Article in press
Social media has become an integral part of people’s lives whether they intentionally access social media platforms, or they come up as suggestions on phone applications or internet pop up sites. Moreover, it has become a tool for companies to communicate messages to their customers, so a B2C communication tool.
An increase of investments in advertising on social media platforms was what most US based companies did in order to stay connected to their customer and also attract potential customers’ and serve them better. However, studies have proven that most of these advertisements on social media platforms didn’t impact most of the consumers’ buying decisions and left people with negative feelings towards these ads. One of the main reason for that finding, is that people connect themselves on social media for the purpose of interacting with other people and finding long lost contacts from the past or maybe just to be entertained on the web, whereas, marketers’ main goal with their presence on social media platforms, is to sell their products or services and persuade people to do so. There is no coherence between what the customers want and what the marketers have to offer them, and most of the time people ignore any advertisements provided to them on social media platforms. Marketers need to go deeper in understanding of why people connect on social media, and for what purposes, in order to create a need-congruent lens, meaning, to adapt people’s expectations and needs to what the company and the message conveyed on social media can offer. For this reason, this articles wants to answer the question: “what exactly are the needs behind these purposes and how should we use this knowledge for social media marketing?” To be able to answer this question, two things must be taken into account: the type of messages posted by the person on his/her social media accounts and what basic human needs is answered and satisfied when a person is connected on social media, will help marketers identify the different needs conveyed by different people.
As mentioned in the article: “ social media marketing campaigns must help people satisfy their needs, whether this takes the form of building relationships, enhancing self-presentation, feeding self-esteem, finding solutions, or simply admiring beauty”. So this is a challenge most marketer face nowadays, to decide on the precise social media platform to be present on depending on the message they are trying to convey and the type of product or service they would like to present and make people aware of, and also to target the right people and answer all kinds of needs, from primary and basic to luxurious needs.
Reference: Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M.L., & Verlegh, P.W.J. (2014). Enhancing the effects of social network site marketing campaigns. If you want customers to like you, ask them about themselves in International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 235-252
Social networking sites (SNS) and social media platforms have become tools for marketers to be present on the internet and a reason to have a more personal relationship with their customers, or people who visit their page. Social networking sites are now not only platforms where people can connect to one another, but also used to promote brands, products and services. Interactive advertising campaigns can be defined as all forms of online, wireless and interactive television advertising, including banners, sponsorships, e-mail, keyword searches, and referrals, slotting fees, classified ads and interactive television commercials.
Here in this article, the main focus goes for the interactive advertising campaign on social networking sites (SNS) , and in this interactive advertising campaign three components make it up: the advertising, the campaign and the viral feature or the “tell a friend” feature. Benefits of social networking campaigns include creating brand engagement with the customers and page visitors, and gathering personal information on people in order to personalize further future marketing efforts to sustain the relationship with the customers. The main question that is asked in this article is: how consumers’ self-disclosing would breed linking for the brand?
Social networking sites campaigns are developed as interactive brand games so that people could relate and enjoy participating, and not feel like this is an obligation. Self-disclosure plays a central role in the development and the sustainability of relationships. When people disclose of personal information to other people, they unconsciously form a bond with that other person and a sense of liking. In comparison to the marketing context, and specifically in consumer brand-relationships the studies concluded and found that disclosing personal information to a brand in an online marketing campaign creates a feeling of ‘liking” towards the brand and even the intention to purchase as well as communicate to others and engage in word-of-mouth. “Disclosure enhances the virality of marketing campaigns and the willingness of people to share the campaign with others present in the same network.”
Reference: Tiago, M.T.P.M.B., Veríssimo, J.M.C. (2014). Digital marketing and social media: why bother? Journal of Business horizons, 57,703-708
Nowadays, we notice a difference in how consumer behavior was in the past, and what it consists of now, where people are more demanding and specific on their product or service needs. That is why marketers should follow the consumer behavior and keep up with the changes that are happening. It is not a question of the people connecting to the internet or not, it is more today a question of where are they connecting to? What are they looking for? And what interests them? However in this article the firm’s describe “their efforts in the digital marketing strategies”. It is up to the companies now to follow what interests their customer and try to adapt marketing strategies online to be able to answer to their needs.
A study was made on Portuguese companies, since internet adoption in Portugal has increased and people are now more connected to the virtual world via smartphones and mobile phones. The question asked in this article is to know “what are the main reasons for which companies are present in a digital form these days?” Many reasons behind that and the most important ones to mention are external competition, internal efficiency for the firm itself, and a facilitator for top-down directives. Not only it is important to be present online and virtually, but also it provides the company with additional benefits such as “customer support, easier market research, brand building, relationship building, and buzz marketing”. However, how do marketers measure their digital marketing effectiveness and evaluate what to do and what not to do? A cluster analysis was done in order to better answer the question out of which a digital engagement matrix was created to see the relationship between perceived benefits and digital marketing usage. Four profiles were suggested. “Engagement, Qualification, Discovery, and Dead-road.”
- “Engagement” is a mixture high investments in digital media usage as well as high perceived benefits and is referred to as interactive.
- “Qualification” also involves high investments in digital media, but has low expectations regarding its benefits and is referred to as “digital”. Moreover, –
- “discovery” has weak digital marketing usage and low benefit perception. And finally,
- “dead-road” reflects the “inefficiency of an unbalanced approach, high perceived benefits but low commitment to digital marketing”.
It is up to marketers to decide in which quadrant they want to be present in depending on how much they would like to invest and how much they perceive their benefits will be on the long term, keeping in mind the importance of the efforts which should “lead to increased engagement, stronger relationships with customers, and subsequent customer engagement”.