Whither Services Marketing ? In Search of a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives by Lovellock, C. & Gummesson, E. (2004).

Résumé :

This article examines the received wisdom of services marketing and challenges the validity and continued usefulness of its core paradigm, namely, the assertion that four specific characteristics—intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability, and perishability—make services uniquely different from goods. An alternative paradigm is proposed, based on the premise that marketing exchanges that do not result in a transfer of ownership from seller to buyer are fundamentally different from those that do. It posits that services offer benefits through access or temporary possession, instead of ownership, with payments taking the form of rentals or access fees. This rental/access perspective offers a different lens through which to view services. Important implications include opportunities to market goods in a service format; the need for more research into how time is perceived, valued, and consumed; and the notion of services as a means of sharing resources.

  • Cet article examine la sagesse reçue du marketing des services et conteste la validité et l’utilité continue de son paradigme de base, à savoir l’affirmation selon laquelle quatre caractéristiques spécifiques — intangibilité, hétérogénéité, inséparabilité et caractère périssable — rendent les services différents des marchandises. Un paradigme alternatif est proposé, basé sur la prémisse que les échanges commerciaux qui n’entraînent pas un transfert de propriété du vendeur à l’acheteur sont fondamentalement différents de ceux qui le font. Il postule que les services offrent des avantages par l’accès ou la possession temporaire, au lieu de la propriété, avec des paiements prenant la forme de loyers ou de frais d’accès. Cette perspective de location/accès offre une optique différente pour visualiser les services. Les implications importantes comprennent les possibilités de commercialiser des marchandises dans un format de service ; la nécessité de plus de recherches sur la façon dont le temps est perçu, valorisé et consommé ; et la notion de services comme moyen de partage des ressources.

Mots clefs :

economic theory, intangibility, marketing theory, rental services, resource sharing, services marketing, time consumption, time-based pricing, textbook theory

Développement :

Some scholars have expressed concern that existing service concepts are not readily applicable to Internet services. Brown (2000) argued that “the ability to obtain and consume services without interacting with a human provider challenges much of our existing knowledge” (p.62).  Reinforcing this viewpoint, D.E Bowen (2000) concluded, “It now seems that the most of what we know about services marketing and management has been derived from the study of face-to-face services encounters or at least over the telephone” (p.46).

On remarque que le concept de service est difficilement dissociable de l’humain. Ainsi, dès lors que l’on veut introduire un service par internet uniquement, le côté humain devient plus “fragile” et le service en est impacté.

As argued by Schneider (2000), the underlying paradigm in services marketing since the 1980s has been that services are different from goods, a claim supported by an in-depth literature review by Fisk, Brown, and Bitner (1993), who concluded that “[four] features – intangibility, inseparability, heterogenicity, and perishability [IHIP]– provided the underpinnings for the case that services marketing is a field distinct from goods marketing” (p68). 

Pride and Ferrell claim two more: client-based relationships and customer contact.

Intangibility is not only the most widely cited difference between goods and services but has also been described by Bateson (1979) as the critical distinction between physical intangibility, that which is impalpable or cannot be touched, and mental intangibility, that cannot be grasped mentally, and concluded. “The crucial point about services is that they are doubly intangible” (p.139).

Later, McDougall and Snetsinger (1990) sought to operationalize mental intangibility as “the degree to which a product can be visualized and provide a clear and concrete image before purchase.”

Laroche, Bergeron and Goutaland (2001) argued that intangibility includes third dimension, generality (which encompasses the notions of accessibility versus inaccessibility to the senses, abstractness versus concreteness, and generality versus specificity) and develop a scale for measuring all three dimensions.

Kerin et al. (2003) stated that services „can’t be held, touched, or seen before the purchase decision” and are thus more difficult to evaluate (p.323).

Yet many services involving delivery of tangible elements can be evaluated before use. For instance, the core product in a hotel or motel is the room. Travelers can check out hotel or motel rooms before registering and may even decide to try another facility if they do not like the look of the facilities, the appearance and attitude of the staff, or even the feel of the bed.

On peut également citer dans le secteur de l’hôtellerie, et cela pendant la prestation de service, plusieurs éléments tangibles qui peuvent l’influencer positivement. Par exemple, à l’arrivée des clients, ceux-ci peuvent recevoir des cadeaux de bienvenue (chocolats, petits accessoires …). Ainsi, les éléments tangibles peuvent accompagner le service.

An important concept relating to service tangibility is the servicescape, which recognizes that service experiences are surrounded and shaped by a built environment incorporating ambience, function, and design in addition to a social environment comprising service providers and other customers (Bitner 1992, 2000).

Eiglier and Langeard (1975, 1977) noted the difficulty of controlling service quality when customers are actively involved in the production process.

Separable services. Despite the inseparability claim for services, there is a large group of separable services that do not involve the customer directly, with the result that production and consumption need to be simultaneous. Simple observation will show that numerous widely used business and consumer services delivered to customers physical possessions – such as transporting freight, laundering clothes, and undertaking routine cleaning and maintenance on a wide array of equipment and facilities – are most commonly performed in the customer’s absence.

On remarque ici que le terme d’inséparabilité n’est pas tout à fait juste car dans le secteur de l’hôtellerie par exemple, bien souvent et même toujours, le service de nettoyage de chambre des clients est effectué lorsque le client est sorti et ne se trouve plus dans la chambre. Cela lui permet de se promener et de retrouver une chambre propre à son retour. Dans ce cas, la production et la consommation du service ne se sont pas effectuées au même moment et pourtant nous sommes bien dans un service pur.

Bibliographie :

Bateson, John E.G. (1979). “Why We Need Service Marketing.” In Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. O.C. Ferrell, S.W. Brown, and C.W. Lamb eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 131-16.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees.” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 57-71.

  • (2000), “The Servicescape.” In Handbook of Services Marketing and Management, T. A. Swartz and D. Iacobucci. eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 37-50.

Bowen, David E. (2000), Pt.3, in Services Marketing Self-Portraits: Introspections, Reflections, and Glimpses from the Experts, R.P. Fisk, S.J. Grove, and J. John, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 37-51.

Brown, Stephen W. (2000), Pt.4, in Services Marketing Self-Portraits: Introspections, Reflections, and Glimpses from the Experts, R.P. Fisk, S.J. Grove, and J. John, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 53-69.

Eiglier, Pierre and Eric Langcard (1975), „Une Approche Nouvelle pour le Marketing des Services, » Revue Française de Gestion, 2 (November). [published in English as « A New Approach to Service Marketing,” in Marketing Consumer Services: New Insights, P. Eiglier, E. Langeard, C.H Lovelock, J.E.G Bateson, and R.F Young, eds. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 1977, 31-58.]

Fisk, Raymond P., Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner, (1993), “Tracking the Evolution of the Services Marketing Literature”, Journal of Retailing, 69 (Spring), 61-103.

Kerin, Roger A., Eric N. Berkowitz, Steven W. Hartley, and William Rudelius (2003), Marketing, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kotler, Philip (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
– and Sidney J. Levy (1969). “Broadening the Concept of Marketing,” Journal of Marketing. 33 (January). 10-15.

Laroche, Michel, Jasmine Bergeron, and Christine Goutaland (2001), „A Three-Dimensional Scale of Intangibility.” Journal of Service Research, 4 (August), 26-38.

McDougall, Gordon H., and Douglas W. Snetsinger (1990). “The Intangibility of Services: Measurement and Competitive Perspectives.” Journal of Services Marketing, 4(4), 27-40.

Pride, William M and O.C. Ferrell (2003), Marketing Concepts and Strategies, 12th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schneider, Benjamin (2000), Pt. 9, in Services Marketing Self-Portraits: Introspections, Reflections, and Glimpses from the Experts, R.P. Fisk, S.J. Grove, and J. John, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 173-187.

Solomon, Michael R. and Elnora W. Stuart (2003), Marketing: Real People, Real Choices, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.  

Expériences de consommation et marketing expérientiel by Carù A., & Cova B. (2006).

Résumé :

La notion d’expérience est devenue un élément-clé de compréhension du comportement du consommateur et le fondement principal d’une nouvelle démarche marketing : le marketing expérientiel. Prenant appui sur l’idée que le consommateur actuel cherche à vivre des immersions dans des expériences extraordinaires plutôt qu’à rencontrer de simples produits ou services, le marketing expérientiel prête le flanc à de sévères critiques pratiques et théoriques qui sont développées dans cet article.

Mots clefs :

marketing expérientiel ; expérience consommation ; expérience client ; comportement du consommateur 

Développement :

Aujourd’hui, l’expérience est considérée comme un concept-clé de la théorie de la culture du consommateur (CCT, Consumer Culture Theory; Arnould et Thompson, 2005).

Elle est aussi devenue le fondement principal d’une «économie de l’expérience» (Pine et Gilmore, 1999), à la suite de laquelle s’est développé un marketing expérientiel (Schmitt, 1999) qui tend à proposer aux consommateurs des immersions dans des expériences extraordinaires plutôt que des achats de simples produits ou services.

Selon J. Baudrillard (1970), la consommation est devenue une activité de production de significations et un champ d’échanges symboliques : les consommateurs ne consomment pas les produits, mais, au contraire, consomment le sens de ces produits.

Dans le cas d’une ampoule connectée, les clients ne veulent pas seulement avoir de la lumière dans leur chambre d’hôtel mais veulent avoir la possibilité de la personnaliser en créant une ambiance lumineuse qui leur est propre, une ambiance qui répond à leurs envies du moment et s’adapte à leur humeur.

Le consommateur est alors progressivement perçu comme un être émotionnel à la recherche d’expériences sensibles (Maffesoli, 1990) que peut lui procurer l’interaction avec les produits et services du système de consommation.

C’est en ce sens que l’expérience de consommation a été théorisée (Holbrook et Hirschman, 1982) comme un vécu personnel et subjectif, souvent chargé émotionnellement, du consommateur.

Dans la perspective expérientielle, au contraire, le consommateur cherche moins à maximiser un profit qu’à revendiquer une gratification hédoniste dans un contexte social ; la consommation provoquant des sensations et des émotions qui, loin de répondre seulement à des besoins, vont jusqu’à toucher à la quête identitaire du consommateur (Cova et Cova, 2001).

L’expérience de la consommation a des caractéristiques spécifiques qui la distinguent clairement comme paradigme alternatif. Nous les résumerons ci-dessous au travers de cinq dimensions qui sont : les spécificités de l’acteur, le processus de génération de l’expérience, son champ d’application principal, l’étendue de son impact et sa validation sociale.

Selon cet auteur (Vézina (1999, p.62)), les traits saillants de la consommation expérientielle se présentent comme suit :

– le consommateur n’est pas que consommateur ;

– le consommateur agit à l’intérieur de situations ;

– le consommateur est à la recherche de sens ;

– la consommation ne se limite pas à l’achat.

Le processus de génération de consommation expérientielle se déploie sur une période de temps qui peut se décomposer en quatre grandes phases (Arnould et al., 2002) :

– l’expérience d’anticipation qui consiste à rechercher, planifier, rêver éveillé, budgéter ou fantasmer l’expérience;

– l’expérience d’achat qui relève du choix, du paiement, de l’empaquetage, de la rencontre de service et de l’ambiance ;

– l’expérience proprement dite qui inclue la sensation, la satiété, la satisfaction/ insatisfaction, l’irritation/le flux, la transformation ;

– l’expérience de souvenir qui mobilise notamment des photographies pour revivre l’expérience passée, qui s’appuie sur les récits d’histoires et les discussions avec les amis sur les jours passés, qui passe par le classement des souvenirs…

(Pour partie « l’étendue de son impact ») Pour d’autres chercheurs […], notamment les tenants d’un marketing postmoderne (Firat et Dholakia, 1998) ce qui procure le plaisir c’est l’immersion totale du consommateur dans une expérience originale.

Ils insistent ainsi sur la quête croissante de la part des consommateurs contemporains d’immersion dans des expériences variées afin d’explorer une multiplicité de nouveaux sens à donner à leurs vies.

S’il est bien compris (Benavent et Evrard, 2002; Filser, 2002) que le consommateur, dans la perspective expérientielle, n’est pas un acteur passif qui réagit à des stimuli mais un acteur et un producteur de ses propres expériences de consommation même les plus hyperréelles, les entreprises doivent cherchent à aider leurs clients dans la production la réalisation de ces expériences.

Les méthodes avancées pour permettre à l’entreprise de (co)produire des expériences avec et pour le consommateur présentent un point commun : il s’agit de théâtraliser et mettre en scène à la fois le consommateur et l’offre de l’entreprise au travers d’un travail important sur le décor, c’est-à-dire le design d’environnement et l’ambiance du point de vente.

L’individu qui consomme ne cherche pas qu’à participer à des expériences, aussi spectaculaires et extraordinaires soient-elles, il veut en être aussi le concepteur et le producteur actif (de Certeau, 1980).

Il ne faut pas que l’entreprise, dans son désir de faire vivre à ses clients une expérience exceptionnelle, prévoit tout dans les moindres détails, pour le confort du client et pour lui rendre le quotidien plus facile, et oublie de les faire participer activement et de les faire interagir avec les objets. Par exemple : dans une chambre, le client peut uniquement choisir entre différents « scénarios » / différentes ambiances lumineuses/sonores … alors qu’il devrait avoir la possibilité de manipuler les différents objets et créé sa propre ambiance s’il en a envie.

L’expérience du consommateur n’est pas programmable ; l’entreprise peut l’aider à accéder à l’expérience, mais il garde le libre arbitre de s’approprier ou non ce qui est présenté par l’entreprise.

Bibliographie :

Arnould E.J., Price L., Zinkhan G. (2002). Consumers, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Arnould E.J., Thompson C.J. (2005). “Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol.31, March, p.868-882.

Baudrillard J. (1970). La société de consommation, Denoël, Paris.

Benavent C., Evrard Y. (2002). « Extension du domaine de l’expérience », Décisions Marketing, n°28, octobre-décembre, p.7-11.

Certeau M. (de) (1980). L’invention du quotidien. 1. Arts de faire, Gallimard, Paris.

Cova V., Cova B. (2001). Alternatives Marketing : réponses marketing aux évolutions récentes des consommateurs, Dunod, Paris.

Firat A.F., Dholakia N. (1998). Consuming People: From Political Economy to Theaters of Consumption, Sage, London.

Holbrook M.B., Hirschman E.C. (1982). “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasy, Feelings and Fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol.9, n°2, p.132-140.

Maffesoli M. (1990). Au creux des apparences : pour une éthique de l’esthétique, Plon, Paris.

Pine B.J., Gilmore J. (1999). The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business a Stage, HBS Press, Harvard.

Schmitt B. H., Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act and Relate to Your Company and Brands, The Free Press, New York, 1999.

Vézina R. (1999). « Pour comprendre et analyser l’expérience du consommateur », Gestion, vol.24, n°2, p.59-65.

From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics Stephen L. Vargo , Robert F. Lusch

Résumé :

There are two logics or mindsets from which to consider and motivate a transition from goods to service(s). The first, “goods-dominant (G-D) logic”, views services in terms of a type of (e.g., intangible) good and implies that goods production and distribution practices should be modified to deal with the differences between tangible goods and services. The second logic, “service-dominant (S-D) logic”, considers service – a process of using ones resources for the benefit of and in conjunction with another party – as the fundamental purpose of economic exchange and implies the need for a revised, service-driven framework for all of marketing. This transition to a service-centered logic is consistent with and partially derived from a similar transition found in the business-marketing literature — for example, its shift to understanding exchange in terms value rather than products and networks rather than dyads. It also parallels transitions in other sub-disciplines, such as service marketing. These parallels and the implications for marketing theory and practice of a full transition to a service-logic are explored.

  • Il existe deux logiques ou mentalités à partir desquelles il est possible d’envisager et de motiver une transition de biens en services. La première, la «logique dominante sur les biens», considère les services comme un type de bien (par exemple, incorporel) et implique que les pratiques de production et de distribution de biens doivent être modifiées pour tenir compte des différences entre biens et services tangibles. La seconde logique, la «logique dominante de service», considère le service – un processus d’utilisation de ressources au profit et en liaison avec une autre partie – comme objectif fondamental de l’échange économique et implique la nécessité d’un service révisé. cadre axé sur l’ensemble du marketing. Cette transition vers une logique centrée sur le service est cohérente et partiellement dérivée d’une transition similaire à celle trouvée dans la littérature spécialisée dans le marketing commercial – par exemple, sa transition vers une compréhension de l’échange en termes de valeur plutôt que de produits et de réseaux plutôt que de dyades. Cela correspond également aux transitions dans d’autres sous-disciplines, telles que le marketing de services. Ces parallèles et les implications pour la théorie et la pratique du marketing d’une transition complète vers une logique de service sont explorés.

Mots clefs :

Good domination, service domination , marketing business, experience, co-creation

Développement :

Over the last several decades, leading-edge firms, as well as many business scholars and consultants, have advocated the need for refocusing substantial firm activity or transforming the entire firm orientation from producing output, primarily manufactured goods, to a concern with service(s) (see, e.g., Davies, Brady, & Hobday, 2007; Gebauer & Fleisch, 2007)

One views goods (tangible output embedded with value) as the primary focus of economic exchange and “services” (usually plural) as either (1) a restricted type of (intangible) good (i.e., as units of output) or (2) an add-on that enhances the value of a good. We (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a; Lusch & Vargo, 2006a) call this logic goods-dominant (G-D) logic.

The second logic considers “service” (singular) – a process of doing something for another party – in its own right, without reference to goods and identifies service as the primary focus of exchange activity. We (Vargo & Lusch, 2004a, 2006) call this logic service-dominant (S-D) logic. In S-D logic, goods continue to play an important, service-delivery role, at least in a subset of economic exchange.

In S-D logic, service is defined as the application of competences (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of another party.

It represents a shift from thinking about value in terms of operand resources — usually tangible, static resources that require some action to make them valuable – to operant resources – usually intangible, dynamic resources that are capable of creating value.

The locus of value creation, then, moves from the “producer” to a collaborative process of co-creation between parties.

Thus, in S-D logic, goods are still important; however, service is superordinate.

That is, efficiency and effectiveness can be seen as complementary — effectiveness is necessary before efficiency has relevance but efficiency is often both a component (buyer’s perspective) of effectiveness and also necessary for long-term effectiveness (seller’s perspective). Thus, effectiveness can be seen as a path to efficiency. Industrial marketers have been at the forefront of the exploration of these dualities (e.g., Dittrich et al., 2006; Hakansson & Ford, 2002); S-D logic provides a potential foundation for transcendence

Even without a reoriented theory of the market and marketing, S-D logic suggests the following transitional shifts to move from a product focus to a service focus (see Table 1)

We believe that S-D logic can serve as a foundation for a sounder theory of markets and marketing that can, in turn, reduce the divide between academic and applied marketing and thus inform marketing practitioners in their desire to develop a true service focus.

Nous avons remarqué qu’il existait deux types de logiques. Les biens et les «services» soit un type restreint de bien (intangible)  est  la logique dominante des biens (G-D). La seconde logique soit le «service» identifie le service comme le centre principal de l’échange et est appelé une logique à dominante service. Dans la logique S-D, les biens continuent de jouer un rôle important dans la prestation de services. Ainsi, les biens sont toujours importants; Cependant, le service est supérieur.

Bibliographie :

Alderson, Wroe (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: a functionalist approach to marketing theory. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Berry, L. L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L. L. Berry G. L. Shostack & G. D. Upah (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on service marketing (pp. 25−38). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Bucklin, Louis P. (1970). Vertical marketing systems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Canning, Gordon, Jr. (1982). Do a value analysis of your customer base. Industrial Marketing Management, 11, 89−94 (April).

Davies, Andrew, Brady, Tim, & Hobday, Michael (2007). Organizing for solutions: Systems seller vs. systems integrator. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 183−193.

Dittrich, Koem, Jaspers, Ferdinand, van der Valk, Wendy, & Wynstra, Finn (2006). Dealing with dualities. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 792−796.

Fern, Edward F., & Brown, James R. (1984). The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy: A case of insufficient justification. Journal of Marketing, 48, 68−77 (Spring).

Gebauer, Heiko, & Fleisch, Elgar (2007). An investigation of the relationship between behavioral processes, motivation, investments in the service business and service revenue. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(3), 337−348.

Gronroos, Christian (1983). Strategic management and marketing in the service sector. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Gummesson, Evert (2006). Many-to-many marketing as grand theory: A Nordic school contribution. In R. F. Lusch & S.1. Vargo (Eds.), The servicedominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 339−353). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Ford, David (2002). How should companies interact in business networks? Journal of Business Research, 55, 133−139.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Prenkert, Frans (2004). Exploring the exchange concept in marketing. In H. Hakansson, D. Harrison, & A. Waluszewski (Eds.), Rethinking marketing: developing a new understanding of markets.Chichester, England: Wiley.

Hakansson, Hakan, & Snehota, Ivan (1995). Developing relationships in business networks. London: Routledge.

Hunt, Shelby D. (2000). A general theory of competition: resources, competences, productivity, and economic growth. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Kothandaraman, Prabakar, & Wilson, David T. (2001). The future of competition: Value-creating networks. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 379−389.

Lewis, Marianne W. (2002). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760−776.

Lingreen, Adam, & Wynstra, Finn (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know” where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 732−748.

Lovelock, Christopher, & Gummesson, Evert (2004). Wither service marketing?” In search of new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 47, 9−20 (Summer).

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (1998). Multiplex retailers versus traditional wholesalers: An empirical test of the total value of the purchase model. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 28(8), 581−598.

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (2006a). The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Lusch, Robert F, & Vargo, Stephen L. (2006b). The service-dominant logic of marketing: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281−288.

Lusch, Robert F., Vargo, Stephen L., & Obrien, Mathew (2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5−18.

McCammon, Bert, Jr. (1970). Perspectives for distribution programming. In Louis P. Bucklin (Ed.), Vertical marketing systems. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company 1970.

Mohan, Reddy N. (1991). Defining product value in industrial markets. Management Decision, 29(1), 14−20.

Moller, Kristian (2006). Role of competences in creating customer value: A valuecreation logic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 913−924.

Moller, Kristian, & Torronen, Pekka (2003). Business suppliers. Value creation potential: A capacity-based analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 109−118.

Normann, Richard (2001). Reframing business: when the map changes the landscape. Chichester, New Sussex: Wiley.

Phillips, Fred, Ochs, Lyle, & Schrock, Mike (1999). The product is dead — Long live the product-service. Research Technology Management, 42, 51−57 (July–August).

Rust, Roland, Zeithaml, Valarie A., & Lemon, Katherine N. (2000). Driving customer equity: how customer lifetime value is reshaping corporate strategy. New York: The Free Press.

Smith, Adam (1776/1904). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan and T, Cadell.

Ulaga, Wolfgang (2003). Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 677−693.

Ulaga, Wolfgang, & Eggert, Andreas (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships: Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70, 119−136 (January).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2004a). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1−17 (January).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2004b). The four services marketing myths: Remnants from a manufacturing model. Journal of Service Research, 324−335 (May).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it might be. In Robert F. Lusch & Stephen L. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate and directions (pp. 43−56). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Vargo, Stephen L., & Lusch, Robert F. (2008). “Service-dominant logic: further evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1−10 (Spring).

Vargo, Stephen L., & Morgan, Fred W. (2005). Services in society and academic thought: An historical analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 42−53 (June).

Vargo, Stephen L., Lusch, Robert F., & Morgan, Fred W. (2006). Historical perspectives on service-dominant logic. In R. F. Lusch & S.1. Vargo (Eds.), The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions (pp. 29−42). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56, 1−17 (October).

Zeithaml, Valarie A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, Leonard L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33−46 (Spring).

Zuboff, Shoshana, & Maxmin, James (2002). The support economy. New York: Penguin.

Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Bitner, M. J.

Résumé :

A typology of service organizations is presented and a conceptual framework is advanced for exploring the impact of physical surroundings on the behaviors of both customers and employees. The ability of the physical surroundings to facilitate achievement of organizational as well as marketing goals is explored. Literature from diverse disciplines provides theoretical grounding for the framework, which serves as a base for focused propositions. By examining the multiple strategic roles that physical surroundings can exert in service organizations, the author highlights key managerial and research implications.

  • Une typologie des organisations de services est présentée et un cadre conceptuel est mis au point pour explorer l’impact des environnements physiques sur les comportements des clients et des employés. La capacité de l’environnement physique à faciliter la réalisation d’objectifs organisationnels et marketing est explorée. Une littérature de diverses disciplines fournit une base théorique au cadre, qui sert de base à des propositions ciblées. En examinant les multiples rôles stratégiques que l’environnement physique peut jouer dans les organisations de services, l’auteur met en évidence les principales implications en termes de gestion et de recherche.

Mots clefs :

Marketing, Servicescape, behaviour, physical surrounding, organization, interactions

Développement :

The effect of atmospherics, or physical design and decor elements, on consumers and workers is recognized by managers and mentioned in virtually all marketing, retailing, and organizational behavior texts.

Managers continually plan, build, change, and control an organization’s physical surroundings, but frequently the impact of a specific design or design change on ultimate users of the facility is not fully understood. The ability of the physical environment to influence behaviors and to create an image is particularly apparent for service businesses such as hotels, restaurants, professional offices, banks, retail stores, and hospitals (Baker 1987; Bitner 1986; Booms and Bitner 1982; Kotler 1973; Shostack 1977; Upah and Fulton 1985; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1985).  Because the service generally is produced and consumed simultaneously, the consumer is “in the factory,” often experiencing the total service within the firm’s physical facility.

Le fait que les comportements des individus soit influencer ou impacter par les changements/ modifications physique autour d’eux nous renvoi au sensoriel. Les 5 sens sont le toucher, le gouts, l’odorat, l’ouïe, la vue. Chaque sens peut être impacter différemment par l’environnement physique. De plus, on se rend compte que les entreprises de services sont plus impacté par cela car que les entreprise de produits car le service est co-créer dans l’entreprise par le client et le personnel. De plus, il est simultanément consommer. Un service est intangible, indissociable, variable et périssable.

purchase, consumers commonly look for cues about the firm’s capabilities and quality (Berry and Clark 1986; Shostack 1977).

Research suggests that the physical setting may also influence the customer’s ultimate satisfaction with the service (Bitner 1990; Harrell, Hutt, and Anderson 1980).

in service organizations the same physical setting that communicates with and influences customers may affect employees of the firm (Baker, Berry, and Parasuraman 1988). Research in organizational behavior suggests that the physical setting can influence employee satisfaction, productivity, and motivation (e.g., Becker 1981; Davis 1984; Steele 1986; Sundstrom and Altman 1989; Sundstrom and Sundstrom 1986; Wineman 1986).

For example, in the Milliman experiments, music tempo was varied and the effect on a variety of consumer behaviors was measured

L’environnement physique impacte à la fois le consommateur/ client mais également l’employer. De plus comme il travaille ensemble pour co-créer ce service il est nécessaire que l’environnement physique impacte positivement les 2 parties. En effet, si l’employé est impacté négativement alors il influera de façon négative sur le consommateur et sur le service réalisé.

Because services generally are purchased and consumed simultaneously, and typically require direct human contact, customers and employees interact with each other within the organization’s physical facility. Ideally, therefore, the organization’s environment should support the needs and preferences of both service employees and customers simultaneously.

“The way the physical setting is created in organizations has barely been tapped as a tangible organizational resource” (Becker 1981, p. 130).

the physical setting can aid or hinder the accomplishment of both internal organizational goals and external marketing goals.

The physical surroundings are, in general, more important in service settings because customers as well as employees often experience the firm’s facility. However, not all service firms and industries are alike (Lovelock 1983; Schmenner 1986)

For interpersonal services, both organizational and marketing objectives could potentially be targeted through careful design of the servicescape. Even marketing goals such as relationship building (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles 1990) could be influenced by the design of the physical setting

That human behavior is influenced by the physical setting in which it occurs is essentially a truism. Interestingly, however, until the 1960s psychologists largely ignored the effects of physical setting in their attempts to predict and explain behavior. Since that time, a large and steadily growing body of literature within the field of environmental psychology has addressed the relationships between human beings and their built environments (for reviews of environmental psychology, see Darley and Gilbert 1985; Holahan 1986; Russell and Ward 1982; Stokols and Altman 1987)

à L’hôtellerie est considéré comme un service interpersonnel. Dans ce genre de service on remarque que des les relations entre les individus soit influencé en fonction de l’environnement physique qui les entoure. Ainsi, des rencontres peuvent être plus favorable sous certaines conditions.

Environmental psychologists suggest that individuals react to places with two general, and opposite, forms of behavior: approach and avoidance (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Approach behaviors include all positive behaviors that might be directed at a particular place, such as desire to stay, explore, work, and affiliate (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). Avoidance behaviors reflect the opposite, in other words, a desire not to stay, explore, work, and affiliate.

Milliman (1982, 1986) found that the tempo of background music can affect traffic flow and gross receipts in both supermarket and restaurant settings.

As Figure 2 shows, the approach/avoidance behaviors of employees and customers are determined largely by individual intemal responses (cognitive, emotional, and physiological) to the environment. The three types of internal responses are discussed in greater detail subsequently. The basic assumption is that positive (negative) intemal responses lead to approach (avoidance) behaviors.

Bennett and Bennett (1970) state that “all social interaction is affected by the physical container in which it occurs.” They go on to suggest that the physical container affects the nature of social interaction in terms of the duration of interaction and the actual progression of events.

Les individus réagissent différemment à l’environnement physique qui les entourent. Leur comportement peut être positif ce qui est appelé « approach » ou de façon négative « avoidance ».  Ce comportement/ réaction va refléter l’expérience ressenti par le client lors de son séjour à l’hôtel par exemple.

Forgas (1979) suggests that environmental variables such as propinquity, seating arrangements, size, and flexibility can define the possibilities and limits of social episodes, such as those between and among customers and employees.

Behaviors such as small group interaction, friendship formation, participation, aggression, withdrawal, and helping have all been shown to be influenced by environmental conditions (Holahan 1982).

Examples are again abundant in actual service settings. Even casual observation of a Club Med facility confirms that the highly complex setting is designed to encourage social interaction among and between guests and employees. Seating arrangements and the food preparation process at Benihana restaurants similarly encourage interactions among total strangers, as well as contact between patrons and the Japanese chef who prepares their meals in full view.

Nous remarquons que des variables environnementales telles que la proximité, la disposition des sièges, la taille et la flexibilité peuvent définir les possibilités et les limites tels que celles entre les clients et les employés. Elles peuvent également  favorisé l’interaction entre les différents clients.

the perceived servicescape may elicit cognitive responses (Golledge 1987; Kaplan and Kaplan 1982; Rapoport 1982), influencing people’s beliefs about a place and their beliefs about the people and products found in that place. In that sense, the environment can be viewed as a form of nonverbal communication (Broadbent, Bunt, and Jencks 1980; Rapoport 1982), imparting meaning through what Ruesch and Kees (1956) called “object language.”

In addition to influencing cognitions, the perceived servicescape may elicit emotional responses that in turn influence behaviors. In a long stream of research, Mehrabian and Russell and their colleagues have programmatically explored emotional responses to environments (e.g., Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Russell and Lanius 1984; Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell and Snodgrass 1987). Through their research they have concluded that the emotion-eliciting qualities of environments are captured by two dimensions: pleasure-displeasure and degree of arousal

Research also suggests that emotional responses to the environment may be transferred to people and/or objects within the environment (Maslow and Mintz 1956; Mintz 1956; Obermiller and Bitner 1984).

Kaplan (1987) concluded that preference for or liking of a particular environment can be predicted by three environmental dimensions: complexity, mystery, and coherence

Cette influence de l’environnement physique sur les individus est une forme de communication non verbale. Elle peut, ainsi, susciter des réactions émotionnelles qui peuvent être capturé en fonction de 2 dimensions : le plaisir-déplaisir et le degré d’excitation. Ainsi ces rections émotionnelles peuvent influer le comportement des individu. Nous avons également pu voir que des réactions émotionnelles peuvent être transmise à d’autres individus ou a des objets. Enfin, ces réactions peuvent être prédites grâce à 3 variables : la complexité, le mystère et la cohérence.

The perceived servicescape may also affect people in purely physiological ways. Noise that is too loud may cause physical discomfort, the temperature of a room may cause people to shiver or perspire, the air quality may make it difficult to breathe, and the glare of lighting may decrease ability to see and cause physical pain.

A complex mix of environmental features constitute the servicescape and influence internal responses and behaviors. Specifically, the dimensions of the physical surroundings include all of the objective physical factors that can be controlled by the firm to enhance (or constrain) employee and customer actions.

Many items in the physical environment serve as explicit or implicit signals that communicate about the place to its users (Becker 1977, 1981; Davis 1984; Wener 1985; Wineman 1982). Signs displayed on the exterior and interior of a structure are examples of explicit communicators

Signs have even been found to reduce perceived crowding and stress in a jail lobby setting (Wener and Kaminoff 1982).

Other environmental objects may communicate less directly than signs, giving implicit cues to users about the meaning of the place and norms and expectations for behavior in the place. Quality of materials used in construction, artwork, presence of certificates and Photographs on walls, floor coverings, and personal Objects displayed in the environment can all communicate symbolic meaning and create an overall aesthetic impression.

Le Servicescape est un concept, développé par Booms et Bitner, qui montre l’impact de l’environnement physique dans lequel un processus de service a lieu. Booms and Bitner definissent le servicescape comme “the environment in which the service is assembled and in which the seller and customer interact, combined with tangible commodities that facilitate performance or communication of the service” (Booms and Bitner, 1981, p. 36). Les preuves physiques peuvent être en extérieures (paysage, conception extérieure, signalisation, parking, environnement environnant) mais aussi en intérieures (conception et décoration intérieures, équipement, signalisation, aménagement, qualité de l’air, température et ambiance)

Le Servicescape peut affecter un individu du manière physiologie (un bruit qui l’irrite, une odeur qui lui donne la nausée…).

Des éléments de l’environnement physique/ servicescape  sont des signes qui serve de communication pour les individus. Par exemple : le symbole toilette dans un lieux public ou la direction à prendre pour aller vers la salle de fitness. Ces signaux vont impacter l’expérience clients s’il sont mal positionner ou mal compris par l’individu. De plus, ces éléments peuvent faire ressentir à l’individu quel est la qualité du service qu’il va recevoir.  

Bibliographie :

Baker, Julie (1987), “The Role of the Environment in Marketing Services: The Consumer Perspective,” in The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, John
A. Czepiel, Carole A. Congram, and James Shanahan, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 79-84.

—,Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1988), “The Marketing Impact of Branch Facility Design,” Journal of Retail Banking, 10 (2), 33-42.

Barker, Roger G. (1968), Ecological Psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bechtel, Robert B., Robert W. Marans, and William Michelson (1987), Methods in Environmental and Behavioral Research. New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc.

Becker, Franklin D. (1977), Housing Messages. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc.

—-(1981), Workspace. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Belk, Russell W., John F. Sherry, Jr. and Melanie Wallendorf (1988), “A Naturalistic Inquiry Into Buyer and Seller Behavior at a Swap Meet,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 449-70.

—-, Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (1989),”The Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (June), 1-38.

Bell, Paul, J. D. Fisher, and R. J. Loomis (1978), Environmental Psychology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.

Bennett, Corwin (1977), Spaces for People, Human Factors in Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bennett, David J. and Judith D. Bennett (1970), “Making the Scene,” in Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interactionism, G. Stone and H. Farberman, eds. Waltham, MA: Ginn-Blaisdell, 190-6.

Berry, Leonard L. and Terry Clark (1986), “Four Ways to Make Services More Tangible,” Business (October-December), 53-4.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1986), “Consumer Responses to the Physical Environment in Service Settings,” in Creativity in Services Marketing, M. Venkatesan, Diane M. Schmalensee, and Claudia Marshall, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 89-93.

Bitner, Mary Jo (1990), “Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 69-82.

Booms, Bernard H. and Mary J. Bitner (1982), “Marketing Services by Managing the Environment,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 23 (May), 35-9.

Broadbent, Geoffrey, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jencks (1980), Signs, Symbols and Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Campbell, David E. (1979), “Interior Office Design and Visitor Response,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (6), 648- 53.

Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles (1990), “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 68-81.

Darley, John M. and Daniel T. Gilbert (1985), “Social Psychological Aspects of Environmental Psychology,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed.. Vol. II, Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, eds. New York: Random House Inc., 949-91.

Davis, Gerald and Françoise Szigeti (1982), “Planning and Programming Offices: Determining User Requirements,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 302-4, 306-15.

Davis, Tim R. V. (1984), “The Influence of the Physical Environment in Offices,” Academy of Management Review 9 (2), 271-83.

Donovan, Robert and John Rossiter (1982), “Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach,” Journal of Retailing, 58 (Spring), 34-57.

Forgas, Joseph P. (1979), Social Episodes. London: Academic Press, Inc.

Gardner, Meryl P. (1985), “Mood States and Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 281-300.

—-and George J. Siomkos (1986), “Toward a Methodology for Assessing Effects of In-Store Atmospherics,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research 27-31.

Golledge, Reginald G. (1987), “Environmental Cognition,” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 131-74.

Griffm, William (1970), “Environmental Effects on Interpersonal Affective Behavior: Ambient Effective Temperature and Attraction,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (3), 240-4.

Harrell, Gilbert D. and Michael D. Hutt (1976), “Crowding in Retail Stores,” MSU Business Topics (Winter), 33-9.

Harrell, Gilbert D, and James C. Anderson (1980), “Path Analysis of Buyer Behavior Under Conditions of Crowding,” Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (February), 45 – 51

Holahan, Charles J. (1982), Environmental Psychology. New York: Random House, Inc.

—-(1986), “Environmental Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 381-407.

Hui, Michael K. M. and John E. G. Bateson (1990), “Testing a Theory of Crowding in the Service Environment,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gom, and Richard W. PoUay, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 866-73.

—–and  —– (1991), “Perceived Control and the Effects of Crowding and Consumer Choice on the Service Expenence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 174— 84.

Ittelson, William H., Harold M. Proshansky, Leanne G. Rivlin, and Gary H. Winkel (1974), An Introduction to Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Kaplan, Stephen (1987), “Aesthetics, Affect, and Cognition,” Environment and Behavior, 19 (January), 3-32.

—–and Rachel Kaplan (1982), Cognition and Environment. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Kleine, Robert E. and Jerome B. Keman (1988), “Measuring the Meaning of Consumption Objects: An Empirical Investigation,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, Michael J. Houston, ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 498-504.

Kotler, Phillip (1973), “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,” Journal of Retailing, 49 (4), 48-64.

Lemke, S., R. Moos, B. Mehren, and M. Ganvain (1979), Multiphasic Environment Assessment Procedure (MEAP): Handbook for Users. Palo Alto, CA: Social Ecology Laboratory.

Levine, Marvin, Iris Marchon, and Gerard Hanley (1984), “The Placement and Misplacement of You-Are-Here Maps,” Environment and Behavior, 16 (March), 139—57.

Loken, Barbara and James Ward (1990), “Altemative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” ioMr/ia/o/Con.yM/ncr/fesearc/i, 17 (September), 111- 26.

Lovelock, Christopher H. (1983), “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Insights,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Summer), 9-20.

Maslow, A. L. and N. L. Mintz (1956), “Effects of Esthetic Surroundings,” Journal of Psychology, 1 (41), 247-54.

McCaskey, Michael B. (1979), “The Hidden Messages Managers Send,” Harvard Business Review, 57 (November-December), 135-48.

McKechnie, G. E. (1974), Manual for the Environment Response Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mehrabian, Albert (1977), “Individual Differences in Stimulus Screening and Arousability,” Journal of Personality, 45 (2), 237-50.

—-and James A. Russell (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mervis, C. and E. Rosch (1981), “Categorization of Natural Objects,” Annual Review of Psychology, M. R. Rosensweig and L. W. Porter, eds. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. 32, 89-115.

Milliman, Ronald (1982), “Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior of Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Summer), 86-91.

Milliman, Ronald (1986), “The Influence of Background Music on the Behavior of Restaurant Patrons,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 286-9.

Mintz, Norbett L. (1956), “Effects of Esthetic Surroundings II: Prolonged and Repeated Experience in a ‘Beautiful’ and an ‘Ugly’ Room,” Journal of Psychology, 41, 459-66.

Morrow, Paula C. and James C. McElroy (1981), “Interior Office Design and Visitor Response: A Constructive Replication,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 (5), 646-50.

Nasar, Jack L. (1987), “Effect of Sign Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived Quality of Retail Scenes,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (4), 499- 509.

—-(1989), “Perception, Cognition, and Evaluation of Urban Places,” in Public Places and Spaces, Irwin Altman and Ervin H. Zube, eds. New York: Plenum Press, 31-56.

Obermiller, Carl and Mary Jo Bitner (1984), “Store Atmosphere: A Peripheral Cue for Product Evaluation,” in American Psychological Association Annual Conference Proceedings, Consumer Psychology Division, David C. Stewart, ed. American Psychological Association, 52-3.

Obome, David J. (1987), Ergonomics at Work, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Peters, Thomas J. (1978), “Symbols, Pattems, and Settings: An Optimistic Case for Getting Things Done,” Organizational Dynamics, 1 (Autumn), 3-23.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1981), “Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1-52.

Rapoport, Amos (1982), The Meaning of the Built Environment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Riley, M. W. and D. J. Cochran (1984), “Dexterity Performance and Reduced Ambient Temperature,” Human Factors, 26 (2), 207-14.

Ruesch, Jürgen and Weldon Kees (1956), Nonverbal Communication. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Calif omia Press.

Russell, James A. and U. F. Lanius (1984), “Adaptation Level and the Affective Appraisal of Environments,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4 (2), 119-35.

—-and Géraldine Pratt (1980), “A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to Environments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (2), 311-22.

—- and Jacalyn Snodgrass (1987), “Emotion and the Environment,” in Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1, Daniel Stokols and Irwin Altman, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 245-81.

—-and Lawrence M. Ward (1982), “Environmental Psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 651-88.

Sanders, Mark S. and Emest J. McCormick (1987), Human Factors in Engineering and Design. New York: McGrawHill Book Company.

Schmenner, Roger W. (1986), “How Can Service Businesses Survive and Prosper?” Sloan Management Review, 27 (Spring), 21-32.

Seidel, A. (1983), “Way Finding in Public Space: The DallasFt. Worth, U.S.A. Airport,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, D. Aneseo, J. Griffen, and J. Potter, eds. Lincoln, NB: Environmental Design Research Association.

Sherry, John F., Jr. and Mary Ann McGrath (1989), “Unpacking the Holiday Presence: A Comparative Ethnography of Two Gift Stores,” in Interpretive Consumer Behavior, Elizabeth C. Hirschman, ed. Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research, 148-67.

Shostack, G. Lynn (1977), “Breaking Free From Product Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 73-80.

Snodgrass, Jacalyn, James A. Russell, and Lawrence M. Ward (1988), “Planning, Mood and Place-Liking,” in Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8 (3), 209-22.

Solomon, Michael R. (1985), “Packaging the Service Provider,” Services Industries Journal, 5 (July), 64-71

Sommer, R. (1974), Tight Spaces: Hard Architecture and How to Humanize It. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Steele, Fritz (1986), Making and Managing High-Quality Workplaces. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stokols, Daniel and Irwin Altman (1987), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sundstrom, Eric and Irwin Altman (1989), “Physical Environments and Work-Group Effectiveness,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 175-209.

—-and Mary Graehl Sundstrom (1986), Work Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Szalay, Lorand B. and James Deese (1978), Subjective Meaning and Culture: An Assessment Through Word Associations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Upah, Gregory D. and James N. Fulton (1985), “Situation Creation in Services Marketing,” in The Service Encounter, John Czepiel, Michael Solomon, and Carol Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 255-64.

Ward, James C , Mary Jo Bitner, and John Barnes (1992), “Measuring the Prototypicality and Meaning of Retail Environments,” Journal of Retailing, forthcoming.

—-, and Dan Gossett (1989), “SEEM: Measuring the Meaning of Service Environments,” in Designing a Winning Service Strategy, Mary Jo Bitner and Lawrence A. Crosby, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 34-9.

Ward, Lawrence M., Jacalyn Snodgrass, Barry Chew, and James A. Russell (1988), “The Role of Plans in Cognitive and Affective Responses to Places,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8 (1), 1-8.

Wener, Richard E. (1985), “The Environmental Psychology of Service Encounters,” in The Service Encounter, John Czepiel, Michael Solomon, and Carol Surprenant, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 101-12.

—-and Robert Kaminoff (1982), “Improving Environmental Information: Effects of Signs on Perceived Crowding and Behavior,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (6), 671- 94.

Whyte, William H. (1980), The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Wineman, Jean D. (1982), “Office Design and Evaluation,” Environment and Behavior, 14 (3), 271-98.

—-(1986), Behavioral Issues in Office Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1976), “Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of Affect,” in Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 1, Irwin Altman and Joachim F. Wohlwill, eds. New York: Plenum Press.

Yalch, Richard F. and Eric Spangenberg (1988), “An Environmental Psychological Study of Foreground and Background Music as Retail Atmospheric Factors,” in Efficiency and Effectiveness in Marketing, 1988 AMA Educators’ Proceedings, Gary Frazier et al., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 106-10.

Zeithaml, Valarie (1981), “How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ Between Goods and Services,” in Marketing of Services, James H. Donnelly and William R. George, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 186-90.

—-(1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22. Zeithaml, Valarie, A. Parasuraman, and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing,” Journal of M

Making Sense in Marketing: Sensory Strategies for International Quick Service Restaurants Mohammed Abdul Azeem and Sharafat Hussain MANTHAN: Journal of Commerce and Management, Volume 5, Issue 2, Jul-Dec 2018

Résumé :

Given the importance of ‘Sensory Marketing’ in the field of QSR (Quick Service Restaurant) industry, the objective of this paper is to identify if sensory factors influence customers’ selection of a QSR. Data of 1600 respondents were collected from four international QSRs (KFC, McDonald, Domino’s and Subway) across four cities (Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad) of India. Factor analysis revealed three components, namely: Sensory influence, Promotional influence and Monetary influence, due to their high factor loadings. Further, Multiple regression analysis indicated that the Sensory factor contributed significantly to the model followed by Promotional and Monetary Factors. The study concludes that Sensory Factor is the most influencing factor for customers to select a QSR contrary to the general belief of Promotional and Monetary factors. This study adds to theoretical insights of the Sensory marketing literature and also recommends its practical implications to the marketing managers of the QSRs.

Compte tenu de l’importance du «marketing sensoriel» dans le secteur des restaurants à service rapide, l’objectif de ce document est d’identifier si des facteurs sensoriels influencent la sélection du QSR par les clients. Les données de 1600 répondants ont été recueillies auprès de quatre QSR internationaux (KFC, McDonald, Domino’s et Subway) dans quatre villes indiennes (Mumbai, Chennai, Bangalore et Hyderabad). L’analyse factorielle a révélé trois composantes, à savoir: l’influence sensorielle, l’influence promotionnelle et l’influence monétaire, en raison de leur forte charge factorielle. De plus, une analyse de régression multiple a indiqué que le facteur sensoriel contribuait de manière significative au modèle suivi des facteurs promotionnels et monétaires. L’étude conclut que le facteur sensoriel est le facteur le plus déterminant pour que les clients choisissent un QSR contrairement aux idées reçues sur les facteurs promotionnels et monétaires. Cette étude complète les connaissances théoriques de la littérature sur le marketing sensoriel et recommande également ses implications pratiques aux responsables marketing des QSR.

Mots clefs :

Sensory marketing; Sensory influence; Quick service restaurant; Multisensory strategies; Experiential marketing; Fast food restaurants.

Développement :

 Atwal and Williams (2009) The traditional mass marketing is slowly disappearing and are being replaced by small markets with numerous segments, where individualization and customisation of products and services are key.

One consequence is that traditional mass marketing, which once dominated the advertising arena, is being questioned more than ever before in the past as a profitable and productive means to reach customers (Belk, 2008).

Of the 5 human senses, the sense of sight has so far dominated advertising practice (Pashler, 1999). There’s without a doubt that the other human senses – odour, taste, sound, and touch – were ignored for quite a very long time, regardless of their significance when somebody considers and determines around a product or brand.

five human senses are today receiving increased attention (Katz, 1999).

Sensory marketing is not the same as mass or relationship marketing, because it has its long lasting impression in the brain of the individual.

Sensory advertising is distinguished by mass and relationship marketing by being its origin in the 5 human senses. It’s from the human mark that mental streams, processes, and psychological reactions take place that results in someone’s sensory experience (Peck and Shu, 2009).

Le marketing traditionnelle est de plus en plus remplacé par un nouvelle forme qu’est la personnalisation.

Le sensoriel est utilisé dans le marketing et plus particulièrement la vue avec la publicité. Les autres sens ont longtemps été oublié mais aujourd’hui, les marketeurs y font plus attention lors de la mise en place de leurs stratégies.  

Le marketing sensoriel est différent du marketing de masse mais aussi du marketing relationnel, car l’individu va se remémorer de façon durable l’expérience et cela est  imprégné dans le cerveau des individus.

The challenge then before entrepreneurs is to know how to stimulate the senses of the consumers in order to provide them with consumption experience that’s perceived to be memorable.

This expertise is vital to changing customer behaviour into the goal to buy, which leads to increased sales, profitability and market share. This research concentrates on how sensory advertising influence customer selection of a fast food chain restaurant.

In accordance with the Hultén (2015) model in Figure 2, the task of marketers is to create sensorial approaches that stimulate the senses by producing various sensations. These sensations rotate around the atmospheric, sound, visual, gastronomic and tactile spheres. All of them coalesce to create a multi-sensory brand experience that is vital to creating customer equity. All of them help create a multi-sensory brand experience which is crucial to creating customer equity and loyalty.

According to Bennett (2009) Servicescape includes distinct environmental dimensions that are defined as ambient conditions, space/function and signs, symbols & artefacts. These measurements consist of both interior and exterior design, including the surrounding environment in addition to layout, gear and sound, music, odour, lighting all that were identified as factors influencing client’s behaviour.

Le but, afin d’avoir une augmentation des ventes, de la rentabilité et des parts de marché, est de savoir comment stimuler les sens des consommateurs afin de leur offrir une expérience de consommation perçue comme étant mémorable.

Afin de stimuler les sens il faut produire diverses sensations aux individus afin de créer une expérience client multi-sensorielle qui peut ainsi devenir inoubliable. Ceci peut différentier une entreprise de la concurrence et permet a un individu de devenir un client fidèle.

Le servicescape défini que les modifications de l’environnement physique impact les individus et leur comportements. Elle comprend la conception intérieure et extérieure, y compris sur l’environnement, ainsi que sur la disposition, l’équipement et le son, la musique, les odeurs et l’éclairage, facteurs qui influent sur le comportement du client.

From the above literature review, it is seen that people perceive their environment through their perceptions. Senses play a major part in influencing their behavior and in their evaluation of the experience.

The objective of the study is to identify the key sensory factors that influence customers’ selection of a fast food chain restaurant.

Ho: Sensory factors do not influence customers towards the selection of a fast food restaurant.

This means that the study has identified three factors influencing the customer’s selection of a fast food restaurant – First influencing factor of restaurant selection is Sensory Factors, the second influencing factor is Monetary Factor and the third influencing factor is Promotional Factor.

According to the factor analysis of the influencing factors, three components, namely: Sensory influence, Promotional influence and Monetary influence emerged as important factors

Les perceptions et les sens des individus jouent un rôle majeur dans l’influence de leur comportement et dans leur évaluation de l’expérience et, ainsi, de leur fidélité à la marque ou non.

l’étude a identifié trois facteurs influençant le choix du client d’un restaurant de restauration rapide: le facteur déterminant du choix du restaurant est le facteur sensoriel, le second facteur est le facteur monétaire et le troisième facteur est le facteur promotionnel. Ainsi nous pouvons retenir que le facteur sensoriel est très important sur le choix de l’individu ainsi que le facteur monétaire te le facteur promotionnel. Et nous pouvons utiliser cette étude comme point de départ sur le secteur de l’hôtellerie qui est également un secteur de service au même titre que la restauration rapide.

Bibliographie :

Arnheim, R. (1971). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Atwal, G., & Williams, A. (2009). Luxury brand marketing – The experience is everything! Journal of Brand Management, 16(5), 338–346.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.

Bennett, R. (1996). Relationship formation and governance in consumer markets: Transactional analysis versus the behaviourist approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(5), 417–436.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57.

Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., & Yoh, E. (2000). Effects of a product display and environmental fragrancing on approach responses and pleasurable experiences. Psychology & Marketing, 17(1), 27–54.

Harris, L. C., & Ezeh, C. (2008). Servicescape and loyalty intentions: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), 390–422.

Hultén, B. (2015). Sensory marketing: Theoretical and empirical grounds. Abingdon: Routledge.

Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krishna, A. (2011). Sensory marketing: Research on the sensuality of products. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lindstrom, M. (2010). Brand sense: Sensory secrets behind the stuff we buy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Pashler, H. E. (1999). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.

Rolls, E. T. (1999). The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Simonson, A., & Schmitt, B. H. (1997). Marketing aesthetics: The strategic management of brands, identity, and image. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Spies, K., Hesse, F., & Loesch, K. (1997). Store atmosphere, mood and purchasing behavior. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14(1), 1–17.

Turley, L. w., & Fugate, D. L. (1992). The Multidimensional Nature of Service Facilities. Journal of Services Marketing, 6(3), 37–45.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254–259.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing by Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F (2017).

Résumé :

Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output. The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions. Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the cocreation of value, and relationships. The authors believe that the new perspectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange. The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators.

  • Le marketing a hérité d’un modèle d’échange de l’économie, qui avait une logique dominante basée sur l’échange de « marchandises », qui sont généralement des productions manufacturières. La logique dominante portait sur les ressources matérielles, la valeur incorporée et les transactions. Au cours des dernières décennies, de nouvelles perspectives ont émergé qui ont une logique révisée, axée sur les ressources intangibles, la cocréation de valeur et les relations. Les auteurs estiment que les nouvelles perspectives convergent pour former une nouvelle logique dominante pour la commercialisation, l’une dans laquelle la prestation de services, plutôt que les marchandises, est fondamentale pour l’échange économique. Les auteurs explorent cette logique évolutive et le changement de perspective correspondant pour les spécialistes du marketing, les praticiens du marketing et les éducateurs en marketing.

Mots clefs :

Services marketing; goods marketing ; marketing institutions ; Customer satisfaction

Développement :

The formal study of marketing focused at first on the distribution and exchange of commodities and manufactured products and featured a foundation in economics (Marshall 1927; Shaw 1912; Smith 1904). The first marketing scholars directed their attention toward commodities exchange (Copeland 1923), the marketing institutions that made goods available and arranged for possession (Nystrom 1915; Weld 1916), and the functions that needed to be performed to facilitate the exchange of goods through marketing institutions (Cherington 1920; Weld 1917).

By the early 1950s, the functional school began to morph into the marketing management school, which was characterized by a decision-making approach to managing the marketing functions and an overarching focus on the customer (Drucker 1954; Levitt 1960; McKitterick 1957). McCarthy (1960) and Kotler (1967) characterized marketing as a decision-making activity directed at satisfying the customer at a profit by targeting a market and then making optimal decisions on the marketing mix, or the “4 P’s.”

Gummesson (1995, pp. 250–51, emphasis added) states the following: Customers do not buy goods or services: [T]hey buy offerings which render services which create value.… The traditional division between goods and services is long outdated. It is not a matter of redefining services and seeing them from a customer perspective; activities render services, things render services. The shift in focus to services is a shift from the means and the producer perspective to the utilization and the customer perspective.

(Un résumé de cette évolution au cours des 100 dernières années est présenté dans le tableau 1 et la figure 1)

Briefly, marketing has moved from a goods-dominant view, in which tangible output and discrete transactions were central, to a service-dominant view, in which intangibility, exchange processes, and relationships are central.

It is worthwhile to note that the service-centered view should not be equated with (1) the restricted, traditional conceptualizations that often treat services as a residual (that which is not a tangible good; e.g., Rathmell 1966); (2) something offered to enhance a good (value-added services); or (3) what have become classified as services industries, such as health care, government, and education. Rather, we define services as the application of specialized competences (knowledge and skills) through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity itself.

1950–1980: Marketing Management •Business should be customer focused (Drucker 1954; McKitterick 1957) •Value “determined” in marketplace (Levitt 1960) •Marketing is a decision-making and problem-solving function (Kotler 1967; McCarthy 1960) : Customers do not buy things but need or want fulfillment. Everyone in the firm must be focused on the customer because the firm’s only purpose is to create a satisfied customer. Identification of the functional responses to the changing environment that provide competitive advantage through differentiation begins to shift toward value in use.

The marketing literature rarely mentioned “immaterial products” or “services,” and when it did, it mentioned them only as “aids to the production and marketing of goods” (Converse 1921, p. vi; see Fisk, Brown, and Bitner 1993).

On remarque que pendant des années, le marketing des services n’était pas reconnu en tant que tel mais était seulement reconnu comme une aide apportée au marketing de biens autrement dit une prestation qui pousserait à l’achat de biens tangibles.

The service-centered view can be stated as follows: 1. Identify or develop core competences, the fundamental knowledge and skills of an economic entity that represent potential competitive advantage. 2. Identify other entities (potential customers) that could benefit from these competences. 3. Cultivate relationships that involve the customers in developing customized, competitively compelling value propositions to meet specific needs. 4. Gauge marketplace feedback by analyzing financial performance from exchange to learn how to improve the firm’s offering to customers and improve firm performance.

The service-centered view of marketing is customercentric (Sheth, Sisodia, and Sharma 2000) and market driven (Day 1999). This means more than simply being consumer oriented; it means collaborating with and learning from customers and being adaptive to their individual and dynamic needs. A service-centered dominant logic implies that value is defined by and cocreated with the consumer rather than embedded in output.

C’est dans cette optique que la notion d’expérience client et de satisfaction client prend tout son sens et découle de l’apprentissage des besoins clients. Le consommateur est un acteur principal dans le marketing des services.

Haeckel (1999) observes successful firms moving from practicing a “make-and-sell” strategy to a “sense-and-respond” strategy. Day (1999, p. 70) argues for thinking in terms of self-reinforcing “value cycles” rather than linear value chains. In the servicecentered view of marketing, firms are in a process of continual hypothesis generation and testing. Outcomes (e.g., financial) are not something to be maximized but something to learn from as firms try to serve customers better and improve their performance.

Six differences between the goods- and service-centered dominant logic, all centered on the distinction between operand and operant resources, are presented in Table 2. The six attributes and our eight foundational premises (FPs) help present the patchwork of the emerging dominant logic.

Frederic Bastiat criticized the political economists’view that value was tied only to tangible objects. For Bastiat (1860, p. 40), the foundations of economics were people who have “wants” and who seek “satisfactions.” Although a want and its satisfaction are specific to each person, the effort required is often provided by others. For Bastiat (1964, pp. 161–62), “the great economic law is this: Services are exchanged for services…. It is trivial, very commonplace; it is, nonetheless, the beginning, the middle, and the end of economic science.” He argued (1860, p. 43) the following: “[I]t is in fact to this faculty … to work the one for the other; it is this transmission of efforts, this exchange of services [this emphasis added], with all the infinite and involved combinations to which it gives rise … which constitutes Economic Science, points out its origin, and determines its limits.” Therefore, value was considered the comparative appreciation of reciprocal skills or services that are exchanged to obtain utility; value meant “value in use.”

Norris (1941, p. 136) was one of the first scholars to recognize that people want goods because they provide services.

Par exemple, on ne souhaite pas une ampoule connectée / intelligente dans notre chambre d’hôtel juste pour éclairer la pièce mais pour créer une ambiance, qui plus est, qui nous ressemble. Cette ampoule nous permet donc de personnaliser l’ambiance de notre chambre selon notre humeur ou nos envies et apporte un réel service, bien plus que de la lumière.

In addition to their direct service provision, the appliances serve as platforms for meeting higher-order needs (Rifkin 2000). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, p. 84) refer to the appliances as “artifacts, around which customers have experiences” (see also Pine and Gilmore 1999). Gutman (1982, p. 60) has pointed out that products are “means” for reaching “end-states,” or “valued states of being, such as happiness, security, and accomplishment.”

From a service-centered view of marketing with a heavy focus on continuous processes, the consumer is always involved in the production of value. Even with tangible goods, production does not end with the manufacturing process; production is an intermediary process.

Le produit fournit un service mais il faut aussi que le client apprenne à l’utiliser pour pouvoir « profiter » de ce service, sinon il n’y a pas de bénéfices avec ce produit.

Likewise, Gronroos (2000, pp. 24–25; emphasis in original) states, Value for customers is created throughout the relationship by the customer, partly in interactions between the customer and the supplier or service provider. The focus is not on products but on the customers’ value-creating processes where value emerges for customers and is perceived by them.

Interactivity, integration, customization, and coproduction are the hallmarks of a service-centered view and its inherent focus on the customer and the relationship.

Bibliographie :

Bastiat, Fredric (1860), Harmonies of Political Economy, Patrick S. Sterling, trans. London: J. Murray. ——— (1964), Selected Essays on Political Economy, (1848), Seymour Cain, trans., George. B. de Huszar, ed. Reprint, Princeton, NJ : D. Van Nordstrand.

Cherington, Paul T. (1920), The Elements of Marketing. New York: Macmillan

Converse, Paul D. (1921), Marketing Methods and Politics. New York: Prentice Hall.

Copeland, Melvin T. (1923), Marketing Problems. New York: A.W. Shaw

Day, George (1999), The Market Driven Organization: Understanding, Attracting, and Keeping Valuable Customers. New York: The Free Press.

Drucker, Peter F. (1954), The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Row.

Fisk, Raymond P., Stephen W. Brown, and Mary Jo Bitner (1993), “Tracking the Evolution of the Services Marketing Literature,” Journal of Retailing, 69 (Spring), 61–103.

Gronroos, Christian (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Gummesson, Evert (1995), “Relationship Marketing: Its Role in the Service Economy,” in Understanding Services Management, William J. Glynn and James G. Barnes, eds. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 244–68.

Gutman, Jonathan (1982) “A Means–End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Spring), 60–72.

Haeckel, Stephen H. (1999), Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Boston: Harvard School of Business.

Kotler, Philip (1967), Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, and Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Levitt, Theodore (1960), “Marketing Myopia,” Harvard Business Review, 38 (July–August), 26–44, 173–81.

Marshall, Alfred (1927), Principles of Economics, (1890). Reprint, London: Macmillan.

McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960), Basic Marketing, A Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

McKitterick, J.B. (1957), “What Is the Marketing Management Concept?” in Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science, Frank M. Bass, ed. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 71–81.

Norris, Ruby Turner (1941), The Theory of Consumer’s Demand. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Nystrom, Paul (1915), The Economics of Retailing, Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Ronald Press.

Pine, B. Joseph and James H. Gilmore (1999), The Experience Economy: Work Is Theater and Every Business a Stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Prahalad, C.K. and and Venkatram Ramaswamy (2000), “Co-opting Customer Competence,” Harvard Business Review, 78 (January– February), 79–87.

Rathmell, John M. (1966), “What Is Meant by Services?” Journal of Marketing, 30 (October), 32–36.

Rifkin, Jeremy (2000), The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life is a Paid-For Experience. New York: Putnam.

Shaw, A. (1912), “Some Problems in Market Distribution,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12 (August), 703–765.

Sheth, Jagdish, Rajendra S. Sisodia, and Arun Sharma (2000), “The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Centric Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (Winter), 55–66.

Smith, A. (1904), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (1776). Reprint, London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

Weld, Louis D.H. (1916), The Marketing of Farm Products. New York: Macmillan.

  • (1917), “Marketing Functions and Mercantile Organizations,” American Economic Review, 7 (June), 306–318.

The Effect of Mere Touch on Perceived Ownership by Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009).

Résumé :

This research finds that merely touching an object results in an increase in perceived ownership of that object. For nonowners, or buyers, perceived ownership can be increased with either mere touch or with imagery encouraging touch. Perceived ownership can also be increased through touch for legal owners, or sellers of an object. We also explore valuation of an object and conclude that it is jointly influenced by both perceived ownership and by the valence of the touch experience. We discuss the implications of this research for online and traditional retailers as well as for touch research and endowment effect research.

  • Cette recherche montre que le simple fait de toucher un objet entraîne une augmentation de la propriété perçue de cet objet. Pour les non-propriétaires ou les acheteurs, la propriété perçue peut être augmentée avec un simple toucher ou avec un toucher qui encourage l’image. La propriété perçue peut également être augmentée par le toucher pour les propriétaires légaux ou les vendeurs d’un objet. Nous explorons également l’évaluation d’un objet et concluons qu’il est conjointement influencé à la fois par la propriété perçue et par la valence de l’expérience tactile. Nous discutons des implications de cette recherche pour les détaillants en ligne et traditionnels, ainsi que pour la recherche tactile et la recherche sur les effets de dotation.

Mots clefs :

Touch, Sense, Ownership, experience, purchase, Marketing

Développement :

2003, the Illinois state attorney general’s office issued a warning for holiday shoppers to be cautious of retailers who encourage them to hold objects and imagine the objects as their own when shopping. The basis of this warning was presumably that the combination of physically holding the object and ownership imagery may lead to unplanned or unnecessary purchases.

Research on the sense of touch or haptics has increased in the marketing literature, possibly encouraged by the rise of online shopping where marketers are interested in how to compensate consumers for touch when it is unavailable (Peck and Childers 2007). Previous research in marketing has examined product category differences and found that some product categories encourage touch more than others (e.g., Grohmann, Spangenberg, and Sprott 2007; McCabe and Nowlis 2003; Peck and Childers 2003a). The sense of touch excels at obtaining texture, hardness, temperature, and weight information (Klatzky and Lederman 1992, 1993).

consumers will be more motivated to touch the product prior to purchase to ascertain specific attribute information (please see Peck [2009] for a review of haptic research in marketing)

the experience of touching a pleasantly valenced object can influence persuasion, even if the touch element provides no information regarding the product (Peck and Wiggins 2006)

L’expérience sensorielle joue un réelle rôle dans le choix de l’achat mais également dans le choix entre différentes marque. Nous avons pu voir que le toucher était particulièrement important dans l’acte d’achat. Les consommateurs seront plus motivés à toucher le produit avant de l’acheter pour vérifier les informations d’attributs spécifiques. De plus, l’expérience de toucher un objet et si la sensation est agréablement validé, cette dernière peut avoir une influence sur la persuasion, même si l’élément tactile ne fournit aucune information sur le produit.

Twenty-five years of research has shown that consumers’ valuation of an object increases once they have taken ownership of it, a finding commonly known as the endowment effect (Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler 1990; Knetsch and Sinden 1984; Thaler 1980)

Our primary research motivation is to understand how merely touching an object influences perceived ownership and the valuation of an object. Previous work has established that the opportunity to touch can increase unplanned purchasing (Peck and Childers 2006) and also the willingness to donate time or money to a non profit organization (Peck and Wiggins 2006) but has not considered its effects on  ownership or valuation

Individuals may feel ownership of an object without actually owning it. Psychological ownership (Pierce et al. 2003) is distinct from legal ownership and is characterized by the feeling that something is “mine.” For example, employees in an organization may develop feelings of ownership toward the organization (Pierce, Kostova, and Dirks 2001, 2003)

Previous literature has suggested concepts similar to perceived ownership, such as anticipatory possession or pseudo-endowment (Ariely and Simonson 2003; Carmon, Wertenbroch, and Zeelenberg 2003)

Sen and Johnson (1997) did not manipulate perceived ownership of an object but did manipulate possession. They used coupons for restaurants and found that having a coupon for a product influenced preference for that option.

Nous avons pu remarquer que la valeur d’un objet augmente une fois qu’il en est devenu propriétaire, constat connu sous le nom d’effet de dotation. De plus, la possibilité de toucher peut augmenter les achats non planifiés.

D’une autre façon, les individus peuvent se sentir propriétaires d’un objet sans le posséder réellement : la propriété psychologique. C’est le sentiment que quelque chose est «mien». Par exemple, les employés d’une organisation peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation ou les client d’une marque peuvent développer un sentiment de propriété à l’égard de l’organisation. Un autre exemple, le football quand les supporteurs disent « mon équipe a gagné ». Il ressente un sentiment de propriété envers l’organisation.

Overall, it was found in study 1 that for buyers, where actual ownership was absent, object touch led to greater perceived ownership (hypothesis 1), which in turn led to higher valuation of the object, among individuals not instructed to use imagery. In addition, perceived ownership and valuation of an object were both increased by having buyers use ownership imagery

The first two studies found that mere touch can increase perceived ownership for buyers or nonowners (study 1) and for sellers or owners (study 2). In both studies, touch also increased the valuation of the object

Endowment effect research also provides some evidence that receiving objects perceived as unpleasant leads to a negative affective reaction toward the object, as evidenced by lower valuation. For example, Lerner, Small, and Loewenstein (2004) found that an individual’s negative emotional state (such as disgust or sadness) can lower valuation for endowed objects, and work on possession loss aversion (Brenner et al. 2007) shows lower selling prices for negative items.

Study 3 supported our predictions by finding that the ability to directly touch an object with positive sensory feedback increased perceived ownership, affective reaction, and the valuation of the object in a traditional endowment effect experiment. In addition, study 3 directly measured both perceived ownership and affective reactions toward the object and revealed that these two constructs mediate the effects of touch on valuation

It was found across all four studies that touch leads to increased perceived ownership, and this increase in perceived ownership then leads to an increase in valuation of an object if the object provides neutral or positive sensory feedback

Finally, our research supports Captain Jean-Luc Picard’s claim that “For humans, touch can connect you to an object in a very personal way.” In four studies, we found that mere touch does connect a person to an object by increasing the feeling of ownership of the object.

Nous avons remarqué que lorsque la propriété réelle était absente, le contact avec un objet entraînait une perception accrue de la propriété. De plus, le simple toucher peut accroître la perception de propriété pour les acheteurs ou les non propriétaires et pour les vendeurs ou les propriétaires mais également connecte une personne à un objet en augmentant le sentiment. de propriété de l’objet.

Bibliographie :

Ariely, Dan, Joel Huber, and Klaus Wertenbroch (2005), “When Do Losses Loom Larger than Gains?” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 134–38.

Ariely, Dan and Itamar Simonson (2003), “Buying, Bidding, Playing, or Competing? Value Assessment and Decision Dynamics in Online Auctions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 113–23.

Becker, Gordon M., Morris H. DeGroot, and Jacob Marshak (1964), “Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method,” Behavioral Science, 9 (July), 226–32.

Beggan, James K. (1992), “On the Social Nature of Nonsocial Perception: The Mere Ownership Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 229–37.

Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, Sanjay Sood, and Baler Bilgin (2007), “On the Psychology of Loss Aversion: Possession, Valence, and Reversals of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (October), 369–76.

Carmon, Ziv and Dan Ariely (2000), “Focusing on the Forgone: How Value Can Appear So Different to Buyers and Sellers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (December), 360–70.

Carmon, Ziv, Klaus Wertenbroch, and Marcel Zeelenberg (2003), “Option Attachment: When Deliberating Makes Choosing Feel Like Losing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), 15–29.

Childers, Terry L., Michael J. Houston, and Susan E. Heckler (1985), “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (September), 125–34.

Derbaix, Christian (1995), “The Impact of Affective Reactions on Attitudes toward the Advertisement and the Brand: A Step toward Ecological Validity,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (November), 470–79.

Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71.

Franciosi, Robert, Praveen Kujal, Roland Michelitsch, Vernon Smith, and Gang Deng (1996), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30 (August), 215–26.

Furby, Lita (1978), “Possessions in Humans: An Exploratory Study of Its Meaning and Motivation,” Social Behavior and Personality, 6 (1), 49–65.
——— (1980), “The Origins and Early Development of Possessive Behavior,” Political Psychology (Spring), 30–42.

Grohmann, Bianca, Eric R. Spangenberg, and David E. Sprott (2007), “The Influence of Tactile Input on the Evaluation of Retail Product Offerings,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (2), 237– 46.

Isaacs, Susan (1933), Social Development in Young Children, London: Routledge.

Johnson, Eric J., Gerald Ha¨ubl, and Anat Keinan (2007), “Aspects of Endowment: A Query Theory of Value Construction,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (3), 461–74.

Johnson, Eric J., John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros, and Howard Kunreuther (1993), “Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler (1990), “Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem,” Journal of Political Economy, 99 (December), 1325–48.

Klatzky, Roberta L. and Susan J. Lederman (1992), “Stages of Manual Exploration in Haptic Object Identification,” Perception and Psychophysics, 52 (6), 661–70.
——— (1993), “Toward a Computational Model of Constraint Driven Exploration and Haptic Object Identification,” Perception, 22, 597–621.

Knetsch, Jack L. and Jack A. Sinden (1984), “Willingness to Pay and Compensation Demanded: Experimental Evidence of an Unexpected Disparity in Measures of Value,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 99 (August), 507–21.

Krishna, Aradhna (2006), “Interaction of Senses: The Effect of Vision versus Touch on the Elongation Bias,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (March), 557–65.

Krishna, Aradhna and Maureen Morrin (2008), “Does Touch Affect Taste? The Perceptual Transfer of Product Container Haptic Cues,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (6), 807–18.

Lerner, Jennifer S., Deborah A. Small, and George Loewenstein (2004), “Heart Strings and Purse Strings: Carryover Effects of Emotions on Economic Transactions,” Psychological Science, 15 (5), 337–41.

McCabe, Deborah Brown and Stephen M. Nowlis (2003), “The Effect of Examining Actual Products or Product Descriptions on Consumer Preference,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (4), 431–39.

Morewedge, Carey K., Lisa L. Shu, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D. Wilson (2006), “Owning, Not Loss Aversion, Causes the Endowment Effect,” working paper, Social Psychology Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay and Himanshu Mishra (2005), “The Endowment Effect: Rose-Tinted and Dark-Tinted Glasses,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 390–95.

Novemsky, Nathan and Daniel Kahneman (2005), “The Boundaries of Loss Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (May), 119–28.

Peck, Joann (2009), “Does Touch Matter? Insights from Haptic Research in Marketing,” in Sensory Marketing: A Confluence of Psychology, Neuroscience and Consumer Behavior Research, ed. Aradhna Krishna, New York: Psychology Press/ Routledge.

Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003a), “To Have and To Hold: The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,” Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 35–48.
——— (2003b), “Individual Differences in Haptic Information Processing: The ‘Need for Touch’ Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (December), 430–42.
——— (2006), “If I Touch It I Have to Have It: Individual and Environmental Influences on Impulse Purchasing,” Journal of Business Research, 59, 765–69.
——— (2007), “Effects of Sensory Factors on Consumer Behaviors,” in Handbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. Frank Kardes, Curt Haugtvedt, and Paul Herr, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peck, Joann and Jennifer Wiggins (2006), “It Just Feels Good: Customers’ Affective Response to Touch and Its Influence on Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 56–69.

Pierce, Jon L., Tatiana Kostova, and Kurt T. Dirks (2001), “Towards a Theory of Psychological Ownership in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 298–310.
——— (2003), “The State of Psychological Ownership: Integrating and Extending a Century of Research,” Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 84–107.

Rottenstreich, Yuval and Suzanne B. Shu (2004), “The Connections between Affect and Decision Making: Nine Resulting Phenomena,” in The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, ed. Derek Koehler and Nigel Harvey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 444–63.

Rudmin, Floyd W. and John W. Berry (1987), “Semantics of Ownership: A Free-Recall Study of Property,” Psychological Record, 37 (22), 257–68.

Schlosser, Ann E. (2003), “Experiencing Products in a Virtual World: The Role of Goals and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Intentions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 377–83. —
—— (2006), “Learning through Virtual Product Experience: The Role of Imagery on True versus False Memories,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (3), 377–83.

Sen, Sankar and Eric J. Johnson (1997), “Mere-Possession Effects without Possession in Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (June), 105–17.

Shiv, Baba and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 278–92.

Strahilevitz, Michal A. and George Loewenstein (1998), “The Effect of Ownership History on the Valuation of Objects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 276–89.

Thaler, Richard (1980), “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 36–90.
——— (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice,” Marketing Science, 4 (3), 199–214.

Wolf, James R., Hal R. Arkes, and Waleed A. Muhanna (2005), “Is Overbidding in Online Auctions the Result of a PseudoEndowment Effect?” working paper, Social Science Research Network.

When Acquisition Spoils Retention: Direct Selling vs. Delegation Under CRM

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.

Conclusion :

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.


 Références bibliographiques

  • 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.

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.

Développement : 

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.

Conclusion :

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.

Références bibliographiques

  • 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.