![]() As a result, that study is limited to a branding context from the consumer perspective. ( 2019), who take three of the four CJMC dimensions of Homburg et al.’s ( 2017) examination to investigate an effective CJ design by using consumer data. ![]() This B2C limitation also applies to the study of Kuehnl et al. However, they conduct interviews with representatives of companies operating exclusively in B2C markets (e.g., retailing,) consequently, considering that literature has revealed key differences in experience-related customer needs between B2C and B2B markets (Lemke et al., 2011), their study of underlying aspects of CJMC is consumer-focused (e.g., lifestyle-based storytelling), neglecting specific B2B characteristics. ( 2017) present a grounded theory of customer experience management, referring to CJM as a second-order capability represented by four underlying dimensions. As such, the study mentions specific capabilities (e.g., customer analytics) but does not provide an idea of an overall CJMC. ![]() ![]() Specifically, Lemon and Verhoef’s ( 2016) conceptual study aggregates existing findings on CJM to provide an integrated perspective and areas for future research. However, this research is subject to some limitations. The second category comprises studies that adopt a broader scope on CJM-related aspects. For example, the results of a recent survey among 340 chief marketing officers (CMOs) reveal that one of the most important strategic priorities for driving further customer and firm performance is developing a necessary CJMC that integrates touchpoints across the entire CJ, particularly in B2B markets (The CMO Survey, 2019). Initial evidence from the non-academic environment suggests that some B2B suppliers are more successful than others because of a superior customer journey management capability (CJMC)-that is, idiosyncratic CJM-related organizational processes that drive customer (e.g., loyalty) and firm (e.g., profitability) performance (Böringer et al., 2019 Caylar et al., 2018 Maechler et al., 2017) through the effective exploitation of organizational resources. Finally, these underlying mechanisms are also prevalent when testing for the moderating factors switching costs, number of touchpoints, and product versus service.ĭespite these significant investments, the institutionalization challenges of CJM in B2B markets appear enormous, as nearly 80% of B2B suppliers fail to achieve the expected return on investment (ROI) and clearly lag behind business-to-consumer (B2C) companies, leading to misaligned marketing spend (Maechler et al., 2016 Wiersema, 2013 Wollan et al., 2015). Importantly, using survey and archival data, we show that, overall, B2B CJMC has a significant and positive impact on firm performance through the two mechanisms. ![]() Analyzing a multisource dataset, we provide evidence that B2B CJMC has an indirect effect on firm performance (i.e., return on sales) through two opposing mechanisms (i.e., customer loyalty and customer-related coordination costs). Taking a mixed-methods approach, we conceptualize and operationalize B2B CJMC as a supplier's ability to achieve superior customer value along the B2B CJ by strategically creating value-anchored customer touchpoints characterized through the implementation of consistent resource usage across internal organizational boundaries and by continuously monitoring value creation toward the individual members of the buying center. Research in the B2B context, however, has investigated neither what constitutes such a customer journey management capability (CJMC) nor how, whether, or when it creates value. Business-to-business (B2B) practitioners are increasingly interested in capabilities to holistically manage touchpoints along B2B customer journeys (CJs) to remain competitive. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |