Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004)

Relevance Marketing:

The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?

Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?


Jeremy Bottom

This dissertation is submitted for the award of MA in Interactive Marketing.

I declare that this dissertation is the result of my own independent investigation
and that all sources are duly acknowledged.

Signed……………………………………………………

Academic Year of Submission: 2003-04

2


Abstract

There is a view that the degree of scholarly and practitioner interest in
relationship marketing established it as the key marketing issue of the decade in
the 1990s. But what is relationship marketing? Moreover, do consumers actually
want relationships or just relevant propositions in today’s dynamic and complex
marketing environment? These questions framed this exploratory research. This
paper is concerned with the validity, generality and practical applicability of six
‘relationship marketing’ concepts within the UK’s Business-to-Consumer (B2C)
marketing environment: relationship marketing (per se); one-to-one marketing
(Peppers and Rogers, 1993); many-to-many marketing (Gummesson, 2004a);
loyalty marketing; electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM); and what the
literature (academic and professional) generally refers to as Customer
Relationship Management (CRM). The paper then introduces an alternative
consumer marketing perspective (relevance marketing) and a contemporary CRM
measurement framework: Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby,
2004). An objective of the research was to determine whether the medley of
concepts and frameworks presented in the literature review are largely academic
rhetoric or a marketing reality for a group of senior marketing managers,
independent marketing consultants and leading authorities on marketing in the
academic field. A qualitative methodology was adopted resulting in eleven one-
to-one (in-depth) primary data collection events. The author tentatively suggests
that this investigation has provided a critical understanding of the development
and future of relationship marketing as an academic and professional domain
within the UK’s B2C marketing environment. The paper concludes with a
challenging question for all marketing academicians.

3


Table of Contents:

1. Introduction

1.1 Confused and Disorientated: Consumers and Marketers
1.2 Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment: Rhetoric or
Reality?
1.3 Relevance Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment: Rhetoric or Reality?
1.4 Summary of Investigation

2. Literature Review

2.1 Confused and Disorientated: Academics
2.1.1 Relationship Marketing: Academic Perspectives
2.1.2 Buzzwords
2.1.3 The Emergence of Relationship Marketing in the Academic Literature
2.1.4 Theory Anorexia
2.1.5 Relationship Marketing: Are Academics Missing the Obvious?
2.1.6 Relationship Marketing: Academic Rhetoric or Business Reality?
2.1.7 Relationship Marketing Definitions

2.2 The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) on Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment
2.2.1 One-to-One Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
2.2.2 Many-to-Many Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
2.2.3 Consumers: Empowered and Confused
2.2.4 Loyalty Marketing
2.2.5 Relationship Marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) and
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
2.2.6 ICT-Enabled Buzzwords

2.3 Relevance Marketing: A Criticism of Relationship Marketing
2.3.1 Customer Relevance Management (CRM) at Tesco

4


Table of Contents (cont’d):

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Strategy: An Exploratory, Qualitative Approach
3.2.1 Rich and Relevant Data
3.3 Epistemological Considerations
3.4 Bias, Reliability and Validity
3.5 A Holistic and Non-Commercial Perspective
3.6 Method
3.7 The Interlocutors
3.8 Evaluation of Research Design

4. Findings and Analysis

4.1 Relationship Marketing > Relevance Marketing
4.2 Data Gathering > Data Analysis > Value Delivery
4.3 Win-Win-Win > Many-to-Many
4.4 One-to-One Marketing > Multi-Channel Integration
4.5 CRM Checklist
4.6 Prospect Relationship (Relevance) Management
4.7 Empowered Consumers
4.8 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM)
4.9 The Marketing of the Marketing

5. Conclusion

6. References

5


List of Tables:

1 The Interlocutors

List of Figures:

1a Conceptual Areas of Primary Investigation (Phase 1)
1b Conceptual Areas of Primary Investigation (Phase 2)
2 Relationship Marketing Definitions (Source: Various)
3 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Relationship Marketing
4 One-to-One vs. Many-to-Many (Gummesson, 2004a)
5 A Functional Model for CRM (Clark et al, 2002)
6 Relevance Marketing
7 Customer Relevance Management (Humby, 2004)
8 Relationship Marketing and Relevance Marketing Perspectives
9 CRM Framework (Shaw, 1999)
10 Prospect Relationship Management (PRM) (Lexus)
11 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM) Perspectives

Appendices:

1 From One-to-One to Many-to-Many Marketing (Gummesson, 2004a)
2 R is for Relevance: An Antidote to CRM Hype (Humby, 2004)
3 Semi-Structured Questionnaire
4 Multi-Channel Direct Marketing 2004 (Centaur Conferences, 2004)
5 Interview with Jonathan Latham, Head of Relationship Management,
Sainsbury’s (July, 2004)

6


1. Introduction

1.1 Confused and Disorientated: Consumers and Marketers

Research by Mintel (2002, p.3) suggests that a significant percentage of UK
consumers are suffering from “information and decision overload”. Excess
information, too many choices and brand proliferation have generated a
confusing commercial environment for over 50% of today’s consumers (Mintel
2002, p.3). The research used cluster analysis to segment this group into
“Confused and Disorientated”, “Simplicity Seekers” and “Search Engineers”
(Mintel 2002, p.3). Moreover, a survey of UK marketers and customer insight
specialists suggests that many of today’s commercial organisations are finding
the practice of marketing more complex with increasing media fragmentation and
declining customer loyalty (The Future Foundation 2003, p.7). This recent survey
also suggests that consumer marketing has become more complicated because
consumers have less clearly defined and segmented lifestyles and are, as a
consequence, less predictable than in the past (The Future Foundation 2003,
p.7). The questions arise: how do commercial organisations add value to their
propositions and combat customer confusion; and how do commercial
organisations identify their ‘profitable’ customers and sustain loyalty? Mintel’s
(2002, p.3) research suggests many commercial organisations may benefit from
using “relationship marketing” techniques. But what is relationship marketing?
Moreover, do consumers actually want a ‘relationship’ or just relevant
propositions in today’s dynamic and complex, Business-to-Consumer (B2C)
marketing environment? These questions frame this exploratory study.

1.2 Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment:
Rhetoric or Reality?

This investigation is concerned with the validity of relationship marketing as
presented in the academic literature. Within this discussion, “validity means (in

7


essence) that a theory, model, concept or category describes reality with a good
fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93). Acknowledging that the Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) explosion of the 1990s has had a significant
impact on the practice of B2C marketing, this investigation is predominately
concerned with ICT-enabled relationship marketing concepts and frameworks.
The primary areas of investigation determined by the literature review include:
one-to-one marketing (Peppers and Rogers, 1993); many-to-many marketing
(Gummesson, 2004a); loyalty marketing; electronic Relationship Marketing
(e-RM); and an exploration of what the literature (academic and professional)
generally refers to as Customer Relationship Management (CRM). The author
then seeks to determine whether the relationship marketing concepts presented
are largely academic rhetoric or a marketing reality for a group senior B2C
marketing managers, independent consultants and academics. Figure 1a
diagrammatically represents this phase of the investigation.

1.3 Relevance Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment:
Rhetoric or Reality?

The second phase of the investigation is concerned with the validity of relevance
marketing as presented within this paper. Within the domain of relevance
marketing, it is assumed that a consumer’s loyalty to a commercial organisation
is primarily driven by the organisation’s ability to continuously deliver relevant
propositions rather than the consumer’s desire to have a ‘relationship’. In
essence, relevance marketing is a criticism of relationship marketing as
presented in the academic literature. Within this phase of the investigation, the
author seeks to determine whether the concept of relevance marketing and its
ICT-enabled cousin, Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby, 2004),
are largely academic rhetoric or valuable contributions to the development of
B2C marketing from the viewpoint of the study’s interlocutors.

8


1.4 Summary of Investigation

This investigation focuses on the B2C marketing environment and does not seek
to explore the validity, generality and practical applicability of relationship
marketing and relevance marketing in a Business-to-Business (B2B) context: the
duration of the MA Interactive Marketing programme limits the scope of the
present study. In summary, the study aims to provide a critical understanding of
the development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing
environment. Moreover, the study seeks to determine whether relevance
marketing is the new, improved relationship marketing or just another marketing
buzzword.

9


Phase 1

One-to-One
Marketing
(Peppers and
Rogers, 1993)
Many-to-Many
Marketing
(Gummesson,
2004a) Information and
Relationship
Marketing Customer Communication
(RM) Relationship Technologies
Management (ICT)
(CRM)
electronic
Relationship
Marketing
(e-RM)
Loyalty
Marketing

Business-to-Consumer Marketing Environment (B2C), UK

Fig.1a: Conceptual areas of primary investigation (Phase 1)

Information and
Phase 2Relationship Communication
Marketing
(RM) Technologies
(ICT)

Customer Information and
Relevance Relevance Communication
Marketing Management Technologies
(Humby, 2004) (ICT)


Fig.1b: Conceptual areas of primary investigation (Phase 2)

10


2. Literature Review

2.1 Confused and Disorientated: Academics

The study’s literature review highlights: a fuzzy and ambiguous academic domain
suffering from “theory anorexia” (Gummesson 2002a, p.588); a teleological
climate where academics publish “self-serving jargon” (Tapp 2003, p.107); and a
marketing industry where the majority of practitioners neither read nor recognise
contemporary academic research, concepts or theories published in today’s
academic marketing journals (McKenzie et al 2002, p.1196). The question arises:
are marketing academics also ‘confused and disorientated’ in today’s dynamic
and complex marketing environment?

2.1.1 Relationship Marketing: Academic Perspectives

Ballantyne et al (2003, p.160) suggest that the degree of scholarly and
practitioner interest in relationship marketing established it as the “key marketing
issue of the decade” in the 1990s. Indeed, there is a plethora of relationship
marketing textbooks and journals. However, the precise meaning of relationship
marketing is not always clear in the academic literature (Zineldin, 2000). Brodie
et al (1997, p.383) suggest relationship marketing has become a “catch-all”
phrase with the concept being used to reflect a number of different types of
relational activity, including database marketing. However, Ballantyne et al
(2003, p.164) do not wholly support Coviello et al’s (1996) classification of
database marketing as relational marketing and suggest database marketing is
more likely to be “an enabling technology that may support any kind of practice
perspective”. This study does not intend to explore every conceptual quagmire
surrounding the relationship marketing concept within the academic literature
given the limits of this study and the sheer volume of relationship marketing
definitions, theories and perspectives. However, a useful starting point for this
discussion is Christopher et al’s (2004, p.1) perspective:

11


“It is now widely accepted that the goal of any business is to create and sustain
mutually beneficial relationships with customers. Equally widely accepted is the
view that the cement that binds successful relationships is the two-way flow of
value. This is the context from which the philosophy and practice of relationship
marketing has emerged”

The author notes Christopher et al (2004) are commonly recognised as some of
relationship marketing’s chief protagonists and have been concerned with the
development of the concept for many years. However, this worldview of business
is not universally accepted within the academic community. McDonald (2000,
p.28) suggests the relationship marketing domain exists “without any
underpinning process, occupied by happy-clappy, touchy-feely, weepy-creepy,
born-again zealots”. This study’s research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore these diametrically opposed worldviews.

2.1.2 Buzzwords

Egan (2001a, p.188) suggests relationship marketing is perhaps the best
example of a buzzword in the marketing literature where “different authors use
the same term to describe different concepts or different terms to describe the
same concept”. However, Gummesson (1994) suggests multiple uses of the term
relationship marketing are perhaps not surprising given the complexity of
relationships themselves. Furthermore, Egan (2001b, p.376) suggests
relationship marketing theory is often “highly selective” citing Reichheld’s (1996)
popular publication ‘The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits
and Lasting Value’ as an example of relationship marketing research “designed to
support a particular (often consultant based) perspective”. The question arises:
how many of today’s relationship marketing academicians are guilty of
teleologism in their research and subsequent publications? This study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to further
explore this contentious issue.

12


2.1.3 The Emergence of Relationship Marketing in the Academic
Literature

Sheth (2002, p.590) suggests relationship marketing emerged as a field of
marketing enquiry due to a shift in marketing focus from customer acquisition to
customer retention. Bruhn (2003, p.xiv) supports this observation suggesting
that the principal aim of relationship marketing is to transform marketing from
the “inside-out” focus on transactions to an “outside-in” focus on customer
relationships. A common view within the literature is that relationship marketing
is a “criticism” (Bruhn 2003, p.9) of pure transaction-focused marketing concepts
such as McCarthy’s (1960) 4P classification of the marketing mix (product, place,
promotion and price). Gummesson (2002b, p.326) vehemently supports the
relationship marketing worldview commenting “transaction marketing theory is
clearly manipulative and management centric”. Petrof (1997, p.26) comments on
the popularity of relationship marketing in the 1990s:

“With few exceptions, marketing specialists and, in particular, academicians
accepted relationship marketing as the latest gospel and began spreading it
faithfully as loyal disciples”

However, the issue of whether relationship marketing is (or was) a “paradigm
shift” (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Gronroos 1994; Buttle 1996; Palmer 2002; Sheth
and Parvatiyar 2002) still seems largely unresolved within the academic
literature. For example, Sheth and Parvatiyar (2002, p.14) suggest relationship
marketing is considered a paradigm change in both academic and practitioner
literature and relationship marketing has the potential to become a well-
respected, freestanding and distinct discipline in marketing. Conversely,
McDonald’s (2000) previously cited criticism of the domain highlights that
relationship marketing is not necessarily a paradigm shift universally accepted
within the academic community.

13


2.1.4 Theory Anorexia

Gummesson’s (1996 cited Egan 2001b, p.376) summary of research efforts into
the concept as a “theory-less stack of fragmented philosophies and observations”
still appears valid today with at least 26 definitions of relationship marketing in
the academic literature (Harker, 1999). Daskou and Mangina (2003, p.87)
highlight that the conceptual quagmire surrounding the definition of relationship
marketing in the academic community is fuelled by the academic diversity of the
discipline’s developers and their socio-political heritage. Although the domain and
conceptual foundations of relationship marketing do not appear to be fully
developed, the author suggests there is merit in continuing this exploration
primarily because; many leading academics including McDonald (2003) and
Gummesson (2002b) have noted marketing theory is increasingly divorced from
reality; this study’s primary objective is to provide a critical understanding of the
development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing
environment. Gummesson (2002a, p.588) suggests,

“Marketing management today suffers from theory anorexia and cannot feed on
and digest what is happening in the new economy”

2.1.5 Relationship Marketing: Are Academics Missing the Obvious?

Relationship marketing is not in itself a new concept: it is clearly a “new-old”
concept for the straightforward reason that concern for relationship development
is as old as the nature of business itself (Palmer 1996; Ballantyne 2000; Payne et
al 2002). Gummesson (2003) supports this view suggesting that relationship
marketing has always existed between the consumer and the supplier and
challenges the academic community (p.168):

“Isn’t it simply that academia is often too closed and smug, thus missing the
obvious?”

14


Supporting Gummesson’s (2003) critique of the academic community, the author
tentatively suggests that it is likely that many of today’s relational marketing
concepts and ubiquitous buzzwords such as one-to-one marketing (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993), loyalty-based management (Reichheld, 1996) and even Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) were effectively practised at the beginning of
the 20th century by UK shopkeepers. The study’s research design will aim to offer
the author an opportunity to further explore this empirical finding.

2.1.6 Relationship Marketing: Academic Rhetoric or Business Reality?

There is a view within the academic literature that the practical applicability of
relationship marketing in B2C marketing environments is limited (Barnes 1997;
Hibbard and Iacobucci 1998; O’Malley and Tynan 2000). O’Malley and Tynan
(2000, p.804) suggest that it is neither possible nor profitable for most
organisations in a B2C marketing environment to create close, personal and long-
term relationships with all their customers. The practical and economic
arguments for dismissing this form of relationship marketing seem valid but has
the academic community been ‘over-selling’ the relationship marketing concept
for O’Malley and Tynan (2000) to reach this rather obvious conclusion?
Moreover, are marketing academics becoming ‘confused and disorientated’ by
trying to fit the realities of marketing into tight, theoretical boxes for their
academic peers? McDonald (2003, p.158) comments:

“Marketing must find a way of escaping from the increasing proclivity of the
academic community to creep further and further into the more esoteric groves
of academe, talking about increasingly narrow issues in an increasingly
impenetrable language to an increasingly restricted audience”

Harker’s (1999, p.16) exploration of relationship marketing definitions refers to a
“relationship marketing community”. The questions arise: who inhabits the
relationship marketing community and what is the relevance of their body of
work for today’s marketing practitioners? This study’s bibliography highlights

15


relationship marketing’s chief protagonists (the community) and the domain’s
specific publications such as the ‘Journal of Relationship Marketing’. But how
many of today’s B2C marketers actively embrace this knowledge resource?
Recent research by McKenzie et al (2002, p.1196) suggests that within the UK
marketing industry, the majority of practitioners neither read nor recognise
contemporary academic research, concepts or theories published in today’s
academic marketing journals. Moreover, Tapp (2003, p.112) suggests currently
there is a misalignment between the academic work published in the majority of
journals and the requirements of marketing managers. The methodological
design of this study will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore
whether there is a significant gap between the professional practice and
theoretical development of the domain.

2.1.7 Relationship Marketing Definitions

Eloquently summarising the conceptual fuzziness of relationship marketing,
Harker (1999, p.15) highlights there is no universally accepted definition of the
concept because attempts to define relationship marketing are attempts to
stipulate what concepts should form the essence of relationship marketing.
However, embracing content analysis as a qualitative data research
methodology, Harker (1999, p.16) suggests Gronroos’s (1994) definition of
relationship marketing is the “best” in terms of its coverage of the underlying
conceptualisations of relationship marketing and its acceptability throughout the
“relationship marketing community”. Furthermore, Daskou and Mangina (2003,
p.87) suggest Gronroos’s (1994) definition is still popular within the academic
community predominately because the definition is viewed as reasonably
comprehensive. Gronroos (1994) suggests:

“Relationship marketing is to identify and establish, maintain and enhance and
when necessary also to terminate relationships with customers and other
stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties are met, and that
this is done by a mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises”

16


At this stage of the report, the author feels obliged to highlight several key
references that have informed the study’s understanding and presentation of the
relationship marketing concept: Gronroos’s (1994) popular definition; a medley
of contemporary definitions (see Figure 2); an article in the professional
publication ‘Data Strategy’ (Webber 2004, p.16); Christopher et al’s (2004, p.1)
previously cited relationship marketing worldview; and Chaffey et al’s (2000 cited
Egan 2001a, p.193) one-to-one relationship marketing perspective.

“Relationship Marketing covers all actions for the analysis, planning, realisation,
and control of measures that initiate, stabilise, intensify, and reactivate business
relationships with the corporation’s stakeholders – mainly customers – and to the
creation of mutual value”
Bruhn (2003, p.11)

“Relationship marketing has the aim of building mutually satisfying long-term
relations with key parties – customers, suppliers, distributors – in order to earn and
retain business” *
Kotler (2003, p.13)

“Relationship marketing is the consistent application of up-to-date knowledge of
individual customers to product and service design which is communicated
interactively, in order to develop a continuous and long-term relationship, which is
mutually beneficial”
Cram (1994 cited Chaffey et al 2003, p.42)

“Relationship marketing is marketing based on interaction within networks of
relationships” **
Gummesson (2002c, p.3)

* Kotler (2003, p.13) notes this definition embraces three definitions from the
literature: Christopher et al (1991); McKenna (1991); and Gummesson (1999).

** Gummesson (2003) suggests this definition is the outcome of an inductive
grounded theory approach, “going beyond the usual descriptive definitions”
(p.168).

Fig.2 Relationship Marketing Definitions (Source: Various)

17


Reflecting upon relationship marketing’s axioms and definitions, the author
suggests: relationship marketing implies the development of long-term
relationships with key parties (consumers within the context of this
investigation) in order to better understand how to develop and deliver
propositions tailored to the needs of the specific market segments identified.
Furthermore, relationship marketing appears to respect and value markets
segmented at the level of the individual i.e. one-to-one marketing (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993). In summary, the author suggests the philosophy of relationship
marketing is to create and sustain a ‘win-win’ scenario within a commercial
environment. Moreover, the practice of relationship marketing requires
commercial organisations to develop ‘interactive’ methodologies to determine
and sustain a two-way flow of value. Within this context, value is defined as “the
balance between benefits received and sacrifices made to experience those
benefits” (Buttle 2004, p.228). Figure 3 diagrammatically represents the author’s
worldview of relationship marketing in a B2C marketing environment.

Business Consumer

Mutual
Exchange
Of Value *

* Value is defined as “the balance between benefits received and
sacrifices made to experience those benefits” (Buttle 2004, p.228)

Fig.3 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Relationship Marketing

18


2.2 The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) on Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment

2.2.1 One-to-One Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?

Prior to the mass marketing approach that had accompanied the Industrial
Revolution and dominated commercial activity in the 20th century, sellers often
knew their customers and generally understood their needs (Mitchell 2000; Egan
2001a; Chen and Popovich 2003). With mass retailing (e.g. supermarkets) and
the marketing of standardised products through one-to-many (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996) marketing channels (e.g. analogue television), buyers and sellers
(inevitably) lost their “intimate relationships” (Chen and Popovich 2003, p.685).
However, there is a view that the contextual changes of the 1990s and 2000s
(i.e. the explosion of IT and the Internet) have offered commercial organisations
the opportunity to re-establish one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) marketing
relationships with their customers (Falk and Schmidt 1997; Mitchell 2000;
Zineldin 2000; Lindgreen and Pels 2002; Chen and Popovich, 2003; Urban 2004).
The questions arise: are one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) marketing
relationships genuinely achievable, economically viable or even desired by
today’s B2C marketing practitioners? This study’s methodological design will aim
to offer the author an opportunity to explore whether the one-to-one marketing
approach (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) is just enthusiastic, academic rhetoric
(driven by ICT developments) or a reality for today’s B2C marketing practioners.

2.2.2 Many-to-Many Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?

Gummesson (2004a) contends relationship marketing theory will develop in a
many-to-many (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), networked marketing environment.
Specifically, Gummesson (2004a, p.1) argues:

“Marketing does not live in one-to-one relationships but in many-to-many
networks”

19


One-to-One Marketing Many-to-Many Marketing
Peppers and Rogers (1993) Gummesson (2004)

Customer
Network
Supplier
Network

Customer Supplier

* Identify your customers * Identify your networks of relationships
* Differentiate your customers * Differentiate your relationships
* Interact with your customers * Interact with the network members
* Customize * Customize
* Learning relationships * Learning networks

Fig.4 One-to-One (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) versus Many-to-Many Marketing
(Gummesson, 2004a)

Supporting Gummesson’s (2004a) development of the one-to-one (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993) relational marketing framework (see Figure 4), Peters and Fletcher
(2004, p.1) suggest today’s marketing researchers may benefit from modifying
existing theoretical perspectives in order to take account of the increasing
interconnectedness of today’s consumers and businesses through ICT-enabled
social systems, such as the Internet. The many-to-many (Hoffman and Novak,
1996) structure of the Internet coupled with the adoption of the channel by
increasing numbers of UK consumers and businesses (Interactive Advertising
Bureau UK, 2004) suggests to the author that Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-
many marketing framework may prove to be academically robust within the UK’s
B2C online marketing environment. The question arises, is this contemporary
framework useful in today’s broader B2C marketing environment where many
organisations are finding the practice of marketing “complex” (The Future
Foundation 2003, p.6) and many consumers are “confused and disorientated”
(Mintel 2002, p.3)? Gummesson (2004a, p.1) contends:

20


“The contribution from one-to-one, not least through the expressive wording, is
first and foremost to put the light on individual interaction in marketing. The
contribution of many-to-many is taking one-to-one further and addressing the
whole context of a complex world”

The author suggests Samli and Bahn’s (1992) definition of a market supports
Gummessson’s (2004a) many-to-many relationship marketing perspective as
presented in Figure 4. Samli and Bahn (1992, p.147) suggest:

“A market is a communication network, with communication defined as all means
of facilitating the exchange of knowledge, the expression of desires, and the
dissemination of information”

Moreover, Peters and Fletcher (2004, p.1) suggest Samli and Bahn’s (1992)
definition of a market has merit in today’s complex marketing environment
because it is “dynamic, focuses on the flow of information and behavioural
patterns, and considers both consumers and businesses as critical nodes in a
communication network”. However, it should be noted that there appears to be
little support within the academic literature for Gummesson’s (2002c, p.315)
foundational work:

“Relationships, networks and interaction are the core concepts of relationship
marketing”

This empirical finding suggests that the “relationship marketing community”
(Harker, 1999) may not readily adopt Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-many
marketing perspective. The research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-many relationship
marketing thesis from both an academic and a professional perspective. It is
noted that the academic textbook from which this body of work emanates ‘Many-
to-Many Marketing’ (Gummesson, 2004b) has only been published in Sweden.
However, Evert Gummesson has kindly provided the author with a recent paper
‘From One-to-One to Many-to-Many Marketing’ (Gummesson, 2004a) for
reference within this discussion. The thesis is presented in Appendix 1.

21


2.2.3 Consumers: Empowered and Confused

There is a view that technological developments have “empowered” consumers
within the customer-supplier dyad (Chaffey et al, 2003; Kotler, 2003; Urban,
2004). Daskou and Mangina (2003, p.87) suggest there is a new type of
consumer who is more informed, demanding and sophisticated. Enthusiastically,
Urban (2004, p.78) suggests today’s consumers now have the opportunity to
effectively verify an organisation’s claims (value propositions) and efficiently
search for superior alternatives through “enabling” many-to-many (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996) technologies, such as the Internet. However, Mintel’s (2002)
previously cited research suggests to the author that such conclusions should be
tempered with reference to the UK’s B2C marketing environment i.e. ICT
developments may also be fuelling consumer “information and decision overload”
(Mintel 2002, p.3). This study’s research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore relationship marketing strategies in a many-to-
many (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), networked marketing environment where it is
postulated that consumers are becoming increasingly empowered and confused.

2.2.4 Loyalty Marketing

There is a view that for commercial organisations to achieve closer relationships
with their customers in today’s “new economy” (Gummesson 2002c; Kotler et al
2002), a rich customer database is required. Gilbert (2003, p.189) suggests that
some of the UK’s leading mass retailers (e.g. Tesco and Sainsbury’s) are
successfully adopting ICT-enabled programmes that generate rich and relevant
data: loyalty schemes. However, Enver (2004, p.1) suggests true customer
“knowledge” is virtually impossible to achieve within many B2C sectors where
poor data, and privacy laws, often militate against relationship building.
Furthermore, UK research by Pressey and Matthews (2000, p.272) suggests
relational marketing strategies are not practical for mass retailers, such as
supermarkets, where many transactions are “discrete, short-term, one-off acts”.

22


The question arises: do any loyalty marketing programmes within the UK’s B2C
marketing environment generate ‘win-win’ scenarios? Stone et al (2003, p.308)
suggest approximately 80% of UK households participate in at least one
customer loyalty scheme and Tesco attribute more than £100 million of
incremental sales per annum directly to their loyalty programme ‘Clubcard’
(Humby et al, 2003). Moreover, Humby et al (2003, p.5) suggest Tesco has
issued more than £1 billion of ‘Clubcard’ loyalty vouchers to customers and the
organisation has run the programme for no net cost since 1995. These findings
suggest that loyalty programmes can be effective relational strategies within the
UK’s B2C marketing environment. The study’s research design will aim to offer
the author a further opportunity to investigate loyalty schemes and the concept
of loyalty marketing.

2.2.5 Relationship Marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM)
and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

A review of the academic publications the ‘Journal of Relationship Marketing’
(2002a; 2002b; 2002c; 2003a; 2003b) and the Institute of Direct Marketing’s
‘Interactive Marketing’ (2004a; 2004b; 2004c) highlights that a number of
academics and practitioners assume relationship marketing, Customer
Relationship Marketing (CRM) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
are effectively synonymous terms in today’s B2C marketing environment. The
academic question arises: are the terms conceptually interchangeable? The
author suggests this is a challenging question because there are no universally
accepted definitions of relationship marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing
(CRM) or Customer Relationship Management (CRM) within the literature (Harker
1999; Egan 2001a; Kenyon and Vakola 2003; Enver 2004). However, to satisfy
the study’s primary objective, ‘to provide a critical understanding of the
development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s B2C marketing environment’, the author will

23


explore various CRM perspectives and definitions within the literature. The
study’s methodological design will aim to offer the author a further opportunity
to explore this conceptual quagmire from both an academic and a professional
perspective. This research strategy should also offer the author an opportunity to
explore whether a significant gap exists between the professional practice and
theoretical development of relationship marketing, Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) and Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM).

Kotler (2003, p.52) contends the merits of a Customer Relationship Marketing
(CRM) strategy:

“Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) enables companies to provide excellent
real-time customer service by developing a relationship with each valued
customer through the effective use of individual account information”

Kenyon and Vakola (2003) suggest Chablo’s (1999, p.12) definition of Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) is purposeful within a B2C marketing context:

“Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a comprehensive approach which
provides seamless integration of every area of business that touches the
customer – namely marketing, sales, customer service and field support –
through the integration of people, processes and technology, taking advantage
of the revolutionary impact of the Internet”

However, Coad (2004, p.323) suggests the idea of a ‘single-customer view’ is
somewhat utopian and in practice unworkable for many organisations in a B2C
marketing environment. Srivastava et al (1999, p.170) suggest:

“The Customer Relationship Management (CRM) process addresses all aspects of
identifying customers, creating customer knowledge, building customer
relationships, and shaping their perceptions of the organisation and its products”

Acknowledging Srivastava et al’s (1999) definition, Zinkham (2002, p.83)
suggests Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is perhaps a broader
concept than relationship marketing. Conversely, Gummesson (2004a, p.1)

24


argues relationship marketing is the broader, overriding concept and suggests
CRM is a relationship marketing “brand” offered by consultants and practitioners:

“CRM (Customer Relationship Management) is the values and strategies of
relationship marketing – with emphasis on the dyadic customer-supplier
relationship – turned into practical application and dependent both on human
action and information technology”

Buttle’s (2004, p.34) definition of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is
interesting because it takes a business strategy view of CRM rather than focusing
on the ICT component:

“CRM is the core business strategy that integrates internal processes and
functions, and external networks, to create and deliver value to targeted
customers at a profit. It is grounded on high quality data and enabled by IT”

The author suggests that a recent CRM definition by Zikmund et al (2003, p.3)
neatly fits the ‘win-win’ and ‘interactive’ relationship marketing worldview
presented within this literature review:

“Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a business strategy that uses
information technology to provide an enterprise with a comprehensive, reliable,
and integrated view of its customer base so that all processes and customer
interactions help maintain and expand mutually beneficial relationships”

With CRM’s proximity to the fuzzy and ambiguous concept of relationship
marketing, the plethora of CRM definitions and perspectives is perhaps
unsurprising. In summary, the author suggests that the term CRM is more
associated with the use of ICT as a means of implementing the relational
marketing approach. This conclusion is supported by Clark et al’s (2004, p.24)
value framework for CRM (see Figure 5) and Gummesson’s (2002, p.314)
observation “relationship marketing is an attitude and CRM is a tool”. The study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore the
validity of Clark et al’s (2002) CRM framework within the B2C marketing
environment.

25


“CRM is the management
process that uses individual
customer data to enable a
tailored and mutually viable
value proposition”
(Clarke et al 2002, p.23)

Data Analysis
and Value
Marketing Identification
Strategy IT Conditions
Conditions

Monitoring,
Feedback and
Control

Data Gathering
and Organisation Value Delivery

Cultural and Climate Conditions

Fig.5 A functional model for Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
(Source: Clark et al, 2004)

2.2.6 ICT-Enabled Buzzwords

A review of the contemporary academic relationship marketing literature yields a
plethora of ICT-enabled ‘relationship marketing’ definitions and perspectives, for
example, Technologicalship Marketing [TM] (Zineldin, 2000), electronic Customer
Relationship Marketing [e-CRM] (McIntyre, 2003; Luck and Lancaster, 2003) and
e-loyalty (Reichheld et al, 2000). The question arises: are these electronic
Relationship Marketing (e-RM) concepts substantive variants of the relationship
marketing concept or ICT-enabled buzzwords? The author acknowledges that
marketing theory is “context driven” (Sheth and Sisodia, 1999) and endorses the
view that marketing academics must challenge “in-bedded concepts” (Egan
2001a, p.24) as the competitive environment changes but are these electronic
Relationship Marketing (e-RM) concepts inhabiting a cul-de-sac of relationship
marketing theory and impeding the development of a cohesive relationship

26


marketing domain? Moreover, will tomorrow’s mobile technological developments
offer relationship marketing’s primary interlocutors an opportunity to generate a
plethora of m-RM, m-CRM and m-loyalty definitions and frameworks? The study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore the
fuzzy and ambiguous ‘umbrella’ concept of electronic Relationship Marketing (e-
RM) from both an academic and a professional perspective.

2.3 Relevance Marketing: A Criticism of Relationship Marketing

The question arises: do consumers actually want ‘relationships’ or just relevant
propositions in today’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing environment? The
author suggests that it is not unreasonable to presuppose that a significant
percentage of UK consumers may find the idea of having ‘relationships’ with
commercial organisations simply absurd. So where does this leave the domain of
relationship marketing within the context of this investigation? Assuming that the
function of B2C marketing is to offer relevant propositions to relevant customers
(i.e. profitable customers) and to provide relevant solutions to customers’
problems, the author tentatively suggests branding the domain of relationship
marketing as relevance marketing may enhance the validity of the definitions and
frameworks promulgated by the domain’s chief protagonists. Within this
discussion, “validity means (in essence) that a theory, model, concept or
category describes reality with a good fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93).

The author notes: this is not a criticism of the relationship marketing philosophy
or the practical applicability of the definitions and frameworks but a criticism of
the terminology. The author presents a sample of relevance marketing and
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) definitions, perspectives and
frameworks in Figure 6. Relevance marketing is built upon the (rather obvious)
premise that if a customer is presented with a relevant proposition or solution, it
is more likely that a mutual exchange of value will occur. Within the domain of
relevance marketing, it is assumed that a consumer’s loyalty to a commercial

27


organisation is primarily driven by the business’s ability to continuously deliver
relevant propositions rather than the consumer’s desire to have a ‘relationship’.
Moreover, the author tentatively suggests that the marketing of relevant
propositions generally relies upon the organisation’s manipulation of the classic
pillars of marketing i.e. the marketing mix, or 4Ps (product, place, promotion and
price) coupled with an understanding of the customers’ perception of value
obtained through ‘interactive’ processes and marketing strategies.

“Relevance marketing is an attitude and Customer Relevance Management is a tool”
(Adapted from Gummesson, 2002)
“Relevance marketing is to identify
One-to-One Relevance Marketing and establish, maintain an enhance and
(Adapted from Peppers and Rogers, 1993) when necessary also to terminate
accounts with customers and other
* Identify your customers stakeholders, at a profit, so that the
* Differentiate your customers objectives of all parties are met, and this
is done by a mutual exchange and
* Interact with your customers
fulfilment of promises”
* Customize
* Learning relevance (not relationships!) (Adapted from Gronroos, 1994)

“Customer
Relevance
Management
(CRM) is a core
business strategy
that integrates Marketing
internal processes Strategy IT Conditions
and functions, and Conditions “Customer Relevance
Management, however
external networks, to well designed and executed
create and deliver can only work within an
value to targeted environment delineated by
customers at a Marketing Strategy, Cultural
and IT Parameters”
profit. It is grounded
on high quality data
and enabled by IT” Cultural and Climate Conditions

The Customer Relevance Management Space
(Adapted from
(Adapted from Clark et al, 2004)
Buttle, 2004)

“Relevance marketing has
the aim of building mutually
satisfying long-term, interactive
accounts with key parties in
Mutual Exchange order to earn and retain
Of Value business”
Business Consumer (Adapted from Kotler, 2003)

Fig.6 Relevance Marketing

28


2.3.1 Customer Relevance Management (CRM) at Tesco

Somewhat surprisingly, the study’s literature review has only established one
reference adopting this terminology and consumer marketing perspective: “R is
for Relevance: An antidote to CRM Hype” (Humby, 2004). The PowerPoint
presentation that accompanied Humby’s (2004) lecture at the Institute of Direct
Marketing’s (IDM) Annual Lecture is provided in Appendix 2 for further reference.
Humby (2004) contends, “the CRM revolution was a lot of hype and noise” and
“it’s time to tear up the rule book and develop some new metrics of customer
investments”. Humby (2004) suggests the Customer Relevance Management
(CRM) philosophy embraces a customer-centric approach which involves the
measurement and assessment of every aspect of customer interaction and works
on the assumption that an organisation’s brand assets are a function of its
customer assets (see Appendix 2 for explicit definitions of brands assets and
customer assets). Moreover, Humby (2004) suggests “customers generate
income and brand equity from the combination of advocacy, share of wallet and
financial value” and the Customer Relevance Management (CRM) measurement
framework “integrates all customer investment decisions and monitors their
impact across each segment in terms of current and future value”.

From an academic perspective, Humby (2004) does not explicitly define
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) and it should be noted that this concept
has not been formally published within the academic literature. However, Figure
7 (Humby, 2004) diagrammatically represents Humby’s (2004) Customer
Relevance Management (CRM) measurement framework as presented at the
IDM’s Annual Lecture in London, England. Humby is the chief information
architect behind Tesco’s loyalty programme ‘Clubcard’ and is therefore
considered to be a leading authority on (ICT-enabled) B2C marketing strategies
within the UK’s marketing environment. In a recent publication, ‘Scoring Points:
How Tesco is winning customer loyalty’, Humby et al (2003, p.16) comment:

29


“For Tesco Clubcard, the definition of Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
is best summarised as: to improve our performance at every point of contact
with our customers, to make them happier and the company richer. It’s no more
complicated than that”

Moreover, in a recent interview (Powell 2004, p.4), Humby contends:

“CRM is built on a fallacy because customers don’t want a relationship with their
bank or their grocer or their supermarket. Tesco does not have a CRM
programme. Tesco has a loyalty scheme and what this is saying is ‘we get your
data for giving you money back, and with the data we will give you a more
relevant experience in our shops because you choose to shop there’ "

The author tentatively suggests Tesco’s Customer Relevance Management (CRM)
worldview ‘fits’ the relationship marketing and relevance marketing frameworks
presented within this study: the organisation’s B2C marketing strategy appears
to be framed an ‘interactive’ and ‘win-win’ philosophy. Moreover, recent figures
suggest that Tesco’s Customer Relevance Management (CRM) strategy is highly
effective within the UK’s B2C marketing environment with the behemoth
achieving a 12% share of the UK’s total retail sales (The Grocer 2004, p.15).
Humby et al (2003, p.1) comment:

“Before Clubcard, Tesco was stuck as the UK’s second-ranking supermarket.
Today, not only is it the UK’s largest grocer, it is the world‘s most successful
Internet supermarket, one of Europe’s fastest growing financial services
companies and arguably one of the world’s most successful exponents of what
the jargon terms Customer Relationship Management, or CRM”

The author tentatively suggests that the concepts of relevance marketing and its
ICT-enabled cousin, Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby, 2004),
may have intuitive appeal for B2C marketers who are looking to add value to
their proposition, combat customer confusion and gain loyalty in a marketing
environment where many consumers are suffering from “information and
decision overload” (Mintel 2002, p.3). This study’s methodological design will aim
to offer the author an opportunity to further explore these concepts from both an
academic and a professional perspective. This strategy should offer the author

30


an opportunity to investigate whether relevance marketing is the new, improved
B2C relationship marketing or just another marketing buzzword.

Marketing Inputs
Multi-Dimensional
Behavioural
Segments
Retention
Price, Product, Promotion
Marketing Inputs
Upsell

Cross Sell

New Channels

Customer Service Inputs Outcomes

Sales Desk Contribution

Call Centre Commitment

After Sales Championing

Fig.6 Customer Relevance Management Measurement Framework
(Source: Humby, 2004)

Price, Product, Promotion

Price

Promotions

Product
Innovation

Fig.7 Customer Relevance Management Measurement Framework
(Humby, 2004)

31


3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The study’s primary aim is to provide a critical understanding of the development
within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing environment. Crudely
summarising, the study’s methodological design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to explore the validity of the marketing concepts and frameworks
presented in the literature review. Within this context, “validity means (in
essence) that a theory, model, concept or category describes reality with a good
fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93). Primary areas of investigation determined by the
literature review:

• Relationship Marketing;
• Customer Relationship Management (CRM);
• Loyalty Marketing;
• One-to-One Marketing (Peppers and Rogers, 1993);
• Many-to-Many Marketing (Gummesson, 2004a);
• electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM);
• Customer Relevance Management (Humby, 2004);
• Relevance Marketing

Considering the ambitious nature of the study’s primary aim and the plethora of
concepts, theories, threads, themes and tensions presented within the literature
review, the author suggests a purposeful sample would include senior B2C
marketing managers, independent marketing consultants and marketing
academics. The author notes: the conceptual areas of primary investigation are
diagrammatically represented by Figures 1a and 1b.

32


3.2 Research Strategy: An Exploratory, Qualitative Approach

The author suggests that the adoption of an exploratory, qualitative research
methodology would be appropriate. Moreover, the author suggests that the
exploratory, qualitative nature of the research is implied by the study’s primary
aim. Denscombe (1998, p.174) suggests qualitative research tends to be
associated with: words as the unit of analysis rather than numbers; thick
description (Geertz, 1973) i.e. a detailed description of the process, context and
people in the research (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.100); small-scale studies
rather than large-scale studies; a holistic perspective rather than a specific focus;
researcher involvement rather than researcher detachment; and an emergent
rather than a prescriptive research strategy. Moreover, Daymon and Holloway
(2002, p.6) suggest qualitative researchers have a desire to explore and present
the various subjective perspectives of participants. These characteristics
generally associated with qualitative research and qualitative researchers have
framed the author’s strategic decision to adopt a qualitative approach i.e. the
author suggests that a qualitative methodology is more likely to “fit” (Denscombe
1998, p.3) the study’s primary objective than a quantitative approach.

3.2.1 Rich and Relevant Data

Daymon and Holloway (2002, p.159) suggest the underlying principle of gaining
rich, in-depth data should guide the sampling strategies of qualitative
researchers. The author suggests that exploring the marketing concepts and
frameworks presented in the literature review with senior B2C marketing
managers, independent marketing consultants and marketing academics may
generate rich and relevant data. Furthermore, exploring relationship marketing’s
axioms, definitions, theories and concepts with such an ambitious sample may
offer the author an opportunity to explore whether a significant gap exists
between the professional practice and theoretical development of the domain.

33


3.3 Epistemological Considerations

It is important to consider the epistemological premise and ontological approach
of the research strategy in order to establish a conceptual framework to review
the research methodology (Gunter, 2000). The author suggests that the primary
research strategy of seeking the subjective opinions of the study’s participants is
informed by an interpretivist worldview. By adopting a hermeneutic position, the
author suggests the research is embracing constructivism as an ontological
approach and this is considered to be synergistic with the explorative nature of
the study. Supporting the author’s approach, Daymon and Holloway (2002, p.5)
suggest qualitative methods “are frequently seen to be inseparable from the
interpretive, constructivist worldview”. Embracing an inductive approach, the
author will analyse the qualitative data and then develop conclusions. It is hoped
that the research will move inductively from specific data to more general
patterns of commonalities (Daymon et al 2002, p.6). However, because the
research is qualitative in design, the author acknowledges that any findings can
never be more than strong possibilities. In summary, the research is primarily
concerned with gaining insight and understanding.

3.4 Bias, Reliability and Validity

It is imperative that the author does not introduce bias into the research and
therefore damage the educative authenticity of the findings. For example, the
author must be careful not to ‘over-sell’ the concept of relevance marketing
during the primary data collection. This scenario would be somewhat ironic
considering this study’s literature review highlights a marketing climate where
academics have published “self-serving jargon” (Tapp 2003, p.105) and “highly
selective” (Egan 2001b, p.376) marketing theory.

The criteria against which the quality of the research will be judged relate to the
benchmarks of reliability and validity. By embracing these benchmarks, the

34


author aims to overcome any charge of being too impressionistic during the data
collection and too subjective in the analysis. To enhance the overall validity and
reliability of the study, two strategies for ensuring the quality of the research
have been determined. The primary strategy is “member checking” (Lincoln and
Guba 1985 cited Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.95): presenting participants with
a summary of the data collected and the author’s interpretation of the data. The
second strategy is to provide a “thick description” (Geertz 1973 cited Daymon
and Holloway 2002, p.100): a detailed description of the process, context and
people in the research (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.100). A weakness of the
second strategy is that some participants may not wish to be identified.

3.5 A Holistic and Non-Commercial Perspective

The author suggests that his previous professional experience (UK Sales and
Marketing Manager for a leading multiple retailer in a niche market sector) and
his recent academic experience (post-graduate student of interactive marketing)
may provide a holistic focus to the research. Moreover, the author suggests that
his non-commercial (academic) approach is possibly a strategic advantage for
gaining access to purposeful individuals: participants may be less inclined to help
researchers from organisations that may commercially gain from their
involvement. Furthermore, a marketing consultant or journalist investigating this
topic would possibly have commercial objectives to consider and therefore their
findings and analysis may not be free from bias and teleological assumptions.

3.6 Method

It is a common view that the use of exploratory techniques such as group
discussions and in-depth interviews are appropriate for exploring fuzzy marketing
phenomena (Gummesson 2000; Daymon and Holloway 2002). However, the
author dismisses the strategy of organising group discussions for two reasons:

35


participants may moderate their views within a group discussion; and it would be
challenging to co-ordinate the diaries of such an ambitious sample.

The author suggests that an appropriate primary data collection method would
be to organise one-to-one, in-depth interviews with an appropriate number of
senior B2C marketing managers, independent marketing consultants and
marketing academics. This method choice has been primarily influenced by
contemporary studies including Mouncey et al’s (2002) ‘Interactive marketing:
The new marketing – Or more of the same?’. Mouncey et al (2002) aimed to
explore the fuzzy and ambiguous domain of interactive marketing within the UK’s
B2B and B2C marketing environments. Embracing a qualitative methodology,
Mouncey et al (2002) conducted individual, in-depth interviews with ten senior
marketing practitioners employed across a variety of industry sectors. Mouncey
et al (2002, p.133) suggest the primary data generated by this exploratory
technique was useful for their publication:

“While a limitation of the research is the small sample size, the in-depth
interview approach has provided valuable detailed case-study-based insights
enabling the key underlying principles to be identified”

Given the breadth of this study’s primary objective, the author aims to conduct at
least ten in-depth interviews. The one-to-one interviews are to be guided by a
semi-structured questionnaire framed by the key issues and crucial questions
identified within the literature review. The semi-structured questionnaire is
presented in Appendix 3. Ideally, the interviews would be conducted face-to-
face. However, the author would consider telephone interviews, or possibly
electronic interviews (e-interviews) framed by the semi-structured questionnaire,
if a “purposeful” (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.159) individual targeted by the
author agreed to participate but expressed a preference to contribute to the
study via these channels. The author acknowledges that semi-structured and
unstructured interviews are on a continuum and it is hoped that the interviewees

36


will elaborate on the issues raised by the author and “speak their minds”
(Denscombe 1998, p.113). However, the author acknowledges that this is less
likely via electronic (asynchronous) methods. With this in mind, the author hopes
that the majority of the primary data collection events will be face-to-face.
Moreover, the author suggests the real-time events should be at least 45
minutes in duration considering the ambitious nature of the investigation. Finally,
the author hopes to recruit individuals with diverse commercial and academic
interests to enhance the “generalizability” (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.91) of
the research. For example, it would be useful to interview senior marketing
practioners from non-related commercial sectors (e.g. Fast Moving Consumer
Goods (FMCG) and luxury goods). An emergent rather than a prescriptive
research strategy will determine the precise ratio of senior marketing managers,
independent consultants and academics. However, the author hopes that the
sample will contain an appropriate balance of academic and professional
marketing perspectives.

3.7 The Interlocutors

The author presupposed that a percentage of the key speakers at Marketing
Week’s ‘Multi-Channel Direct Marketing 2004’ conference would be interested in
contributing to this study. Centaur Conferences (Appendix 4) comment:

“This event is dedicated to exploring and solving the challenge of how to deliver
effective and measurable communications to customers within this virtual, multi-
channel world where every campaign must add to the bottom line”

The author approached (via e-mail) four of the fourteen keynote speakers and
was encouraged by a 75% response rate resulting in three face-to-face
interviews. Merlin Stone (Professor of Relationship Marketing - IBM / University
of the West of England); Jonathan Latham (Head of Relationship Management –
Sainsbury’s); and Matthew Button (CRM and Database Manager – Lexus GB)
have all agreed to be identified within the study.

37


The Institute of Direct Marketing (2004c, p.5) publishes ‘Interactive Marketing’ :

“The aim of Interactive Marketing is to provide an indispensable resource for
senior marketing managers seeking awareness of new marketing concepts,
strategies and applications from around the world”

The author presupposed that a percentage of the editorial board would be
interested in contributing to this exploratory study. Encouraging communications
with the journal’s publishing editor and co-editor in chief determined a shortlist
of potential interlocutors. The author approached (via e-mail) seven members of
the editorial board and was encouraged by 85.7% response rate resulting in one
face-to-face interview, one telephone interview and two e-interviews. For the
telephone interview, the respondent kindly offered to record the event.
Furthermore, all e-participants offered the author the opportunity to question
their responses via e-mail. Note: after initially dismissing the idea of
e-interviewing the National CRM Manager for Sears (Canada), the author
contacted the individual hoping that this strategy may enhance the study’s
external reliability. Bruce Clarkson (National CRM Manager – Sears); Peter
Mouncey (Independent Consultant & Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University); Alan
Mitchell (Business Writer); and Richard Webber (Independent Consultant &
Visiting Professor at University College London) have all agreed to be identified
within the study. The author approached (via e-mail) seven marketing
academics. This resulted in a 71.4% response rate and three face-to-face
interviews. Malcolm McDonald (Emeritus Professor of Marketing at Cranfield
University); John Egan (Principal Lecturer at Middlesex University); and Keith
Fletcher (Professor of Marketing at the University of East Anglia) have all agreed
to be identified within the study. The editorial board of ‘The Journal of
Relationship Marketing’ has only one member based in the UK. Christine Ennew
(Professor of Marketing at Nottingham University) has agreed to be identified in
the study: a 100% response rate. A “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of all the
participants is provided in table 1 with interview timings and event details.

38


Interlocutor Organisation / Event Details Background / Relevant
Primary Role Information
Professor Malcolm McDonald Chartered Extensive industrial experience,
Malcolm International Ltd Institute of including a number of years as
McDonald Marketing Marketing Director of Canada Dry.
Cranfield University (Cookham, Chairman of six companies. Author of
Berks) 37 books. Current interests centre
Independent 30-06-04 around the use of IT in advanced
Consultant (45 minutes) marketing processes.
Bruce Clarkson Sears (Canada) e-interview
National CRM 07-07-04
Manager
Peter Mouncey Cranfield University e-interview Director of research at the IDM, a
Independent 09-07-04 visiting fellow at Cranfield University
Consultant 13-07-04 and a consultant on market research
and CRM.
Professor University College of Private House Formerly Managing Director of
Richard London (London) Experian’s Micromarketing division.
Webber Visiting Professor 12-07-04 Generally recognised as the originator
Independent (60 minutes) of UK geodemographic systems.
Consultant
John Egan Middlesex University Middlesex Twenty-four years’ experience working
Principal Lecturer of University in the retail marketing sector with
Marketing 13-07-04 companies such as Bloomingdales
(90 minutes) (New York), Harrods (UK).
Jonathan Sainsbury’s Sainsbury’s HQ .
Latham Senior Manager (London)
Head of Relationship 15-07-04
Management (45 minutes)
Professor University of East Private House Research interests include consumer
Keith Fletcher Anglia (Norwich) behaviour, database marketing and
Professor of 19-07-04 the development of CRM.
Marketing (90 minutes)
Professor University of the IBM IBM Professor of Relationship
Merlin Stone West of England (London) Marketing. Business Research Leader
University of Surrey 22-07-04 with IBM’s Business Consulting
IBM (2 hours inc. Services. Director of four companies.
Consultant lunch!) Author of 11 books, 40 Journal Articles
Alan Business Writer Telephone Author of ‘Right Side Up’ and co-
Mitchell Interview author of ‘The New Bottom Line:
08-07-04 Bridging the Value Gaps that are
(50 minutes) Undermining your Business’
Professor Nottingham Nottingham Director of DeHaan Tourism and
Christine University University Travel Research Institute
Ennew Professor of 26-07-04 Editorial Board: ‘The Journal of
Marketing (70 minutes) Relationship Marketing’.
Matthew Lexus (GB) Ltd Lexus (GB)
Button CRM & Database (Epsom)
Marketing Manager 12-08-04
(45 minutes)

Table 1. The Interlocutors

39


3.8 Evaluation of Research Design

While a limitation of the research is the small sample size, the interview
approach has provided valuable insight into the fuzzy and ambiguous domain of
(relationship) marketing. The author considers the methodology was appropriate
and the sample contained an appropriate balance of academic and professional
perspectives. The author suggests: adopting a “member checking” (Lincoln and
Guba 1985 cited Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.95) strategy has enhanced the
internal validity of the research; providing a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of
the study’s participants and the primary data collection events has enhanced the
overall quality of the research; and the reliability of the research has been
enhanced by the application of a “consistent” (Denscombe 1998, p.240) set of
questions during the primary data collection events. The author notes: the
eleven discrete primary data events satisfied the minimum requirement; the
average duration of the face-to-face interviews exceeded the minimum
requirement; the majority of the face-to-face interviews were recorded (the
single exception being Malcolm McDonald: author forgot to tape!); and the semi-
structured questionnaire was a useful stimulus during data collection. Finally, the
author feels obliged to present an extract from Gummesson’s (2002b, p.325)
publication ‘Practical Value of Adequate Marketing Management Theory’ which
has significantly influenced the author’s methodological approach:

“Vedic philosophy treats knowledge as a blend of three interacting elements: the process of knowing
(methodology), the knower (the researcher) and the known (the result). All three are needed in
knowledge generation...My interest in theory has gradually brought me closer to qualitative methods
and the philosophy of science philosophies as expressed in hermeneutics, phenomenology and the
humanities, and away from quantification and positivism of traditional sciences. This transition is caused
by the limitations experienced in quantitative research and the complacent, taken-for-granted attitude of
marketing academics that statistical studies are the key to truth, the superior approach, and the cure-all.
From my experience both as a producer of surveys, a buyer of market research, and a user of marketing
data, I have seen it deliver only in special cases. By giving preference to a highly deductive, survey-
based approach, researchers contract chronic myopia. Opportunities of getting closer to the ‘real reality’
and thus securing validity are pushed aside by a fascination for intricacies or research techniques,
mistaking the outcome for a valid image. In saying this, I do not disqualify quantitative research as
such, only claim that it is over-used and over-rated as a tool in decision-making and the implementation
of business. An ingenious concept, category or theory gives much more guidance than survey
distributions, standard deviations, staples and random samples. Together with experience, tacit
knowledge and intuition, theory gives a structure and a framework, a context”

40


4. Findings and Analysis

4.1 Relationship Marketing > Relevance Marketing

This study is concerned with the validity of relationship marketing as presented
in the academic literature. During the primary data collection phase of the study,
an Independent Consultant questioned the validity of the ‘relationship marketing’
definitions presented in chapter 2:

“Doesn’t it strike you as curious that these definitions of relationship marketing
are in fact non-definitions, since they define relationship marketing as the
attempt to do something with, or for, or in the context of a relationship, and
make no attempt to define what they mean by a relationship?”

The author tentatively suggests that this insightful comment supports the
relevance marketing definitions and perspectives presented in Figure 6. A medley
of perspectives relating to the validity of relationship marketing and relevance
marketing is presented in Figure 8. These findings indicate that Humby’s (2004)
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) approach and this study’s criticism of
the relationship marketing domain may have a degree of validity within the B2C
marketing environment.

The study’s primary aim is to provide a critical understanding of the development
within the B2C marketing environment. A Senior Marketing Manager commented:

“My sense is that the term (relationship marketing) is less relevant than a clear
explanation or description of the scope of the idea. Typically there is not a
pragmatic, business related description of what we’re trying to do and how we’re
going about it. The best definition of the activities (independent of the
technologies) that I’ve come across is Dr Robert Shaw’s definition of CRM:

‘An interactive process for achieving the optimum balance between corporate
investments and the satisfaction of customers needs to generate the maximum
profit’ ”

41


The author tentatively suggests that this definition supports the study’s
presupposition presented in chapter 2 that the function of B2C marketing is to
offer relevant propositions to relevant customers (i.e. profitable customers) and
to provide relevant solutions to customers’ problems (needs). Arguably, this CRM
definition sits comfortably within the domain of relevance marketing:

“Customer Relevance Management (CRM) is an interactive process for achieving
the optimum balance between corporate investments and the satisfaction of
customers needs to generate the maximum profit”

“Customers want good, professional service that reflects the information held about them
and respects their integrity as intelligent people! They want integration between channels.
No, people don’t want real relationships with all the organisations they trade with. Most
organisations still struggle to get to first base in meeting the needs and expectations of their
customers and the thought that this is a ‘relationship’ is a joke”
(Independent Consultant)

“The problem with CRM has been this tremendous lack of clarity regarding its scope. I
suggest that CRM is evolving to Customer Management (leave out the relationship word).
This will force harder work regarding the development of the value proposition, how the
organisation will deliver it, and what the customer experience will be. This is tough to do but
those who do it will differentiate themselves in the market”
(Senior Marketing Manager)

“Customers want the freedom to determine whom they want a relationship with and what
the nature of the relationship should be. Humby’s reference to Relevance Management is
very close to part of Shaw’s definition of CRM” *
(Senior Marketing Manager)

“Take Gronroos's relationship marketing definition and just think about it for a moment.
Remove the word 'relationship' and it still stands as a definition of marketing. Where, pray,
did the need come from to add extra words?”
(Academic)

“I think there is a lot of disillusionment about ‘relationships’ in marketing and given that CRM
actually isn’t about relationships in that kind of personal, marriage-type metaphor then
arguably relevance is quite an interesting perspective”
(Academic)

“Customer Relevance Management seems very sensible”
(Independent Consultant)

* See section 4.5 for Shaw’s (1999) CRM Checklist

Fig.8 Relationship Marketing and Relevance Marketing Perspectives

42


4.2 Data Gathering > Data Analysis > Value Delivery

There was a general consensus that relationship marketing strategies (commonly
referred to as CRM strategies) can add significant value to a commercial
organisation’s brand equity (value proposition) in today’s highly competitive, B2C
marketing environment. This finding supports Mintel’s (2002) previously cited
research. Moreover, there was a common view that “segmentation is the key to
marketing” and CRM strategies can help marketers identify their ‘profitable’
customers. These findings support the presupposition presented in chapter 2 that
relationship (relevance) marketing implies the development of long-term
relationships (accounts) with key parties (profitable customers within this
context) in order to better understand how to develop and deliver propositions
tailored to the needs of the specific market segments identified. A Senior
Marketing Manager commented:

“We tip all of our prospects into a segmentation model and we then decide which
segments are worth nurturing and which segments are not”

A common view was that successful CRM requires rich and relevant consumer
data. Moreover, there was a general consensus that (ICT-enabled) loyalty
programmes can offer commercial organisations valuable real-time data. These
findings support Buttle’s (2004, p.34) previously cited CRM perspective that
successful CRM strategies are “grounded on high quality data and enabled by
IT”. A Senior Marketing Manager commented:

“Data is the essential element of a CRM strategy. It is the key to building
profitable dialogue and creating value for both the customer and for us”

These findings support Clark et al’s (2002) conceptualisation of the CRM space as
presented in Figure 6. Moreover, the CRM strategies of Sainsbury’s, Lexus (GB)
and Sears (Canada) seem to fit: Clark et al’s (2002) value framework as
presented in Figure 5; and Humby’s (2004) Customer Relevance Management
framework (Appendix 2) which advocates segmenting customers by their

43


behaviour (data) and then developing marketing strategies for only those “multi-
dimensional behavioural segments” (customers) who will find them relevant.

4.3 Win-Win-Win > Many-to-Many

The study’s presupposition that the philosophy of relationship (relevance)
marketing is to create and sustain a ‘win-win’ scenario over the long-term
(Figure 3) was endorsed by all participants. However, Sainsbury’s relationship
marketing philosophy is to create and sustain a ‘win-win-win’ scenario:

“We have relationships with suppliers and with customers and the ideal
campaign will have a win for the supplier, a win for Sainsbury’s and a win for the
customer. So, we work on a win-win-win scenario”

The author suggests that this marketing approach is supported by the
organisation’s broader, paradigmatic view of Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) i.e. Sainsbury’s relationship marketing approach goes beyond the
customer-supplier dyad to include commercial organisations within the supply
chain. This finding tentatively supports Gummesson’s (2004a, p.1) previously
cited worldview of relationship marketing i.e. “marketing does not live in one-to-
one relationships but in many-to-many networks”. Furthermore, an Independent
Consultant reflected upon the appropriateness of Gummesson’s (2002) many-to-
many (network) philosophy in today’s multi-channel marketing environment:

“Networks are relevant in a multi-channel environment where a consistent view
of the customer is an organisation’s aim”

However, Gummesson’s (2004a, p.1) many-to-many marketing concept was not
recognised as being a useful perspective by all participants. A Senior Marketing
Manager commented:

“This is getting way too complex when the subject is really back to influencing
consumer behaviour for commercial gain”

44


4.4 One-to-One Marketing > Multi-Channel Integration

In chapter 2, the author suggested relationship marketing respects and values
markets segmented at the level of the individual. The majority of the study’s
interlocutors agreed with this presupposition. However, there was a view that the
one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) relationship marketing concept has been
‘over-sold’ by academics and CRM software vendors. In summary, there was a
general consensus that one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) relationship
(relevance) marketing is theoretically possible but not a common reality in
today’s B2C marketing environment. An Independent Consultant commented:

“The capability to communicate one-to-one should be expanding all the time with
ICT developments – if only organisations would take data/information/knowledge
management more seriously and learn to integrate and co-ordinate channels”

4.5 CRM Checklist

A Senior Marketing Manager commented:

“I have found Shaw’s CRM checklist very useful in assessing what we’re doing
(and what needs to be done) in terms of customer management”

The participant kindly summarised Shaw’s (1999) CRM checklist:

• Measuring inputs across all functions including marketing, sales
and service costs and outputs in terms of customer revenue, profit
and value
• Acquiring and continuously updating knowledge about customer needs,
motivation and behaviour over the lifetime of the relationship
• Applying customer knowledge to continuously improve performance
through a process of learning from successes and failures
• Integrating the activities of marketing, sales and service to achieve
a common goal
• The implementation of appropriate systems to support customer
knowledge acquisition, sharing and the measurement of effectiveness
• Constantly flexing the balance between marketing, sales and service inputs
against changing customer needs to maximize profits

Fig.9 CRM Framework (Shaw 1999 cited by a Senior Marketing Manager)

45


The Senior Marketing Manager noted that Humby’s (2004) Customer Relevance
Management (CRM) measurement framework (Figure 7) and Shaw’s (1999) CRM
checklist (Figure 9) share common ground. The author suggests that the only
significant difference between the frameworks is the terminology employed.

4.6 Prospect Relationship (Relevance) Management

Lexus’s (GB) CRM and database marketing strategy is based upon the concept of
Prospect Relationship Management (PRM). The components of this framework
are presented in Figure 10.

“Prospect Relationship Management is about acquiring and nurturing prospects
(across multiple channels) and making sure the customers stay happy”
(Button 12/08/04)

• PRM (Prospect Relationship Management) not CRM; successfully nurturing
a prospect to become your customer
• Understand the tone with which to speak to your customer from the
insight gleaned from your data
• Employing consumer insight to create relevant offers based on
spending patterns and established behaviour
• Examining different segmentation models to guarantee you’re aiming
for the right target

Fig.10 Prospect Relationship Management (PRM) (Lexus)

During the interview, the author suggested the term ‘Prospect Relevance
Management’. Lexus’s CRM and Database Manager commented that Prospect
Relevance Management is a valid perspective considering Lexus’s CRM strategy
involves “employing consumer insight to create relevant offers based on
spending patterns and established behaviour”. The author notes: the synonymity
of the terms relationship marketing and CRM is highlighted by the organisational
responsibilities of Sainsbury’s Senior Relationship Marketing Manager and Lexus’s
CRM and Database Manager. In practice, these roles share a lot of common
ground (e.g. the development of customer acquisition programmes and the
management of customer retention programmes).

46

Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004)

Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (16)

Semelhante a Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004)

Semelhante a Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004) (20)

Relevance Marketing (Lumsden Nee Bottom 2004)