Book - Customer Engagement

Customer Engagement
in Theory and Practice

A Marketing Management
Perspective
Katarzyna Żyminkowska
Customer Engagement in Theory and Practice
Customer
Engagement in
Theory and Practice
A Marketing Management
Perspective
University of Bielsko-Biala
Bielsko-Biala, Poland
ISBN 978-3-030-11676-7 ISBN 978-3-030-11677-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4
Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931334
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Pattern © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com
This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
The research leading to the results discussed in this book has received
funding from National Science Centre, Poland in project no. 2 014/13/B/
HS4/01614.
v
Contents
1 Concepts of Customer Activism 1

1.1 Value Co-creation Phenomenon and Related Concepts 3
1.2 Network Management and Related Concepts 9
References 18
2 Interpreting Customer Engagement in the Marketing

Discipline 23
2.1 Customer Engagement Definitions in Marketing Field 24
2.2 Customer Engagement Dimensions and Forms 31
2.3 Customer Engagement Antecedents and Consequences 43
References 51
3 Placing Customer Engagement Within Marketing

Management 55
3.1 Engaging Customer in Value Proposition Formation 57
3.2 Perceived Customer Value and Customer Engagement
Linkages 68
References 76
vii
viii Contents
4 Why Do Customers Engage? 81

4.1 Methodology of Consumer Engagement Research 82
4.2 Intensity of Customer Engagement Across Product
Categories 87
4.3 Customer Values in Driving the Customer Engagement 96
4.4 Customer Involvement and Loyalty Impact on Customer
Engagement100
References103
5 Firms’ Practices in Customer Engagement Management105

5.1 Methodology of Research of Firms’ Practices in
Customer Engagement Management 106
5.2 Intensity of Customer Engagement Forms in Firms’
Practices114
5.3 Process of Customer Engagement Management 123
5.4 Firm-Level Outcomes of Customer Engagement 127
References132
6 Customer Engagement Trends and Perspectives in Modern

Business135
6.1 Trends in Customer Activism Across Countries 136
6.2 Customer Engagement Perspectives Across Industry
Type139
References144
7 Conclusion145
References154
Index155
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—theoretical foundations for

understanding customer engagement phenomenon 2
Fig. 2.1 Customer engagement domain in attitudinal and behavioural
interpretations30
Fig. 2.2 Forms of customer engagement—comparison of classifica-
tions within behavioural CE interpretation 40
Fig. 3.1 Customer engagement forms in marketing management 59
Fig. 3.2 Customer engagement management framework in marketing
management field 75
Fig. 4.1 Examples of customers’ communication activities undertaken
by respondents 91
Fig. 4.2 Customers’ communication activities undertaken by respon-
dents across product categories 92
Fig. 4.3 Examples of customer complaining activities undertaken by
respondents93
Fig. 4.4 Customer complaining activities undertaken by respondents
across product categories 94
Fig. 4.5 Examples of customer collaboration activities undertaken by
respondents95
Fig. 4.6 Customer collaboration activities undertaken by respondents
across product categories 96
Fig. 4.7 Customer engagement values across the age segments 98
Fig. 4.8 Customer engagement values across the income segments 99
ix
x List of Figures
Fig. 4.9 The most and the least important customer engagement
motivations across product categories 100
Fig. 4.10 Customer involvement with four product categories 101
Fig. 4.11 Loyalty towards product categories under study 102
Fig. 5.1 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to the
customers’ communication 115
Fig. 5.2 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to
customer complaints 116
Fig. 5.3 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to
customer collaboration 117
Fig. 5.4 Firms’ practices in customer engagement according to
predominating type of business 122
Fig. 5.5 Firms’ practices in customer engagement according to
predominating type of direct buyer 123
Fig. 5.6 Components of customer engagement management process
in firms’ practices 124
in firms’ practices according to predominating type of
business126
in firms’ practices according to predominating type of direct
buyer127
Fig. 5.9 Customer engagement benefits in firms’ perspective 128
Fig. 5.10 Customer engagement risks in firms’ perspective 130
Fig. 5.11 Customer engagement benefits and risks according to firms’
size132
Fig. 6.1 Business collaborating on innovation with clients, by size,
2012–2014 (as percentage of product and/or process-innovat-
ing businesses in each size category). *Australia 2014–2015,
Chile 2013–2014, Korea 2013–2015. Based on OECD
(2017)137
Fig. 6.2 Proportion of enterprises for which clients or customers are
the most valuable partner for innovation activities. Based on
CIS (2014) 138
Fig. 6.3 Proportion of enterprises for which clients or customers are
the most valuable partner for innovation activities—trends
from 2008 to 2014. Based on CIS (2010, 2012, 2014) 139
Fig. 6.4 Degree of importance of customers as sources of information
for innovation 140
List of Figures xi
Fig. 6.5 Customer engagement activities undertaken by consumers

versus the intensity of firms’ practices in customer
engagement141
Fig. 6.6 Perspectives for engaging customers by firms during the next
three years 142
Fig. 6.7 Perspectives for engaging customers by firms during the next
three years, across industries 142
Fig. 6.8 Current practices and future perspectives for engaging cus-
tomers across industries 143
Fig. 6.9 Growth perspectives for firms’ customer engagement manage-
ment in the next three years across industries 144
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—key implications for

customer engagement exploration 16
Table 2.1 Customer engagement definitions according to existing
perspectives26
Table 2.2 Customer engagement components according to existing
perspectives32
Table 2.3 Customer engagement antecedents and consequences
according to existing perspectives 44
Table 3.1 Perspectives on customer engagement management in the CE
literature61
Table 3.2 Dimensions of customer value 70
Table 3.3 Literature review on customer value and customer engagement
linkages72
Table 4.1 Target population and sampling frame 83
Table 4.2 Validity and reliability statistics for variables used in customer
research84
Table 4.3 The intensity of customer engagement forms among
consumers88
Table 4.4 The importance of customer values in driving customer
engagement97
Table 5.1 Firms’ sample characteristics 107
Table 5.2 Validity and reliability statistics for variables used in firms’
research108
xiii
xiv List of Tables
Table 5.3 Firms’ practices in customer engagement across industries

under study 118
Table 5.4 Components of customer engagement management process
in firms’ practices across distinct industries 125
Table 5.5 Benefits of customer engagement across distinct industries 129
Table 5.6 Risks of customer engagement across distinct industries 131
Introduction
The notion of customer engagement (CE) reflects the broad spectrum of

customer activism in value formation. It has been attracting the growing
attention of scholars and practitioners after the Gallup Institute intro-
duced it to the marketing discipline (Appelbaum 2001). Customer
engagement started to be an important topic of discussion in marketing
academia in 2010 and was then catalysed by the Marketing Science
Institute when customer engagement issues were listed among its research
priorities for the years 2014–2016 and 2016–2018. Special issues on cus-
tomer engagement from the leading marketing journals prove further
interest in this concept within the academic world (e.g. Journal of Service
Research 2010, 2011; Journal of Marketing Management 2016; Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 2017; Journal of Service Theory and
Practice 2017; Journal of Services Marketing 2018). Customer engagement
has also been included in the agenda of the most reputable marketing
conferences (e.g. 2018 AMA Summer Academic Conference, EMAC
2018 Conference, or ANZMAC 2018 Conference). Although a lot of
work has been already done to conceptualize and operationalize the con-
cept of customer engagement in marketing literature, there are still
important gaps to be addressed, that delineate the objectives of this book.
First, due to the distinct CE interpretations, introduced to the market-
ing literature in 2010–2011 (van Doorn et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2010;
Brodie et al. 2011), some parallel research streams in customer engage-
xv
xvi Introduction
ment evolved. This often results in research fragmentation and terminol-

ogy confusions while linking CE issues with the existing marketing
knowledge and related concepts of customer activism. Considering the
rapid accretion of research in CE, such gap may restrain the development
of consistent CE theory. Therefore, in this book, we aim to systemize
knowledge on customer engagement phenomenon by adapting the inte-
grative approach that brings together the existing contributions from dis-
tinct CE research streams with the body of knowledge on marketing
management and with the umbrella paradigms referring to customer
activism in value formation. Second, despite the rising interest in cus-
tomer engagement in business practice, the managerial view on this phe-
nomenon is still rare among marketing academia. Although some
outstanding contributions have been already offered (e.g. Palmatier et al.
2018; Alvarez-Milán et al. 2018; Beckers et al. 2018; Venkatesan 2017;
Harmeling et al. 2017; Kumar and Pansari 2016; Kumar 2013), the com-
panies still need to be supported with detailed, normative knowledge on
how to engage customers in sync with the other marketing actions and
the overall endeavours in the customer asset management. Therefore, the
subsequent aim of this book is to develop the comprehensive CE man-
agement framework in order to enrich the pragmatic understanding of
CE as an object of effective marketing management.
In order to accomplish the aforementioned goals, original empirical
research was conducted to recognize the phenomenon of customer engage-
ment in the marketing management. Both consumers and firms operating
on the consumer markets were surveyed to obtain dual perspective on
CE. Moreover, the research was aimed to gain the cross-market and
cross-industry knowledge on CE, which is in line with the suggestions on
future research directions included in the literature (Kumar and Pansari
2016). In order to reflect the diversity of markets and industries, four
consumer product categories were selected from the FCB grid (Vaughn
1986; Ratchford 1987; Lambin 1998) and this determined the subse-
quent sample selection. These are the categories that differ across the
level of customer involvement (high vs. low) and the type of the mode of
information processing (cognitive/thinking vs. affective/feeling). Finally,
we surveyed the consumers of the following products: clothing (high
involvement feeling product category), beer (low involvement feeling
Introduction xvii
category), mobile phones (high involvement thinking product), and

banking products (also high involvement thinking category), and investi-
gated their engagement focused on the brands, products, or firms offering
such product categories. On the other hand, we surveyed firms represent-
ing industries that offer selected product, that is, fashion, food and bever-
ages, household appliances, and banking and financial services suppliers.
The research was conducted in Poland, the example of the economy that
has been lately upgraded from developing to developed market status in
indices run by FTSE Russell. Thus Poland, as the first country in the
world to be awarded such an upgrade in almost a decade, represents the
appealing research scope of the business practices in customer engage-
ment management.
The above-mentioned research revealed a holistic portrayal of customer
engagement management in the consumer goods and services business
sector and allowed to answer the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the intensity of the forms (types) of customer engage-

ment phenomenon in distinct consumer markets?
RQ2: What are the consumer-based antecedents of customer
engagement?
RQ3: What is the intensity of the forms (types) of customer engage-
ment phenomenon in the companies’ practices across distinct
industries?
RQ4: Do and how companies manage customer engagement?
RQ5: What are the firm-level outcomes of customer engagement?
RQ6: What are the trends and perspectives of customer engagement
management in modern business?
The objectives and research questions determine the structure of this

book. In the first, retrospective chapter, theoretical concepts of customer
activism, that form the foundations for the exploration of customer
engagement phenomenon in the marketing management field, are dis-
cussed. Second chapter contains the systematization of knowledge on
customer engagement developed in the marketing discipline and dis-
cusses its relations with some of the marketing basics. Placing the cus-
tomer engagement in the marketing management field and exploring
xviii Introduction
how it alters value formation, the third chapter of this book offers the
comprehensive CE management framework to be empirically investi-
gated in the next three sections. Therefore, in Chap. 4, we discuss the
methodology and findings of the research on the intensity and drivers of
consumer engagement across distinct markets. In fifth chapter, we discuss
the methodology and findings of empirical research uncovering the
intensity of the forms of CE phenomenon in the companies’ practices
across distinct industries. We also recognize whether those firms manage
CE in the systematic way, based on certain components of the CE man-
agement process, and what are the positive or negative firm-level effects
of such management. In sixth chapter of the book, we attempt to identify
trends and perspectives of customer engagement management in modern
business across diverse countries and industries. The book ends with con-
clusion remarks that include the discussion of the key theoretical and
empirical findings.
The book is addressed to the academics specializing in business and
management interested in the pragmatic view on customer engagement
in effective marketing management. This work also targets business peo-
ple who operate on the consumer markets and are responsible for cus-
tomer relationship management, including, among others, promotion
campaigns, customer complaint management, or new product develop-
ment and innovation.
References
Alvarez-Milán, A., Felix, R., Rauschnabel, P. A., & Hinsch, C. (2018). Strategic
Customer Engagement Marketing: A Decision Making Framework. Journal
of Business Research, 92, 61–70.
Appelbaum, A. (2001, June 17). The Constant Customer. Gallup Business
Journal. Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://businessjournal.gallup.com/
content/745/constant-customer.aspx#1.
Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Good, Better,
Engaged? The Effect of Company-Initiated Customer Engagement Behavior
on Shareholder Value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46,
366–383.
Introduction xix
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer
Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and
Implications for Research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., et al. (2010).
Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research
Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
Harmeling, C., Moffett, J., Arnold, M., & Carlson, B. (2017). Toward a Theory
of Customer Engagement Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 3, 312–335.
Kumar, V. (2013). Profitable Customer Engagement: Concept, Metrics and
Strategies. Los Angeles: Sage.
Kumar, V., & Pansari, A. (2016). Competitive Advantage Through Engagement.
Journal of Marketing Research, 53(4), 497–514.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S.
(2010). Undervalued or Overvalued Customers: Capturing Total Customer
Engagement Value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 299–302.
Lambin, J.-J. (1998). Market-Driven Management: Strategic and Operational
Marketing. New York: Macmillan Press.
Palmatier, R. W., Kumar, V., & Harmeling, C. M. (Eds.). (2018). Customer
Engagement Marketing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New Insights About the FCB Grid. Journal of Advertising
Research, 27(4), 24–38.
Vaughn, R. (1986). How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited.
Journal of Advertising Research, 26(January/February), 27–30.
Venkatesan, R. (2017). Executing a Customer Engagement Strategy. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(3), 289–293.
1
Concepts of Customer Activism
Abstract The concept of customer engagement refers to the customer

activism in value formation, which is not a new notion in the marketing
and management literature. Theories of customer activism constitute
particular anchors for systemizing the knowledge on customer engage-
ment. Drawing on the contributions of two influential metatheories,
such as value co-creation and network management, and related concepts
(including service-dominant logic, customer participation, prosumption,
customer integration, or user and open innovation) Żyminkowska rec-
ommends realistic view on CE phenomenon and suggests the adequate
terminology to describe the role of CE in firm-level value creation. The
recommended term of ‘value co-formation’ encompasses both positive
CE consequences for firm (i.e. value co-creation with active customer)
and potential negative outcomes or risks (i.e. value co-destruction by
active customer).
Keywords Customer engagement theoretical foundations • Customer

activism • Realistic view on customer engagement • Customer engagement
in interactive value co-formation
© The Author(s) 2019 1

K. Żyminkowska, Customer Engagement in Theory and Practice,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_1
2 K. Żyminkowska
The phenomenon of customer activism, which is the inevitable feature of

customer engagement concept, is not a new notion in the marketing and
management literature. There are at least a few theoretical concepts that
offer the explanation of how and why individual customers may act as
firm’s active partners, what are the frameworks of managing such an
activism by firms, and what are its firm-level outcomes. While developing
any novel marketing theory related to the customer activism (including
customer engagement), those achievements need to be taken into consid-
eration as a broader context. Otherwise, when the new ideas are devel-
oped in isolation from existing ones, the researchers face the risk of
‘reinventing the wheel.’ Therefore in this retrospective chapter we discuss
the concepts of customer activism, indicating its potential for the explo-
ration of CE phenomenon in the marketing management field.
The concepts of customer activism, that form foundations for cus-
tomer engagement theory development, are generally associated with two
influential metatheories that have broadly impacted contemporary mar-
keting management and have been diffused within this field. These are
the value co-creation and the network management macro constructs
that are discussed in the next sections. The theoretical achievements
within these metatheories and related concepts (see Fig. 1.1) constitute
particular anchors for enhancing the marketing management perspective
on CE in the broader, theoretical context.
Fig. 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—theoretical foundations for understand-

ing customer engagement phenomenon
Concepts of Customer Activism 3
1.1 V
alue Co-creation Phenomenon
and Related Concepts
The activism of a customer in value co-creation relates to the new con-
sumer role in a society forecasted by Alvin Toffler and termed as a pro-
sumer. Prosumers, that is, proactive consumers, were common consumers
who were predicted to become active to help personally improve or design
the goods and services of the marketplace, for themselves or other cus-
tomers (Toffler 1980). Prosumption involves both production and con-
sumption rather than focusing on either one or the other separate sphere.
A series of recent social changes, especially those associated with the
internet and Web 2.0, have made prosumption a common phenomenon.
The development of self-service technologies is also a key driver of pro-
sumption since customers are empowered to perform tasks that tradition-
ally were completed by firms’ staff (Fisk et al. 2008). However,
prosumption is quite a challenging phenomenon from a managerial point
of view. As Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) suggest, firms have more diffi-
culty controlling prosumers than producers or consumers, and there is a
greater likelihood of resistance on the part of prosumers who are against
being asked to contribute to corporations without pay. This would impli-
cate that some customers may also be resistant to engaging them in any
interactions with firms or brands, and the customers’ activism (including
engagement) may not be a common phenomenon.
Prosumption notion has been reflected in the new model of the market
termed ‘the market as forum.’ According to the traditional meaning, the
main market function was to exchange the value between a firm and a
consumer. This function was separate from value creation process. The
new market concept pervades the entire system of value creation, instead
of being outside the value chain system. The value is co-created during
the consumer experiences at different points of interactions, where prod-
ucts, distribution channels, technologies, and employees are viewed as
experience gateways. Therefore consumers are active partners in the joint
value creation process, not just simple passive recipients of the value cre-
ation of others (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). The idea of market as
a forum explains the essence of value co-creation with active, engaged
4 K. Żyminkowska
customers. The significance of this idea, based on value co-creation

metatheory in marketing at large, has been contributed mostly by service
marketing achievements (Grönroos 2006; Vargo and Lusch 2004),
including customer participation issues. Then recognizing those achieve-
ments shed light on the contextual understanding of customer engage-
ment phenomenon on consumer markets. Services are actions or
performances, typically produced and consumed simultaneously. In
many situations customers, employees, and other people in the service
environment interact to produce the ultimate service outcome (Zeithaml
et al. 2009). Hence customers are participants in service production and
delivery, and value co-creation is an inevitable feature of service market-
ing. Customer participation means that the customer has impact on the
service s(he) perceives, and becomes a co-producer of the service, and
thus also a co-creator of value for himself (Grönroos 2007). However, the
levels of customer participation may vary. According to Zeithaml et al.
(2009), those levels may differ across various services: from low, when
customer presence is required during service delivery (e.g. motel stay),
through moderate, when customer inputs are required for service cre-
ation (e.g. full-service restaurant), to high, when customer co-creates the
service (e.g. personal training). Moreover the levels of customer participa-
tion are related to the different modes of relationships that customers
prefer. If transactional mode is preferred, customers are looking for solu-
tions to their needs at an acceptable price, and they do not appreciate
contacts from the supplier or service provider in between purchases.
Customers may also prefer the relational mode, either active or passive.
Customers preferring the active relational mode are looking for opportu-
nities to interact with the supplier or service provider in order to get
additional value. A lack of such contacts makes them disappointed,
because the value inherent in the relationship is missing. If preferring
passive relational mode, customers are looking for the knowledge that
they could contact the supplier or service provider if they wanted to. In
this sense they too are seeking contact, but they seldom respond to invita-
tions to interact (Grönroos 2007). Then, there is the implication for cus-
tomer engagement issues, since the customer’s willingness to engage or be
engaged may probably vary, likewise in the customer participation
case. Level of customer engagement may also vary across the customer
segments and product categories involved, and may be associated with

customer’s individual preferences and attitudes towards the relationship
with firm or brand.
Participating customers may play various roles: helping oneself, help-
ing others, and promoting the company (Bowers et al. 1990). So custom-
ers are referred to as partial employees of the organization and they
contribute to the organization’s productive capacity. This requires manag-
ing customers as partial employees (managing customer participation),
that is, recruiting, educating, and rewarding customers (Zeithaml et al.
2009). Hoffman and Bateson (2006) distinguish the following stages in
customer participation management: developing customer trust, pro-
moting the benefits and stimulating trial, understanding customer hab-
its, pretesting new procedures, understanding the determinants of
consumer behaviour, teaching consumers, and monitoring and evaluat-
ing performance. While putting customer to work companies must iden-
tify the work that customers perform best, understand why customers
choose to work for (or against) a brand and what they expect in return,
design and manage customer jobs, and identify the potential unintended
negative consequences (Heskett et al. 2008). Thus, the broad body of
knowledge on customer participation management implicates perceiving
active customer (also engaged customer) through his/her role as partial
employee of the firm and an object of management.
However, from a managerial point of view, customer participation is
associated with a number of advantages and disadvantages. The primary
advantage is that customers may customize their own service and pro-
duce it faster and less expensively (Hoffman and Bateson 2006). So cus-
tomer participation may result in increased efficiency and productivity,
and decreased production costs. Positive outcomes of customer participa-
tion also include increased perceived quality and value, higher customer
satisfaction and loyalty, as well as lower price sensitivity and better service
recovery (Mustak et al. 2016). On the other hand, customer participa-
tion is perceived as a major source of uncertainty and, as customer par-
ticipation increases, the efficiency of the operation may decrease. This is
due to the fact that firm is losing control of quality and the waste may
increase, which increases the operation costs (Hoffman and Bateson
2006). Sometimes additional costs appear, when new or changed inputs
6 K. Żyminkowska
are needed (Fließ and Kleinaltenkamp 2004), and also increased job
stress or role conflicts for service providers’ front line employees (Mustak
et al. 2016; Hsieh et al. 2004). Above-mentioned findings within the
customer participation issues reveal the need for realistic view on the
customer activism (and then customer engagement), and its impact on
firm-level outcomes, because apart from positive consequences, negative
outcomes for the firm also need to be taken into consideration.
Customer activism in value co-creation, that is typical for service mar-
keting and associated with customer participation idea, has been adapted
for the goods marketing in two concepts: the service logic (SL) and
service-dominant (S-D) logic concepts. First, service logic (SL) approach
to value co-creation, based on the tradition of the Nordic School, seems
to fit best the context of most goods producing business today (Grönroos
2006). According to the service logic for marketing, customers are inde-
pendent value creators and create value as value-in-use. However, when
customers begin interaction and dialogue with service provider, they co-
create value with the provider. Besides, customers may co-create value
socially with peers. In SL provider is a value facilitator, producing the
resources to be used in the customer’s value creation (Grönroos 2007;
Grönroos and Voima 2013). Value emerges during the use of resources.
Customers create value by using or consuming resources in a process
where they use their skills to integrate obtained resources with already
existing resources (Grönroos 2017). The SL assumptions offer some
implications for customer engagement management revealing the sub-
jects of interactive value creation (i.e. customer and firm, as well as cus-
tomer and peers), and its foundation that is the resources use and
integration.
On the other hand, according to the S-D logic, value is collaborative
in nature and is co-created rather than created by one actor. Customer is
always a co-creator of value, and enterprise cannot deliver value but only
offer value propositions. S-D logic underlies the role of consumers in
proactively co-creating their personalized experiences and values with
organizations through active dialogue and interactions (Vargo and Lusch
2004, 2008). The primary activity involved in value co-creation is, again,
resource integration, and since the contextual nature of value, both firm
and customer may act as resource integrators (Vargo and Lusch 2008).
Besides other social and economic actors may also act as resource integra-
tors (Vargo and Lusch 2017). Vargo (2008) distinguishes two processes:
(co)production (i.e. creation of firm output) and value creation (i.e.
customer-determined and co-created benefit), that is superordinate to
(co)production, to illustrate contextual nature of S-D logic. Further, he
posits that the term (co)production represent goods-dominant logic lexi-
con and is close to the term ‘customer integration’ referring to participa-
tion in the development of the core offering itself. Moreover, Vargo and
Lusch (2017) suggest that service-dominant logic can continue to advance
over the next decade by moving towards a general theory of value co-
creation. They perceive S-D logic and co-creation of value as metatheo-
retical concepts that are diffused in the lower-level theories, as for example
customer engagement being an example of mid-range theory. Also
Storbacka et al. (2016) posit that service-dominant logic concepts, such
as value co-creation, constitute what is referred to in the strategic man-
agement literature as macro constructs. They suggest that actor engage-
ment (including customer engagement) is a microfoundation for value
co-creation. Above-mentioned theoretical clarifications within S-D logic
bring important implications for customer engagement knowledge and
contribute to the more precise terminology. Customer engagement is
then a lower-level marketing theoretical construct, influenced by higher-
level theory of value co-creation. CE is a microfoundation for value co-
creation. CE is also complementary with other related constructs, as
customer participation or customer integration.
Both service-dominant logic and service logic for marketing emphasize
the role of resource use and integration in the process of value co-creation,
which positions them in the resource-based view concept that is further
discussed in the next section. Recognizing and managing resources is then a
key task in customer activism management, including customer engage-
ment management. And again the customer participation theory contrib-
utes to understanding this CE context. Customer participation refers to
customers’ provision of inputs, including effort, time, knowledge, or other
resources (Grönroos 2008). Mustak et al. (2016) distinguished three catego-
ries of customer resources delivered through participation, each including
different types of customer inputs. First, labour and task performance con-
sisted of provision of physical presence or labour and performing various
8 K. Żyminkowska
tasks or self-service. Second, information and knowledge, including infor-

mation sharing, when customers communicate their needs, provide infor-
mation, and knowledge sharing and decision-making, when customers
make suggestions and take part in decision-making. Third, behaviours,
including benevolent behaviour during the service process, when customers
behave in an appropriate and pleasant manner, and co-operative and help-
ing behaviours towards the provider or other customers. Peters et al. (2014)
suggest that resource integration can be viewed from two approaches: as the
emergence of new depositional properties on one hand and a series of inter-
action-based dynamic activities on the other. Resource integration as emer-
gence is a (potentially) observable and measurable process, and key question
in the context of CE is how the properties of resources influence the emer-
gent properties that result from resource integration. Resource integration
as interaction is observable and based on actors, one can measure the input
and output of an interactional process, and a key question is whether a
greater interaction results in more resources. Therefore, given the ideas of
resource integration included in the service-dominant logic and service logic
in marketing, and the customer participation literature, the potential cus-
tomer resources involved in customer engagement may be distinguished, as
well as the mechanism of its integration.
The resource integration in value creation is perceived as beneficial for
resource integrator, in both S-D and S-L logic perspectives. However,
Echeverri and Skålén (2011) underline that during the interactive value
formation not only value co-creation but also value co-destruction is pos-
sible. This is because resources allocated during value formation may be
utilized not only positively to the benefit of the resource integrator, but may
be misused, in a detrimental manner for one or all the parties involved. The
misuse of resources may be accidental (when parties intend to co-create
value through their interactions but some discrepancies occur) or inten-
tional (when a party has an interest in misusing resources seeking to increase
its own well-being and capacity for addictiveness to the detriment of another
party’s well-being and capacity for addictiveness) (Plé and Chumpitaz
Cáceres 2010). The misuse of resources is strictly associated with the
risk involved in value co-creation. With regard to the consumer co-creation
in new product development, Hoyer et al. (2010) indicate the following
general risks: diminished control over strategic planning, increased
complexity of managing firm’s objectives, and complexity of managing mis-

performance and selection of consumers’ ideas. Besides, the main challenges
in consumer co-creation involves concerns about secrecy of information
(since co-creation involves the revelation to consumers, and, through them,
potentially to competitors), concerns about the ownership of intellectual
property, information overload (since co-creation can yield large volume of
consumer input), and the risk that consumer co-creators provide ideas infea-
sible from a production standpoint (Hoyer et al. 2010). Accordingly,
Echeverri and Skålén (2011) suggest that customer’s or firm employees’ posi-
tions in value formation range and include value co-creator, value co-recov-
erer, value co- reducer, and value co-destroyer roles. Above-mentioned
findings on customer activism outcomes, that may be both beneficial and
diminishing or destructive, need to be taken into consideration in the pro-
cess of customer engagement management. They also indicate the need for
the realistic view on customer activism in value creation and customer
engagement. Therefore, regarding managerial view on value creation through
customer engagement the label ‘value co-formation’ seems to be more appro-
priate, since it includes both the possibility of adding value (value co-cre-
ation) and the risk of destroying it (value co-destruction).
Referring to value creation scope, Vargo (2008) argues that this is
network-to-network exchange, since each actor (e.g. firm or customer)
has its own supply chain as a resource integrator. In case of customer, this
comprises a network of public, private, and market-focusing service pro-
viders, in which the focal firm is only one actor. Network-to-network
perspective in value creation is then strictly combined with the second
metatheory, fundamental for CE understanding in a broader context,
which is discussed in the following section.
1.2 N
etwork Management and Related
Concepts
The second group of the customer activism concepts refers to the mana-
gerial issues derived from the network management perspective closely
associated with the extended resource-based view. According to the con-
ventional resource-based view (RBV), resources that are valuable, rare,
10 K. Żyminkowska
inimitable, and non-substitutable make it possible for businesses to

develop and maintain competitive advantages for superior performance
(Barney 1991; Collis and Montgomery 1995; Srivastava et al. 2001).
Resource redundancy or slack resources allow to buffer the firm from
internal and external variation, reduce intra-organizational conflict, and
allow experiment leading to organizational change and innovation
(Braldey et al. 2011). However, increasing slack up to a certain point
would have a positive effect on firm performance but that excessive slack
may be negative (Bourgeois 1981), due to firm inefficiency through invest-
ments in projects that do not increase shareholder value or diminished
willingness to accept risk (Braldey et al. 2011). The extended resource-
based view (ERBV) seems to offer the remedy for RBV disadvantages.
According to ERBV, firms are able to draw on a wide array of external
resources, through both market-mediated transactions and through vari-
ous kinds of resource exchange and resource leverage relations (Mathews
2003). Prahalad and Krishnan (2008) suggest the so-called R=G innova-
tion rule. This rule is in line with ERBV, and means that firms focus not
on the ownership of the resources, but on the access to the resources from
multiple vendors, often from around the globe. The participation of active
customers and customer communities, as vendors of such resources, is
highlighted in the latest domain of the network management research,
which evolved from business actors (inter-organizational networks) to
expanded networks including non-business partners, as consumers (Möller
and Halinen 2017). End users, customers, and user communities are part
of the networks, next to developers, research organizations, competitors,
and institutional actors (Aarika-Stenroos and Rittala 2017). This is closely
associated with the evolution of core competence locus from the company
itself, through network of companies, unto the enhanced network, that
consists of traditional suppliers, manufacturers, partners, investors, cus-
tomers, and customer communities, in which the competence is a func-
tion of collective knowledge (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000). The
company has access to consumers’ competences and investment of time
and effort from customers (Prahalad and Krishnan 2008). Also the value
constellation notion is based on customer resource integration, assuming
that customers and other partners in the production of an offering create
value together instead of ‘adding’ value one after the other
in a value chain (Normann and Ramirez 1998). Therefore, the network

management perspective suggests considering active customer and cus-
tomers’ communities as the network subjects that may impact the firm’s
competitive advantage and performance.
Main advantages of network comprise more adaptability and flexibil-
ity due to the loose coupling and openness to information (Weick 1976;
Achrol and Kotler 1999). However, the resources located outside the
firm, that drive firm’s success, cannot be controlled directly (Doz and
Hamel 1998), which is the primary obstacle for the effective network
management (including the networks that have active, engaged custom-
ers). Referring to the problem of lacking direct control over the external
resources accessed by firms, which is the basic disadvantage of ERBV
from a firm’s perspective, more a general question arises: Are the networks
manageable at all? Two discrete answers are offered for that question,
depending on the network interpretation. According to Ford and
Håkansson (2006) networks are the emergent, complex, and adaptive
systems and cannot be managed by any single actor, and firms may only
try to cope within the network. On the other hand, the proponents of
intentionally designed networks argue that distinct network’s actors are
able to exert considerable coordination over a network, that is, to manage
it to a relatively great extent. Here, the network management is defined
as improving the ability of the network to operate towards accomplishing
its objectives, or as the means by which network members influence each
other and/or the network as a whole in order to improve network coop-
eration (Järvensivu and Möller 2009). Besides, the network management
is a function of the level of determination of the value creation system
underlying a particular network associated with the network types and
appropriate management mechanisms. The networks with emerging
value system and radical change are characterized by rather low level of
manageability, while the networks with stable, well-defined value system
by high level of manageability (Möller and Rajala 2007). Given the net-
work management assumptions, the manageability of customer engage-
ment seems to be high in case of the engagement which is intentionally
initiated and coordinated by firm (firm-initiated engagement), and rather
low, when customers themselves initiate engagement. However, in both
cases, the primary network disadvantage, that is, the lack of direct control
12 K. Żyminkowska
over the external partner—customer—should be considered. The net-

work management researchers propose the detailed management activi-
ties in the network and distinguish three management layers, that is,
environmental, ecosystem, and actor layer. With regard to the actor layer,
the main managerial tasks include defining the actors’ positions and roles
in the network, their resources and capabilities, and goals (Möller and
Halinen 2017). The management activities, covering managerial actions,
capabilities, and organizational forms involved, consist of network vision-
ing, positioning, mobilizing, goal construction and organization, effec-
tiveness and efficiency seeking, and network maintenance (Tikkanen and
Halinen 2003; Järvensivu and Möller 2009; Möller and Halinen 2017).
Above-mentioned managerial functions and activities, particularly with
regard to the actor layer (including customers and customers’ communi-
ties) form valuable recommendations for customer engagement manage-
ment, in which the goals of the active customer need to be taken into
consideration.
Some general network management recommendations are also
included in the marketing management literature. According to Achrol
and Kotler (1999), marketing in the network organization is responsible
for, among others, creating and maintaining new marketing knowledge,
intra-firm integration, conflict resolution, and the coordination of the
network’s economic and social activities. The new marketing manage-
ment framework for network economy was proposed by Lusch and
Webster (2010). The conventional framework is revised to make it rele-
vant to network organizations. It consists of sensing of lived experiences
and practices of the stakeholders (i.e. analysis in the conventional
approach), resourcing which deals with creating and integrating resources
and removing organizational resistances (planning), realizing by d
esigning
the processes for value co-creation with various actors (implementation),
and learning by using new knowledge (control). With reference to cus-
tomers, as network actors, Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) argue that
firms should engage customers in active, explicit, and ongoing dialogue;
mobilize communities of customers; manage customer diversity; and co-
create personalized experiences with customers in order to harness cus-
tomers’ competence. Thus the marketing literature brings important
implications for the customer activism management (also CE),
emphasizing the need for new marketing management functions (sens-

ing, resourcing, realizing, and learning) as well as the risk of organiza-
tional resistances, that need to be removed.
The presence of active customer is also recognized in the literature on
user and open innovation, which is in line with the above-mentioned
types of networks: emerging networks and intentionally designed net-
works respectively. User innovation refers to emerging process of user-
centric, democratized innovation resulting from the activities of firms
(i.e. intermediate users) and consumers (individual end users and com-
munities) (von Hippel 2005). Whereas open innovation describes the
phenomenon of companies making greater use of external ideas and
technologies in their own business (so-called outside-in/inbound inno-
vation), and letting unused ideas and technologies go outside for others
to use in their business (inside-out/outbound innovation) (Chesbrough
2003, 2006). Referring to the individual customer activism, both the
user and open innovation perspectives offer managerial implications for
CE management. User innovation is generally associated with the
autonomy of the actor innovation (e.g. consumer, who is a lead user),
who wants to solve his/her own need (von Hippel 2005), so the intrin-
sic customer motivation is predominating. Lead users freely share their
knowledge and ideas with other users or communities (Füller et al.
2010). However, some users may decide to commercialize their innova-
tions, which is labelled as user entrepreneurship (Shah and Tripsas
2007). Moreover, also firms may profit from user innovation facilitat-
ing users’ creativity by creating dedicated platforms to innovate with
them (Piller and Walcher 2006). Key managerial decision related to
user innovation include identifying lead users, establishing bridging
strategies to lead user innovation, defining fair regimes of coordination,
and opening-up intellectual property (Piller and West 2017). On the
other hand, with regard to the customer activism, open innovation per-
spective assumes purposive inflows of knowledge from customers across
a boundary of the firm in order to leverage external sources of knowl-
edge and is associated with the monetary incentives (Chesbrough
2003). However, customers may also provide innovations for non-
pecuniary reasons (Chesbrough and Brunswicker 2013). Main manage-
rial decisions for open innovation refer to building absorptive capacity,
14 K. Żyminkowska
defining and defending intellectual property, internal organization, and

defining the metrics for open innovation (Piller and West 2017).
Focusing on open and user innovation with individual, active custom-
ers, Piller and West (2017) propose four-stage process model which
consisted of defining, finding participants, collaborating, and leverag-
ing sub-processes. Thus, the body of knowledge on the user and open
innovation contributes to the understanding of the distinct drivers of
customer activism (both intrinsic and firm-provided incentives). It also
implicates that both types of customer activism need to be managed,
that is, user innovation initiated by customer and open innovation pur-
posely organized by firms.
Firms that are organizing the process of customer innovation inte-
grate customers into the innovation process benefiting from it (Piller
and Ihl 2009). However, such a customer integration may be associated
with some risks. Generally, drawing the innovation from external sources
can be time consuming, expensive, and laborious. The over-search for
the external sources of knowledge may hinder innovation performance,
as the costs of openness exceed the benefits (Laursen and Salter 2006).
Moreover, the close ties with customers may constitute an inertia for
change and for innovation (Piller and Ihl 2009). Literature on customer
integration in open innovation suggests other, detailed risks, as custom-
ers conflict for scarce resources and reward, misunderstanding between
employee and users involved, disagreements on the ownership of intel-
lectual property, customers’ limited domain of expertise, and their
inability to articulate needs, wishes, and ideas (Song et al. 2013).
Regarding the virtual customer integration, the potential risks include
similar disadvantages: customers’ inability to articulate, intellectual
property problems, lack of secrecy, disturbance of internal processes,
and, additionally, unbalanced target group orientation (Bartl et al.
2012). This is in line with Siakas and Siakas’ (2016) views on challenges
in open innovation and customer integration. Those authors indicate
the following challenges: lack of control; protection of intellectual prop-
erty rights; difficulties to manage and integrate incoming ideas, insights,
concepts, and solutions; as well as coordination and control of overhead
costs and loss of know-how. So, the findings suggest the need for
a realistic view on customer activism in innovation networks, open and

user innovation, and customer integration. The managers need to be
aware of both positive outcomes of such an activism and potential dis-
advantages or risks involved in integrating customers into the business
processes.
* * *
Summing up, two influential metatheories and related, lower-order con-

cepts, in which the customer activism in value creation occurs, constitute
the theoretical foundations for the customer engagement exploration in
the marketing management perspectives. The summary of key proposi-
tions for customer engagement understanding, resulting from the con-
cepts discussed in this chapter, is presented in Table 1.1.
The concepts of customer activism, discussed in this chapter, consti-
tute the theoretical foundations for the developing body of knowledge on
customer engagement phenomenon. Drawing on the existing achieve-
ments across metatheories and related concepts that refer to the individ-
ual customer’s activism, the primary recommendation for the realistic
approach in the exploration of the customer is revealed, which drives the
logic of this book. This realism is suggested for the following CE explora-
tion scopes: concept-related, customer-related, and managerial issues.
First, the realistic view on CE is suggested in the context of theory
development and accordingly appropriate terminology. Since the concept
of value co-creation is superordinate to the customer engagement, each
CE activity has the potential for value co-creation. Therefore, the label of
co-creation in some of the CE typologies, which are discussed in Chap.
2, is questionable. Besides, as argued in this chapter, customer engage-
ment may be also associated with value co-destruction.
Second, considering realistic view on CE within customer-related
issues, the literature on prosumption and customer participation brings
important implications that customer engagement is probably not a
common notion across customer segments, and not each customer wants
to engage. So it’s crucial to find the drivers of customer engagement,
which is the subject matter in Chap. 4.
Table 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—key implications for customer engagement exploration
16
Customer engagement Implications from the value co-creation Implications from the network management
exploration scope phenomenon and related concepts and related concepts
Concept-related issues • Prosumers: helping to improve/design goods • User innovation: sharing the customer
(CE forms, actors, and and services for themselves or others. knowledge freely with firms, other users,
resources) • Customer participation: various customer and communities.
roles (helping oneself and others, promoting • Expanded/enhanced networks:
the firm) and various customer resources customers, end users, communities.
involved (labour and task performance, • Consumers’ competences, investment of
K. Żyminkowska
information and knowledge, co-operative time and effort.

and helping behaviours).
• Service logic in marketing: value is
co-created in the interactions and dialogues
between customer and firm, and socially,
between customer and peers.
• Service-dominant logic in marketing:
co-creation of value is a higher order
construct and actor engagement is its
microfoundation.
Customer-related issues • Prosumption: customers’ resistance to • Network management: importance of
engaging them (not each customer wants to customer goals in customer activism
be active). management.
• Customer participation: the level of • Various motivations of customer
customer activism may vary across the activism: intrinsic (user innovation) and
customer segments and product categories. monetary (open innovation).
• Service marketing: various modes of
relationship that customers prefer (not each
customer prefers to be active).
(continued)
Table 1.1 (continued)
Customer engagement Implications from the value co-creation Implications from the network management
exploration scope phenomenon and related concepts and related concepts
Managerial issues • Difficulties with controlling the prosumers. • Various levels of manageability in
• Customer participation: managing network: low in customer-initiated
customers as partial employees (including activism, high in firm-initiated activism.
understanding determinants of their • Network management layers and
behaviour). activities: key tasks in customer activism
• Negative outcomes from customer management including defining customer
participation: decrease in the operation roles, resources, capabilities, and goals.
efficiency, additional costs, increased job • Marketing management in network:
stress. sensing, resourcing, realizing, and
• SL, S-D L, customer participation: the need learning; removing organizational
to recognize and manage the customer resistances as a key task in planning.
resources (customer resource integration). • User and open innovation management
• Risks in value co-creation: diminishing sub-processes: defining, finding
control over planning, increased complexity, participants, collaborating, leveraging.
and information overload. • Risks in networks: lack of control of the
• Risks of the misuse of the resources and external resources.
diminishing or destruction of value instead of • Risks in open innovation and customer
value creation. integration: negative impact on firm
performance if over-search occurs, inertia
for change, disturbance of internal
processes, lack of control, loss of
know-how.
• Business model: restructuring business
Concepts of Customer Activism
model components in order to profit from

customer activism.
17
18 K. Żyminkowska
Third, with regard to the realistic managerial view on CE, it should be

noticed that any customer activism may bring both positive and negative
firm-level outcomes. Customer activism risks or disadvantages are recog-
nized in each concept analysed in this chapter. Therefore, in the context
of customer engagement in firm-level value creation, the label interactive
value co-formation is more appropriate than the expression of value co-
creation. This is because the term value co-formation encompasses both
positive CE consequences for firm (i.e. value co-creation with active cus-
tomer) and potential negative outcomes (i.e. value co-destruction by
active customer), what is discussed in this book in Chaps. 3 and 5.
References
Aarika-Stenroos, L., & Rittala, P. (2017). Network Management in the Era of
Ecosystems: A Systematic Review and a Management Framework. Industrial
Marketing Management, 67, 23–36.
Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the Network Economy. Journal
of Marketing, 63, 146–163.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Bartl, M., Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., & Ernst, H. (2012). A Manager’s
Perspective on Virtual Customer Integration for New Product Development.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 1031–1046.
Bourgeois, L. J., III. (1981). On Measurement of Organizational Slack. The
Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.
Bowers, M. R., Martin, C. L., & Luker, A. (1990). Trading Places: Employees
as Customers, Customers as Employees. Journal of Services Marketing, 4(2),
55–69.
Braldey, S. W., Shepherd, D. A., & Wiklund, J. (2011). The Importance of
Slack for New Organizations Facing ‘Tough’ Environments. Journal of
Management Studies, 48(5), 1071–1097.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New
Innovation Landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., & Brunswicker, S. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in Large

Firms. Survey Report. Executive Survey on Open Innovation 2013. Stuttgard:
Fraunhofer Verlag.
Collis, D., & Montgomery, C. A. (1995). Competing on Resources: Strategy in
the 1990s. Harvard Business Review, 73(July–August), 118–128.
Doz, Y. L., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance Advantage: The Art of Creating Value
Through Partnering. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Echeverri, P., & Skålén, P. (2011). Co-creation and Co-destruction. A Practice-
Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3),
351–373.
Fisk, R. P., Grove, S. J., & John, J. (2008). Interactive Services Marketing (3rd
ed.). Boston: Houghton Miffin Company.
Fließ, S., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. (2004). Blueprinting the Service Company:
Managing Service Processes Efficiently. Journal of Business Research, 57(4),
392–404.
Ford, D., & Håkansson, H. (2006). IMP – Some Things Achieved: Much More
to Do. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 248–258.
Füller, J., Faullant, R., & Matzler, K. (2010). Triggers for Virtual Customer
Integration in the Development of Medical Equipment – From a Manufacturer
and a User’s Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1376–1383.
Grönroos, C. (2006). Adopting a Service Logic for Marketing. Marketing Theory,
6(3), 317–333.
Grönroos, C. (2007). Service Management and Marketing. Customer Management
in Service Competition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Grönroos, C. (2008). Service Logic Revisited: Who Creates Value? And Who
Co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–313.
Grönroos, C. (2017). On Value and Value Creation in Service: A Management
Perspective. Journal of Creating Value, 3(2), 1–17.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical Service Logic: Making Sense of
Value Creation and Co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
41(2), 133–150.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Wheeler, J. (2008). The Ownership Quotient:
Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work for Unbeatable Competitive Advantage.
Boston: Harvard Business Publishing.
Hoffman, K. D., & Bateson, J. E. G. (2006). Service Marketing: Concepts,
Strategies, & Cases (3rd ed.). Mason: Thomson South-Western.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010).
Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 283–296.
20 K. Żyminkowska
Hsieh, A.-T., Yen, C.-H., & Chin, K.-C. (2004). Participative Customers as
Partial Employees and Service Provider Workload. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 15(2), 187–199.
Järvensivu, T., & Möller, K. (2009). Metatheory of Network Management: A
Contingency Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(6), 654–661.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness
in Explaining Innovation Performance Among U.K. Manufacturing Firms.
Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
Lusch, R. F., & Webster, F. E. (2010). Marketing’s Responsibility for the Value of
the Enterprise. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series 2010,
Report No. 10-111.
Mathews, J. A. (2003). Competitive Dynamics and Economic Learning: An
Extended Resource-Based View. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1),
115–145.
Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing Business and Innovation
Networks—From Strategic Nets to Business Fields and Ecosystems. Industrial
Möller, K., & Rajala, A. (2007). Rise of Strategic Nets – New Modes of Value
Creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 895–908.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E., Halinen, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2016). Customer
Participation Management: Developing a Comprehensive Framework and a
Research Agenda. Journal of Service Management, 27(3), 250–275.
Normann, R., & Ramirez, R. (1998). Designing Interactive Strategy. From Value
Chain to Value Constellation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Peters, L. P., Löbler, R., Brodie, R. J., Breidbach, C. F., Hollebeek, L. D., Smith,
S. D., Sörhammar, D., & Varey, R. J. (2014). Theorizing About Resource
Integration Through Service-Dominant Logic. Marketing Theory, 14(3),
249–268.
Piller, F., & Ihl, C. (2009). Open Innovation with Customers Foundations,
Competences and International Trends. Aachen: Technology and Innovation
Management Group, RWTH Aachen University.
Piller, F., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for Idea Competitions: A Novel
Method to Integrate Users in New Product Development. R&D Management,
36(3), 307–318.
Piller, F., & West, J. (2017). Firms, Users, and Innovation. An Interactive Model
of Coupled Open Innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough & W. Vanhaverbeke
(Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation (pp. 29–49). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Plé, L., & Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. (2010). Not Always Co-creation: Introducing
Interactional Co-destruction of Value in Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of
Services Marketing, 24(6), 430–437.
Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). The New Age of Innovation. Driving
Co-created Value Through Global Networks. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting Customer Competence.
Harvard Business Review, 78(Jan–Feb), 35–40.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-creating
Unique Value with Customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption.
The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of Digital ‘Prosumer’. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The Accidental Entrepreneur: The Emergent
and Collective Process of User Entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140.
Siakas, D., & Siakas, K. (2016). User Orientation Through Open Innovation
and Customer Integration. In C. Kreiner, R. V. O’Connor, A. Poth, &
R. Messnarz (Eds.), Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement
(Communications in Computer and Information Science) (Vol. 633,
pp. 325–341). Springer International Publishing.
Song, W., Ming, X., & Xu, Z. (2013). Risk Evaluation of Customer Integration
in New Product Development Under Uncertainty. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 65, 402–412.
Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The Resource-Based
View and Marketing: The Role of Market-Based Assets in Gaining
Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777–802.
Storbacka, K., Brodie, R. J., Böhmann, T., Maglio, P. P., & Nenonen, S. (2016).
Actor Engagement as a Microfoundation for Value Co-creation. Journal of
Business Research, 69(8), 3008–3017.
Tikkanen, J., & Halinen, A. (2003, September 4–6). Network Approach to
Strategic Management – Exploration to the Emerging Perspective. Proceedings
of the 19th Annual IMP Conference, Lugano, Switzerland.
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave: The Classic Study of Tomorrow. New York:
Bantam.
Vargo, S. L. (2008). Customer Integration and Value Creation. Paradigmatic
Traps and Perspectives. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 211–215.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic in
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.
22 K. Żyminkowska
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the
Evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-Dominant Logic 2025. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 19.
Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Services Marketing.
Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
2
Interpreting Customer Engagement
in the Marketing Discipline
Abstract This chapter addresses the problem of the CE research frag-

mentation and terminology confusions. Żyminkowska discusses existing
customer engagement interpretations, forms, and models and confronts
them with other marketing categories to recognize the originality of dis-
tinct CE understandings in the marketing discipline. She systemizes CE
knowledge adapting the integrative approach and brings together the
contributions from parallel streams that evolved in the previous CE
research, suggesting the complementarity of those streams. The integra-
tive CE understanding, offered in this chapter, is based on behavioural
interpretation and enriched with attitudinal factors of customer behav-
iour that are exposed in multidimensional, attitudinal perspective.
Consequently, Żyminkowska proposes the typology of customer engage-
ment forms (types) including customers’ communication, customer
complaints, and customer collaboration.
Keywords Integrated perspective on customer engagement • Customer

engagement interpretations • Customer engagement forms • Customer
engagement models

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_2
24 K. Żyminkowska
The scientific research into the customer engagement in marketing intensi-

fied in 2010, when Marketing Science Institute listed customer engage-
ment as a key research priority for the period 2010–2012. Consequently,
CE gains increased attention of the academics and seems to be quite ‘fash-
ionable’ research trend. Various interpretations of customer engagement
appeared in marketing discipline, which is quite understandable in case of
this theoretical concept being in the development phase. However, do all
those CE interpretations form a new theoretical concept in marketing? Are
they an original idea when compared with existing marketing basics such
as psychological drivers of customer behaviours (including customer atti-
tudes and motivations) or customer relationships?
Regarding the aforementioned questions, in this chapter we attempt to
recognize existing customer engagement interpretations, forms, and models
developed in the marketing discipline. Confronting them with the related
marketing categories, we attempt to integrate previous achievements in CE
theory in order to contribute to the better understanding of managerial chal-
lenges in CE. That, in turn, will constitute the foundation for the CE man-
agement framework proposed in the subsequent chapter of the book.
2.1 C
ustomer Engagement Definitions
in Marketing Field
According to marketing literature, customers or consumers are perceived
as the subjects of customer engagement, while brands, products, or orga-
nizations are its objects (Hollebeek 2011). Regardless of the CE subject
or object, the core domain of CE is similar (Hollebeek et al. 2014).
However, in spite of the early stage of theory development on customer
engagement in marketing discipline, various approaches have already
evolved while interpreting this category. Two main perspectives may be
distinguished among existing CE interpretations. First perspective refers
to the attitudinal and multidimensional understanding of CE while the
second one indicates one-dimensional, behavioural CE clarification.
Besides among the latter, two different approaches may be distinguished:
in the first one CE consists of customer behaviours that go beyond the
transaction (i.e. non-transactional customer behaviours), whereas the
Interpreting Customer Engagement in the Marketing Discipline 25
second one interprets CE as customer behaviours including transactions.

The review of existing CE definitions according to the above-mentioned
perspectives is included in Table 2.1.
Then, three research streams in CE exist in the marketing discipline origi-
nating from three influential works, published between 2010 and 2011, that
initiated various CE interpretations. First, Jenny van Doorn, Katherine
Lemon, Vikas Mittal, Stephan Nass, Doree’n Pick, Peter Pirner, and Peter
Verhoef (2010) introduced one-dimensional, behavioural CE definition to
the marketing literature. Using the term ‘customer engagement behaviour’
van Doorn et al. posited that it is customer’s behavioural manifestations
towards a brand or firm that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase,
resulting from motivational drivers. Second, V. Kumar, Lerzan Aksoy, Bas
Donkers, Rajkumar Venkatesan, Thorsten Wiesel, and Sebastian Tillmanns
(2010) suggested to interpret customer engagement in line with van Doorn
et al.’s definition; however, they argued that CE would be incomplete with-
out the inclusion of customer purchases from the firm. Therefore, according
to Kumar et al., CE refers to active interactions of a customer with a firm,
with prospects and with other customers, whether they are transactional or
non-transactional in nature. And third, Roderick Brodie, Linda Hollebeek,
Biljana Jurić, and Ana Ilić (2011) proposed attitudinal and multidimensional
CE definition. Drawing on the previous idea of Patterson et al. (2006),
Brodie et al. defined CE as a psychological state that occurs by virtue of inter-
active, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a
brand) in focal service relationships. They also argued that CE is a multidi-
mensional concept subject to a context- and/or stakeholder-specific expres-
sion of relevant cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioural dimensions.
Based on the CE conceptualizations included in Table 2.1 we posit that
three above-mentioned research streams (or CE perspectives) are rather com-
plementary than competitive. The proponents of attitudinal and multidi-
mensional understanding of CE focus on a customer’s psychological state
(Brodie et al. 2011), customer’s state of mind (Hollebeek 2011), customer’s
personal connection to an object (So et al. 2016), or customer’s connection
with objects (Vivek et al. 2012, 2014). Each CE definition proposed within
multidimensional perspective emphasizes cognitive, affective (emotional),
and behavioural components, resembling the characterization of the other
marketing concept: customer’s attitude. Attitudes describe person’s relatively
Table 2.1 Customer engagement definitions according to existing perspectives
Perspective Authors(s) Definition
1. Attitudinal and Patterson Customer engagement describes the level of a customer’s various ‘presence’ in
multidimensional et al. (2006) their relationship with the organization. The presences include physical
presence, emotional presence, and cognitive presence. Customer engagement
is conceived as a higher-order construct, which consists of four components:
vigour, dedication, absorption, and interaction.
Brodie et al. Customer engagement is a psychological state that occurs by virtue of
(2011) interactive, co-creative customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g. a
brand) in focal service relationships. It is a multidimensional concept subject to
a context- and/or stakeholder-specific expression of relevant cognitive,
emotional, and/or behavioural dimensions.
Hollebeek Customer engagement is the level of customers’ motivational, brand-related,
(2011) and context-dependent state of mind characterized by specific levels of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioural activity in brand interactions (i.e.
customers’ direct, physical contact-based interactions with a focal brand).
Vivek et al. Customer engagement is the intensity of an individual’s participation in and
(2012) connection with the organization’s offerings and/or activities, which either the
customer or the organization initiate. It is composed of cognitive, emotional,
behavioural, and social elements. The cognitive and affective elements of CE
incorporate the experiences and feelings of customers, and the behavioural
and social elements capture the participation by current and potential
customers, both within and outside of the exchange situations.
So et al. Customer engagement is a customers’ personal connection to a brand as
(2016) manifested in cognitive, affective, and behavioural responses outside of the
purchase.
Vivek et al. Customer engagement goes beyond purchase and is the level of the customer’s
(2014) (or potential customer’s) interactions and connections with the brand or firm’s
offerings or activities, often involving others in the social network created
around the brand, offering or activity. CE includes cognitive, affective, and
behavioural and social dimensions.
(continued)
Hollebeek Customer engagement is a customer’s motivationally driven, volitional
et al. (2016) investment of focal operant resources (including cognitive, emotional,
behavioural, and social knowledge and skills) and operand resources (e.g.
equipment) into brand interactions.
2. Behavioural and 2a. Excluding Van Doorn Customer engagement behaviour is customer’s behavioural manifestations
one-dimensional transaction et al. (2010) towards a brand or firm that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase,
behaviour resulting from motivational drivers.
Verhoef et al. Customer engagement is a behavioural manifestation towards the brand or firm
(2010) that goes beyond transactions. Customer engagement consists of multiple
behaviours such as WOM, blogging, providing customer ratings, and so on.
Verleye et al. Customer engagement behaviour is customers’ behavioural manifestations
(2014) towards a firm, after and beyond purchase. CEBs refer to voluntary,
discretionary customer behaviours with a firm focus and can contribute to the
firm’s performance.
Jaakkola and Customer engagement behaviour is a behaviour through which customers make
Alexander voluntary resource contributions that have a brand or firm focus but go
(2014) beyond what is fundamental to transactions, occur in interactions between the
focal object and/or other actors, and result from motivational drivers.
Harmeling Customer engagement is a customer’s voluntary resource contribution to a firm’s
et al. (2017) marketing function, going beyond financial patronage.
Beckers et al. Customer engagement behaviour same as van Doorn et al. (2010), including
(2018) customer-initiated and firm-initiated customer engagement.
(continued)
2b. Including Kumar et al. Engagement is a customer’s behavioural manifestation towards a brand or firm,
transaction (2010) resulting from motivational drivers, but would be incomplete without the
behaviour inclusion of customer purchases from the firm. CE refers to active interactions
of a customer with a firm, with prospects and with other customers, whether
they are transactional or non-transactional in nature.
Kumar and Engagement of the internal (employees) and external (customers) stakeholders
Pansari of the organization represents co-creation, interaction, solution development,
(2016) and so on, all of which depend on the attitude that drives the behaviour of
customers and employees towards a firm. Engagement is defined as the
attitude, behaviour, the level of connectedness (1) among customers, (2)
between customers and employees, and (3) of customers and employees
within a firm.
Pansari and Customer engagement is the mechanics of a customer’s value addition to the
Kumar firm, either through direct or/and indirect contribution. Direct contributions
(2017) consist of customer purchases, and indirect contributions consist of
incentivized referrals that the customer provides, the social media
conversations customers have about the brand, and the customer feedback/
suggestions to the firm.
consistent evaluations, feelings, and tendencies towards an object or idea

(Kotler and Armstrong 2018) and consist of the following elements: cogni-
tive, affective, and behavioural (i.e. how the person intents to act) (Rath et al.
2015). Attitudes are one of the psychological factors that influence consumer
behaviour, alongside of motivation, beliefs, perception, and learning (Kotler
and Armstrong 2018). Therefore, the attitudinal and multidimensional CE
interpretation focuses on one type of psychological drivers of the customer
behaviour, that is, customer attitudes. However, customer attitudes in this CE
interpretation refer to specific objects, such as brands, firms, and firms’ offer-
ings and activities. On the other hand, the proponents of behavioural CE
interpretation focus on actual customer behaviour (whether beyond transac-
tion or not) that results from motivational drivers (van Doorn et al. 2010;
Kumar et al. 2010; Jaakkola and Alexander 2014). Motivation, as mentioned
previously, is one of the psychological factors influencing customer behav-
iour. In marketing literature, motive (or drive) is a need that is sufficiently
pressing to direct the person to seek satisfaction (Kotler and Armstrong
2018). Therefore, one-dimensional, behavioural CE interpretation involves
customer behaviour itself, suggesting that it results from one of the psycho-
logical factors of customer behaviour—customer motivation.
Integration of above-mentioned approaches (see Fig. 2.1) reveals that
they are quite complementary by referring to the same construct, that is,
customer behaviour and its drivers, but emphasizing distinct elements.
While multidimensional CE perspective focuses on customer behaviour
attitudinal factors, the behavioural CE interpretation deals with customer
behavioural manifestations highlighting customer motivation that drives
those demonstrations. Vivek et al. (2014) propose some extension of atti-
tudinal perspective adding social CE dimension. This is in line with
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) arguments that customer intentions of behav-
iours are influenced by social norms, that is, his/her beliefs about other
people’s opinion on his/her behaviour.
In-depth analysis of existing CE definitions included in Table 2.1 uncovers
that various CE interpretation perspectives interact and enrich one another.
First, motivational drivers of CE are exposed not only in CE behavioural
perspective, but also in some attitudinal and multidimensional CE interpre-
tations (see Hollebeek 2011; Hollebeek et al. 2016). Second, the role of cus-
tomer resources that are volitionally contributed or invested are emphasized
30 K. Żyminkowska
Attitudinal and
Psychological factors multidimensional
of customer behaviour
interpretation
Customer attitudes incl.
cognitive affective/ behavioural

elements emotional elements
elements (intentions to
act)
Customer
motivation
Customer Customer
behavioural behavioural
manifestations manifestations, both
beyond purchase transactional and
non-transactional
Behavioural, one-
dimensional
interpretation
Fig. 2.1 Customer engagement domain in attitudinal and behavioural

interpretations
by the researchers representing both perspectives (Jaakkola and Alexander

2014; Harmeling et al. 2017; Hollebeek et al. 2016). And third, in many CE
conceptualizations, representing also both attitudinal and behavioural per-
spective, customer interactions with various actors (firm, prospects, other
customers) and objects (brand, firm’s offerings and activities) are highlighted
(Kumar et al. 2010; Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek 2011; Jaakkola and
Alexander 2014; Vivek et al. 2014; Hollebeek et al. 2016).
Above-mentioned, common elements of CE that occur within both
CE perspectives, support our assumption on complementary character of
existing CE research streams. Therefore we suggest interpreting CE as
customer behavioural manifestations focused on brand or firm’s offerings
and activities, occurring in between customer-to-firm and customer-to-
customer interactions, and resulting from psychological factors (attitudi-
nal, motivational, and social). Hence we support one- dimensional,
behavioural CE interpretation that we enrich by attitudinal factors of

customer behaviour exposed in multidimensional perspective. Although
the multidimensional and attitudinal interpretation of CE seems to
coincide with the category of customer attitudes, which is a well-known
marketing construct in the theory of customer behaviour, this perspec-
tive contributes to the understanding of the drivers of customer behav-
ioural manifestations.
2.2 C
ustomer Engagement Dimensions
and Forms
Various CE interpretations in marketing literature result in diverse opera-
tionalizations of this category. Majority of proponents of attitudinal and
multidimensional CE interpretation distinguish its dimensions (labelled
also as components or elements) using terminology associated with cogni-
tive, affective (emotional), and behavioural elements of customer attitudes
(see Table 2.2). However there are some propositions that seem to adopt
behavioural perspective within attitudinal one, introducing such compo-
nents to CE that resemble customer behavioural manifestations. Brodie
et al. (2013) distinguish five sub-processes of CE including learning, shar-
ing, advocating, socializing, and co-developing. Dessart et al. (2016) list
similar customer actions as sub-dimensions of behavioural CE dimension,
that is, sharing, learning, and endorsing. Also Maslowska et al. (2016) posit
that brand dialogue behaviours, which they define in the same way as van
Doorn et al. (2010), interpret customer engagement behaviour, including
the following stages of customer engagement continuum: observing, par-
ticipating, and co-creating. Enthused participation is also one of the CE
dimension in Vivek et al.’s (2014) proposition. Above-mentioned exten-
sions of attitudinal CE interpretation, evident in CE operationalization,
seem to confirm the interaction among existing CE research streams and
the need of its integration. It is interesting that behavioural CE perspective
is more influential in this process, since its postulations to interpret CE as
customer behavioural manifestations are introduced by proponents of atti-
tudinal perspective in the form of various customer actions.
Table 2.2 Customer engagement components according to existing perspectives
32
CE perspective Author(s) Construct CE components

1. Attitudinal and multidimensional Patterson Components of customer 1. Vigour
et al. (2006) engagement 2. Dedication
3. Absorption
4. Interaction
Hollebeek Elements of customer 1. Cognitive activity (absorption)
(2011) brand engagement 2. Emotional activity
(identification)
K. Żyminkowska
3. Behavioural activity (activation)

Brodie et al. Sub-processes of 1. Learning
(2013) consumer engagement 2. Sharing
process in a virtual 3. Advocating
brand community 4. Socializing
5. Co-developing
So et al. Factors of customer 1. Enthusiasm (vigour)
(2016) engagement with 2. Attention
tourism brands 3. Absorption
4. Interaction
5. Identification
Vivek et al. Dimensions of customer 1. Conscious attention
(2014) engagement 2. Enthused participation
3. Social connection
Hollebeek Dimensions of consumer 1. Cognitive processing
et al. (2014) brand engagement in 2. Affection
social media 3. Activation
(continued)
Dwivedi Dimensions of consumer Same as Patterson et al. (2006)
(2015) brand engagement 1.Vigour
2. Dedication
3. Absorption
4. Interaction
Dessart et al. Consumer engagement 1. Affective
(2016) dimensions and 1a. Enthusiasm
sub-dimensions 1b. Enjoyment
2. Behavioural
2a. Sharing
2b. Learning
2c. Endorsing
3. Cognitive
3a. Attention
3b. Absorption
Maslowska Components of customer 1. Customer brand experience
et al. (2016) engagement 2. Brand dialogue behaviours—
including the following stages of
customer engagement
continuum:
2a. Observing:
2b. Participating
2c. Co-creating
3. Brand consumption
Interpreting Customer Engagement in the Marketing Discipline
4. Shopping behaviours

(continued)
33
34

and 1. Brand-generated behaviours:
• reading brand newsletters
Categories of brand • downloading branded apps
dialogue • commenting on brand-
behaviours = categories related weblogs, videos,
of customer audios, pictures
engagement behaviours • checking in at a store location
K. Żyminkowska
as a response to brand’s
triggers (e.g. ‘check in to win’
offers)
• filling out surveys about the
brand
Examples of brand 2. Others-generated behaviours:
dialogue behaviours • reading other users’
comments on brand profiles
on social network sites
• participating in branded
conversations on unofficial
online brand community
forums
• reading product reviews
written by the media (e.g.
Consumer Reports) or other
consumers
• writing brand-related articles
• spreading word-of-mouth
• rating products and/or brands
or writing product reviews
(continued)
Harrigan Dimensions of customer Same as So et al. (2016), but reduced
et al. (2017) engagement with to three dimensions:
tourism social media 1. Absorption
brands 2. Identification
3. Interaction
Bowden et al. Dimensions of consumer 1. Cognitive engagement
(2017) brand engagement in 2. Affective engagement
online brand 3. Behavioural engagement
communities
2. Behavioural and 2a. Excluding Van Doorn Dimensions of customer 1. Valence
one-dimensional transactions et al. (2010) engagement behaviour) 2. Form/modality
3. Scope
4. Nature of impact
5. Customer goals
Examples of customer • word-of-mouth (WOM) activity,
engagement behaviours • recommendations,
• helping other customers,
• blogging,
• writing reviews,
• engaging in legal action
• feedback, suggestions for new
products ideas
Verhoef et al. Forms of customer 1. Customer-to-customer
(2010) engagement interactions (i.e. word-of-mouth)
2. Co-creation in new product

development
3. Blogging
35
(continued)
36

Bijmolt et al. General manifestations 1. Word-of-mouth (WOM)
(2010) of customer 2. Customer co-creation
engagement 3. Customer complaining
behaviour.
Jaakkola and Types of customer (a)
Alexander engagement behaviours 1. Customer involvement in
(2014) (a) in previous literature product development and
K. Żyminkowska
and (b) authors’ innovation

extended typology 2. Customers’ communication
about the focal firm or brand
(b)
1. Augmenting behaviour
2. Co-developing behaviour
3. Influencing behaviour
4. Mobilizing behaviour
Verleye et al. Forms of customer 1. In interactions with firms and
(2014) engagement behaviours their employees:
1a. Cooperation
1b. Feedback
1c. Compliance
2. In customer-to-customer
interactions:
2a. Helping other customers
2b. Spreading positive WOM or
recommending
(continued)
Rupik (2015) Matrix of customer 1. Behaviours initiated by the
engagement forms customer manifested in the
interaction between the firm
and the customer
2. Behaviours initiated by the firm,
manifested in the interaction
between the firm and the
customer
3. Behaviours initiated by the
customer, manifested in the
interactions between customers
4. Behaviours initiated by the firm,
manifested in the interactions
between customers
Beckers et al. Forms/types of customer 1. Word-of-mouth
(2016) engagement behaviours 2. Voice
3. Co-creation
4. Community participation
Beckers et al. Types of customer 1. Customer-initiated engagement
(2018) engagement behaviours 2. Firm-initiated customer
engagement
Harmeling Forms of engagement 1. Task-based engagement
et al. (2017) marketing initiatives initiatives of firm
2. Experiential engagement
initiatives of firm
(continued)
37
38

2b. Including Kumar et al. Customer engagement 1. Customer purchasing behaviour
transactions (2010) core dimensions 2. Customer referral behaviour
3. Customer influencer behaviour
4. Customer knowledge behaviour
Kumar and Components of customer Same as Kumar et al. (2010):
Pansari engagement 1. Customer purchases
(2016) 2. Customer referrals
K. Żyminkowska
3. Customer influence

4. Customer knowledge
Regarding the originality of CE behavioural interpretation in the mar-

keting discipline, and its influence on attitudinal perspective, below we
focus on the CE operationalization offered within this research stream.
Proponents of behavioural CE interpretation suggest CE classifications
or they propose the list of examples of customer actions, except from van
Doorn et al. (2010) who also propose more general view and distinguish
five dimensions of CE. These are valence (positive or negative for a firm),
form/modality (different ways in which engagement can be expressed by
customer), scope (temporal and geographical), nature of impact on the
firm (including its constituents), and customer goals (referring to cus-
tomer’s purpose when engaging).
As to the CE classifications, there are two main approaches in the CE
behavioural perspective. First approach refers to the CE forms depending
on the actors of interaction and/or scope. Verleye et al. (2014) distinguish
forms of customer engagement behaviour within two types of interactions
depending on actors involved: customer interactions with firm and
employees and customer-to-customer interactions. Referring to actors
involved in the interaction (customer-to-firm or customer-to-customer)
and the subject initiating engagement (firm or customer), Rupik (2015)
suggests four forms of CE. Beckers et al. (2018) also propose two types of
customer engagement behaviour based on the subject initiating engage-
ment (firm or customer). Finally, Harmeling et al. (2017) focus on cus-
tomer engagement initiated by firm and distinguish its two forms:
task-based engagement initiatives, that are a firm’s programmes in which
structured tasks guide customer engagement (e.g. write a review, refer a
customer, provide support to other customers), and experiential engage-
ment initiatives that are the firm’s programmes in which shared, interac-
tive experiences promote customer engagement (e.g. branded events,
firm-sponsored brand community). The second approach in CE opera-
tionalization in behavioural interpretation offers classifications of various
customer actions that may be observable. This approach, as particularly
usable for our further empirical research and its measurement issues, is
discussed in more detail and various propositions are compared in Fig. 2.2.
Verhoef et al. (2010) propose three forms of customer engagement
including customer-to-customer interactions (i.e. word-of-mouth), co-
creation with new product development activity, and blogging. Similar CE
Kumar et al. 2010;
Verhoef, Reinartz Beckers, van Doorn Verleye, Gemmel, Jaakkola and
40
Bijmolt et al. 2010 Kumar and Pansari This book

and Krafft 2010 and Verhoef 2016 and Rangarajan 2014 Alexander 2014
2016
Positive word-of- Customer

Blogging mouth referrals
Word-of-mouth Word-of-mouth
Customers’ Customers’
Customer-to- communication communication
customer Helping others Customer
Community influence
interactions participation
K. Żyminkowska
Customer Customer
complaining Voice complaints
behaviour Feedback
Customer
Co-creation with involvement in Customer
new product product knowledge
development Cooperation development
Customer co- Customer
Cocreation and innovation collaboration
creation
Compliance
Customer
purchases
Fig. 2.2 Forms of customer engagement—comparison of classifications within behavioural CE interpretation

forms, termed as general manifestations of CE, are proposed by Bijmolt

et al. (2010), who additionally include customer complaining behaviour.
Also Beckers et al. (2016) indicate similar forms/types of customer engage-
ment behaviours; however, they also propose voice and community partici-
pation. In the above-mentioned propositions the label ‘co-creation’ is used
to describe one of CE forms, which is confusing and not preferred in this
book. As we argued in Chap. 1, customer activism may lead not only to
value co-creation, but also to the value co-destruction from the firm stand-
point. Therefore, we prefer those CE conceptualizations, which do not per-
ceive co-creation as CE form. Verleye et al. (2014) distinguish five forms of
customer engagement behaviours. Cooperation (customers’ benevolent act
to help employees to do their work), feedback (giving feedback to the firm
and its employees via suggestions for service improvements or through par-
ticipation in new product and service development processes), and compli-
ance (the degree to which customers comply with organizational rules and
procedures) are the forms of CE in interactions with firms and their
employees. Then helping other customers (by expressing empathy, encour-
aging each other to show appropriate behaviours, helping each other to get
better service experiences) and spreading positive WOM or recommending
the firm to other customers are the CE forms in customer-to-customer
interactions. Based on the literature review, Jaakkola and Alexander (2014)
distinguish two general types of customer engagement behaviours, which
encompass aforementioned CE forms. The first is customer involvement in
product development and innovation and signifies that customers help to
improve or develop the firm’s offerings by providing feedback, ideas, and
information, or participating in product design or assembly. The second
one, customers’ communication about the focal firm or brand implies that
customer may acquire new customers for the firm through firm-incentivized
referral programmes, or influence other customers’ perceptions on their
own initiative through word-of-mouth, blogging, and other forms of cus-
tomer-to-customer interactions. Also Kumar et al. (2010) and Kumar and
Pansari (2016) do not include co-creation among CE forms; however,
those researchers prefer CE behavioural perspective that include customer
purchases. Apart from the customer purchasing behaviour (or purchases)
they distinguish three other CE forms of non-transactional behaviours.
These are, customer referral behaviour (which relates to the acquisition of
42 K. Żyminkowska
new customers through a firm-initiated and -incentivized formal referral

programmes, and is extrinsically motivated), customer influencer behav-
iour (usually intrinsically motivated, through customers’ influence on other
acquired customers or prospects, e.g. WOM), and customer knowledge
behaviour (via feedback provided to the firm for ideas for innovations and
improvements, extrinsically or intrinsically motivated).
Integrating existing propositions of CE operationalization within
behavioural perspective, we propose to distinguish three following CE
forms in this book (see Fig. 2.2). First, customers’ communication (i.e.
customer-to-customer communication), which refers to word-of-mouth
(both positive and negative), and helping others, which occurs in customer-
to-customer interactions, and is similar to customer referral and influencer
behaviours distinguished by Kumar et al. (2010). Second, customer com-
plaints that are actually kind of customer feedback or customer knowledge
behaviour occurring in interactions between customer and firm or cus-
tomer and other actors (e.g. institutions as media or consumer right advi-
sor); however, it is driven by customer dissatisfaction. And third, customer
collaboration, also occurring in customer-to-firm interactions, that
includes providing feedback, ideas, and information (i.e. customer knowl-
edge), or performing some tasks providing customer skills, for example, in
product design or assembly (detailed characteristics and examples of cus-
tomer actions within each CE form are discussed in Sect. 4.1).
So, in our CE classification we prefer the behavioural interpretation of
CE, beyond purchase, excluding transactional behaviours. Few researchers
suggest including customer transactions into CE forms as customer pur-
chase behaviour (Kumar et al. 2010) or customer purchases (Kumar and
Pansari 2016). However, we posit that such CE interpretation closely
corresponds with other marketing category, that is, customer relationship
(CR). CR is not only manifested by the customer’s purchasing behaviour,
but also customer’s heart and mind have to be devoted to the relationship
and the relationship partner (Storbacka and Lehtinen 2001). The rela-
tionship is an ongoing process, and from time to time exchanges or trans-
actions of goods, services, information, and other utilities for money take
place, but the relationship exists all the time, including the time between
such transactions (Grönroos 2007). Therefore, CE in its behavioural
interpretation, including customer purchase, encompasses customer rela-
tionship. Even Kumar and Pansari (2016) agree that engagement is the
progressive state of relationship that is satisfied and has emotional bond-
ing. However, this behavioural CE interpretation including customer
purchases encompasses also network aspects, associated with customer-
to-customer interactions. Therefore it goes further than customer rela-
tionship, that is based on rather dyadic customer-to-firm interactions,
and brings originality into the marketing discipline.
2.3 C
ustomer Engagement Antecedents
and Consequences
Next to the distinct interpretations and conceptualizations of customer
engagement in the marketing discipline, there are also diversified CE
models that reflect its drivers and outcomes. Table 2.3 shows CE anteced-
ents and consequences contained within existing models across distinct
CE interpretations. Conceptual papers predominate the previous market-
ing literature on CE models, and empirical works are still exceptional (see
Verleye et al. 2014 or Kumar and Pansari 2016). Therefore in this section
we review existing CE models in order to propose the integrated research
framework for empirical exploration of CE in management perspective.
CE models proposed within its behavioural, one-dimensional inter-
pretation are generally more complex compared with propositions devel-
oped within the attitudinal perspective, and include diversified
components that refer to customer, firm, and environment issues. Most
of those models reflect managerial perspective, emphasizing marketing
metrics and firm value (Verhoef et al. 2010), and firm performance
(Kumar and Pansari 2016; Pansari and Kumar 2017; Harmeling et al.
2017) among CE outcomes. They also include firm’s processes among
CE antecedents, as firm information usage and processes (van Doorn
et al. 2010), firm strategies (Verhoef et al. 2010), managerial processes
(Verleye et al. 2014), firm’s marketing activities (Pansari and Kumar
2017), and customer engagement marketing (Harmeling et al. 2017).
Therefore those models are crucial for developing the realistic view on CE
management in the marketing management perspective, which is the aim
of this book.
Table 2.3 Customer engagement antecedents and consequences according to existing perspectives
Types of
CE perspective Author(s) Construct CE definition paper CE antecedents CE consequences
1. Attitudinal and multidimensional Bowden Process of Psychological process C 1. Commitment: –
(2009) customer that models the • affective
engagement underlying commitment
mechanisms by which • calculative
customer loyalty forms commitment
new customers of a 2. Involvement
service brand as well 3. Trust
as the mechanisms by 4. Loyalty
which loyalty may be
maintained for repeat
purchase customers of
a service brand.
Hollebeek Customer brand The level of customers’ C 1. Involvement 1. Relationship
(2011) engagement motivational, 2. Relationship quality: quality:
brand-related, and • trust • trust
context-dependent • commitment • commitment
state of mind • customer • customer
characterized by satisfaction satisfaction
specific levels of 2. Customer loyalty
cognitive, emotional,
and behavioural activity
in brand interactions
(i.e. customers’ direct,
physical contact-based
interactions with a focal
brand).
(continued)
Types of
Vivek et al. Customer The intensity of an C 1. Customer 1. Value
(2012) engagement individual’s participation 2. Trust
participation in and 2. Customer 3. Affective
connection with the involvement commitment
organization’s offerings 3. Value 4. Word-of-mouth
and/or activities, which 5. Loyalty
either the customer or 6. Brand community
the organization involvement
initiate. It is composed
of cognitive, emotional,
behavioural, and social
elements. The cognitive
and affective elements
of CE incorporate the
experiences and
feelings of customers,
and the behavioural
and social elements
capture the
participation by current
and potential
customers, both within
and outside of the
exchange situations.
Maslowska Brand dialogue All brand-related C 1. Brand actions 1. Satisfaction
et al. behaviours in non-purchase (including product 2. Loyalty
(2016) customer behaviours, they mean development, 3. CLV
engagement what van Doorn et al. marketing mix) 4. Commitment
ecosystem (2010) call customer 2. Other actors (e.g.
engagement other customers)
behaviours. 3. Involvement
(continued)
Types of
2. Behavioural and 2a. Van Doorn Customer Customer engagement C 1. Customer-based: 1. Customer:
one-dimensional Excluding et al. engagement behaviour is • satisfaction • cognitive
transaction (2010) behaviour customer’s behavioural • trust/commitment • attitudinal
manifestations • identity • emotional
towards a brand or • consumption goals • physical/time
firm that have a brand • resources • identity
or firm focus, beyond • perceived costs/ 2. Firm:
purchase, resulting benefits • financial
from motivational 2. Firm-based: • reputational
drivers. • brand • regulatory
characteristics • competitive
• firm reputation • employee
• firm size/ • product
diversification 3. Others:
• firm information • consumer
usage and welfare
processes • economic
• industry surplus
3. Context-based: • social surplus
• competitive • regulation
factors • cross-brand
• P.E.S.T. (Political, • cross-customer
Economic/
Environmental,
Social,
Technological)
(continued)
Types of
Verhoef Customer A behavioural C 1. Context factors: 1. Marketing
et al. engagement manifestation towards • customer metrics:
(2010) the brand or firm that characteristics • customer
goes beyond • firm initiatives retention
transactions. Customer • environment • customer
engagement consists (i.e. competition, lifetime value/
of multiple behaviours economic climate) customer
such as WOM, 2. Firm strategies: equity
blogging, providing • CRM customer • new product
customer ratings, and intelligence performance
so on. • channels 2. Firm value
• media
Verleye Customer Customers’ behavioural E 1. Managerial –
et al. engagement manifestations processes (CEB
(2014) behaviour towards a firm, after managerial
and beyond purchase. practices):
CEBs refer to • organizational
voluntary, support
discretionary customer • overall service
behaviours with a firm quality towards
focus and can significant others
contribute to the • organizational
firm’s performance. socialization
• support from
other customers
(continued)
Types of
Harmeling Customer Customer’s voluntary C Customer engagement Firm performance
et al. engagement resource contribution marketing.
(2017) to a firm’s marketing Moderator of the CE
function, going marketing impact on
beyond financial firm performance:
patronage. customer-owned
resources including:
• customer network
assets
• customer
persuasion capital
• customer
knowledge stores
• customer creativity
2b. Kumar and Customer Engagement of E Employee engagement Firm performance
Including Pansari engagement customers represents (EE)
transaction (2016) co-creation, Moderators of EE and CE
interaction, solution relationship:
development, and so • employee
on, all of which empowerment
depend on the • type of firm (B2B or
attitude that drives B2C)
the behaviour of • nature of industry
customers towards a (manufacturing vs.
firm. service)
(continued)
Types of
Pansari Customer The mechanics of a C 1. Firm’s marketing 1. Tangible benefits:
and engagement customer’s value activities • firm
Kumar addition to the firm, 2. Customer experience performance
(2017) either through direct based on initial 2. Intangible
or/and indirect purchase benefits:
contribution. Direct 3. Emotions • opt-in
contributions consist of 4. Satisfaction • privacy sharing
customer purchases, Moderators of • relevant
and indirect (a) satisfaction and marketing
contributions consist of direct CE contribution
incentivized referrals (i.e. buying), and
that the customer (b) emotions and
provides, the social indirect CE
media conversations contributions(referring,
customers have about influencing, feedback)
the brand, and the relationships:
customer feedback/ • convenience
suggestions to the firm. • type of firm (B2B or
B2C)
• nature of industry
(manufacturing vs.
service)
• level of involvement
(higher vs. lower)
• brand value (higher
vs. lower)
50 K. Żyminkowska
On the other hand, CE models designed within attitudinal and multidi-

mensional CE interpretation represent mostly the customer perspective,
overlooking managerial issues (except for the model proposed by Maslowska
et al. (2016) that consists of brand actions as CE antecedents and customer
lifetime value (CLV) as CE consequence). Attitudinal components, as cus-
tomer involvement, as well as components of customer relationship (i.e.
trust, commitment, and satisfaction) are perceived as both antecedents
and/or consequences in CE models within the attitudinal perspective
(Bowden 2009; Hollebeek 2011; Vivek et al. 2012). Above-mentioned
antecedents and consequences refer to psychological factors of customer
behaviour, similar to CE definiens in this attitudinal perspective. Therefore
there is the confusion about delineating precise boundaries among all those
constructs, since they are alike in many ways. However, by highlighting the
psychological factors of customer activism, those models contribute to the
better understanding of CE interpreted as customer behavioural manifesta-
tion. In fact, some of the CE models in this behavioural perspective adopted
psychological components, for example customer emotions perceived as
CE antecedent, or customer involvement understood as moderator in
Pansari and Kumar’s model (2017). In turn perceived costs/benefits listed
among customer-level antecedents in van Doorn et al.’s model (2010)
(behavioural perspective) are also included in the Vivek et al.’s proposition
(2012) (attitudinal perspective) and labelled as value, which is perceived as
both antecedent and consequence of CE. That again implicates that various
research streams investigating CE in the marketing discipline interact and
enrich one another.
Therefore, in the next chapter, we propose integrated framework of CE
management drawing on the complementary components of models
designed within both attitudinal and behavioural CE perspective that
have distinct definientia. This is important for precision in further mea-
surement, and subsequently in understanding the phenomenon of cus-
tomer engagement in marketing management perspective. CE models in
behavioural, one-dimensional CE interpretation contribute to better
understanding of the role of CE process and its outputs for profitable CE
management. On the other hand, CE models in attitudinal interpreta-
tion contribute to the understanding of customer-level psychological ele-
ments that drive engagement, such as values, involvement, and loyalty.
References
Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Economic Outcomes
of Customer Engagement. Emerging Finding, Contemporary Theoretical
Perspectives, and Future Challenges. In R. J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, &
J. Conduit (Eds.), Customer Engagement. Contemporary Issues and Challenges
(pp. 21–52). New York: Routledge.
366–383.
Bijmolt, T. H., Leeflang, P. S., Block, F., Eisenbeis, M., Hardie, B. G., Lemmens,
A., & Saffert, P. (2010). Analytics for Customer Engagement. Journal of
Service Research, 13(3), 341–356.
Bowden, J. (2009). The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual
Framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63–74.
Bowden, J., Conduit, J., Hollebeek, L. D., Luoma-aho, V., & Solem, B. A.
(2017). Engagement Valence Duality and Spillover Effects in Online Brand
Communities. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(4), 877–897.
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer
Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and
Implications for Research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271.
Brodie, R. J., Ilić, A., Jurić, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer Engagement
in a Virtual Brand Community: An Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Business
Research, 66, 105–114.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Capturing Consumer
Engagement: Duality, Dimensionality and Measurement. Journal of
Marketing Management, 32(5–6), 399–426.
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef,
P. (2010). Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and
Research Directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
Dwivedi, A. (2015). A Higher-Order Model of Consumer Brand Engagement
and Its Impact on Loyalty Intentions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 24, 100–109.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Grönroos, C. (2007). Service Management and Marketing. Customer Management
52 K. Żyminkowska
Science, 45(3), 312–335.
Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017). Customer Engagement
with Tourism Social Media Brands. Tourism Management, 59, 597–609.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring
the Loyalty Nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 785–807.
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer Brand
Engagement in Social Media: Conceptualization, Scale Development and
Validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28, 149–165.
Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2016, September). S-D Logic–
Informed Customer Engagement: Integrative Framework, Revised
Fundamental Propositions, and Application to CRM. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 1–25.
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The Role of Customer Engagement
Behavior in Value Co-creation. A Service System Perspective. Journal of
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2018). Principles of Marketing (17th Global ed.).
Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Inc.
Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. C., & Collinger, T. (2016). The Customer
Engagement Ecosystem. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5–6),
469–501.
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer Engagement: The Construct,
Antecedents, and Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
45, 294–311.
Patterson, P., Yu, T., & de Ruyter K. (2006, December 4–6). Understanding
Customer Engagement in Services. Proceedings of ANZMAC 2006 Conference,
Brisbane.
Rath, P. M., Bay, S., Gill, P., & Petrizzi, R. (2015). The Why of the Buy: Consumer
Behavior and Fashion Marketing (2nd ed.). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rupik, K. (2015). Customer Engagement Behavior in Fashion Industry.
International Conference on Marketing and Business Development Journal, I(1),
338–346.
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2016). Enhancing Customer
Relationships with Retail Service Brands: The Role of Customer Engagement.
Journal of Service Management, 27(2), 170–193.
Storbacka, K., & Lehtinen, J. R. (2001). Customer Relationship Management:
Creating Competitive Advantage Through Win-Win Relationship Strategies.
Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Verhoef, P., Reinartz, W., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer Engagement as a New
Perspective in Customer Management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3),
247–249.
Verleye, K., Gemmel, P., & Rangarajan, D. (2014). Managing Engagement
Behaviors in a Network of Customers and Stakeholders: Evidence from the
Nursing Home Sector. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 68–84.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., Dalela, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2014). A Generalized
Multidimensional Scale for Measuring Customer Engagement. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(4), 401–420.
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer Engagement:
Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 20(2), 127–145.
3
Placing Customer Engagement Within
Marketing Management
Abstract Placing the customer engagement in the marketing manage-

ment field and exploring how it alters firm and customer perspectives on
the value formation in marketing process, this chapter offers the compre-
hensive framework of CE management. From the firm standpoint, the
formation of value proposition is not the exclusive domain of a company,
because customer may actively attend this process. On the other hand,
such an activism (engagement) may bring certain value to customer, may
enhance customer perceived value. Therefore, Żyminkowska proposes
the normative model of CE management that refers to both the firm
perspective on value (i.e. the components of the CE management pro-
cess, and CE benefits and risk for the firms) and consumer view on value
(i.e. values or motives that drive customer engagement).
Keywords Customer engagement and value proposition • Customer

engagement and customer perceived value • Customer engagement
management process

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_3
56 K. Żyminkowska
The value for customer is a fundamental marketing category, included in

its latest definitions approved by the American Marketing Association.
According to the definition from 2004, marketing is an organizational
function and set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering
value to customers and for managing customer relationships in ways that
benefit the organization and its stakeholders (AMA 2007). According to
the latest interpretation from 2007, approved in 2013 as well, marketing
is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicat-
ing, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers,
clients, partners, and society at large (AMA 2018). Offering that appears
in this definition is a combination of products, services, information, or
experiences offered to a market to satisfy a customer’s need or want, and
it is the basis on which the company builds profitable customer relation-
ship (Kotler and Armstrong 2016).
Traditionally, as mentioned in Chap. 1, main market function is to
exchange the value between a firm and a customer, and this function is
separate from value creation process (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004).
Therefore, according to the traditional view, the firm and customer per-
spectives on value are distinct. Firm perspective emphasizes the (cus-
tomer) value proposition that is promised and delivered by the firm to its
customers. On the other hand, customer perspective on value reflects his/
her subjective perception of received value, which is termed customer
perceived value. However, the phenomenon of customer activism (includ-
ing customer engagement) alters the above-mentioned firm and customer
perspectives on the value in marketing process. The formation of value
proposition is not the exclusive domain of a company yet, because cus-
tomer may actively attend this process, be engaged in the formation of
value proposition. On the other hand, such an activism or engagement
may bring certain value to customer, may enhance customer perceived
value.
Those two new aspects of marketing management associated with cus-
tomer activism in the formation of value proposition and the role of this
activism in the formation of customer perceived value are recognized in
this chapter. We discuss the evolution of those two basic marketing con-
cepts (i.e. value proposition and customer perceived value) and then link
customer engagement with them drawing on the CE and related l iterature.
Placing Customer Engagement Within Marketing Management 57
In other words, in this chapter we attempt to place CE within the mar-

keting management in order to propose the normative model of CE
management.
3.1 E
ngaging Customer in Value Proposition
Formation
Three stages of the evolution of (customer) value proposition interpreta-
tion may be distinguished in the marketing literature (Payne et al. 2017).
First stage, based on the supplier-determined perspective within tradi-
tional market understanding, emphasizes value-in-exchange and inside-
out logic. Value proposition is then the whole cluster of benefits the
company promises to deliver (Kotler and Armstrong 2016), including a
promise on price (Lanning and Michaels 1988). In the next value propo-
sition interpretation, combination of experiences (Lanning 1998) is also
included. This transitional stage of evolution highlights customers’ expe-
riences during usage and firm’s dialogue with customers; however, still
the firm determines value proposition (Payne et al. 2017). Value proposi-
tion is then a promise about the experience customers can expect from
the company’s market offering and their relationship with the supplier
(Kotler and Armstrong 2016).
The diffusion of the value co-creation and the network management
metatheories (discussed in Chap. 1) within marketing management
results in further extension of value proposition interpretation. It is
mutually determined and co-created and seeks the active engagement of
a customer through sharing resources and contributing to mutually
rewarding outcomes (Payne et al. 2017). Therefore, there is a switch from
customer value proposition to customer network value proposition (Cova
and Salle 2008) in this evolution stage. Also the dynamics of value propo-
sition is emphasized, since value proposition is not only based on the
customer-provider dyad (i.e. promises of reciprocal value between service
providers and their customers), but its coverage should be broadened to
multilateral settings and networked environments (Kowalkowski 2011).
Consequently, value propositions are defined as invitations from actors to
one another to engage in order to attain value (Chandler and Lusch
58 K. Żyminkowska
2015). The question then arises, how to link customer engagement with
the formation of value proposition in its latest interpretation in the net-
work context? In other words, how to position CE in marketing manage-
ment perspective for networked organizations?
Marketing management, perceived as the value delivery sequence, consists
of various stages. Lanning and Michaels (1988, 2000) distinguished three
stages in value delivery sequence (or system): choosing the value, providing
the value, and communicating the value to the customer. Choosing the value
comprises understanding value drivers, selecting target customers, and defin-
ing benefits and price. Providing the value includes product and process
design, procurement, manufacturing, pricing, distributing, and servicing.
Communicating the value involves sales message, advertising, public rela-
tions, and so on. In line with above-mentioned proposition, Woodruff and
Gardial (1996) distinguished five stages of a value delivery strategy process:
identifying, choosing (corresponding with choosing the value), providing,
communicating, and, additionally, assessing value to customers.
On the other hand, marketing is also viewed through the lenses of man-
agement functions, including analysis, planning, implementation, and
control (Kotler 1997). According to Lusch and Webster (2010), those tra-
ditional marketing functions need to be improved and made more relevant
to the networked organizations. Analysis is supplemented by continuous
sensing that occurs by interfacing with customers, employees, suppliers,
and other stakeholders to increase understanding of their experiences, prac-
tices, needs, and wants. Planning is supplemented by resourcing with the
focus shifted to intangible resources, such as information and human inge-
nuity that transform resources into market offerings that reflect compelling
value propositions. Important aspect of this marketing function is the
removal of organizational resistances that are often intangible, such as cul-
tural or social forces. Implementation is supplemented by realizing with the
focus shifted from a separation between management and workers to the
collaboration, where actors innovate and improvise drawing on the experi-
ence and knowledge of the other. Within this function everything is orga-
nized around the focal firm’s value proposition directed at the chosen
customer partners with whom value will be co-created. In learning, that
supplements traditional control function, financial results below planned
levels are not viewed as failure event only, but cash flow, either positive or
negative, in the company becomes an important part of a learning loop.
Integrating both views on marketing management, based on the stages

of value delivery process and revised marketing management functions in
network context, we map the position of customer engagement forms in
the formation of value proposition (see Fig. 3.1).
As argued in Chap. 2, we prefer the behavioural interpretation of CE,
beyond purchase, and distinguish three CE forms. First, customers’ com-
munication (i.e. customer-to customer communication), which refers to
word-of-mouth (both positive and negative), and helping others, which
occurs in customer-to-customer interactions, and is similar to customer
referral and influencer behaviours distinguished by Kumar et al. (2010).
Second, customer complaints that are actually kind of customer feedback
or customer knowledge behaviour in customer-to-firm (or other institu-
tions as media or consumer right advisor) interactions; however, they are
driven by customer dissatisfaction. And third, customer collaboration,
also occurs in customer-to-firm interactions, and includes providing
feedback, ideas, and information (i.e. customer knowledge), or perform-
ing some tasks providing customer skills, for example, in product design
or assembly.
Fig. 3.1 Customer engagement forms in marketing management

60 K. Żyminkowska
Customers’ communication, as mapped on Fig. 3.1, may occur in the

last stage of value delivery process. Customers may be engaged in value
communication stage when they are spreading opinions, reviews, pic-
tures, or videos, and advising or helping others on how to use products.
On the other hand, a firm may also utilize customer communication
activism in customer-to-customer interactions within each marketing
management function, depending on firm competences in monitoring
and/or stimulating communication among customers. Customer com-
plaints may refer to each stage of marketing process, since customer may
complain on product performance, product design, quality of product,
product price or unavailability, customer service, or advertising messages.
With regard to management functions, customer complaints refer mainly
to the learning (control) and may be utilized to identify firm’s assump-
tions on value formation more deeply or even to suspend some of them.
Customer collaboration with firm or brand may refer to product and
other components of market offering. Customer may collaborate in the
process of choosing the value by submitting product designs, providing
the value participating in product assembly or funding new designs (e.g.
by crowdfunding), and communicating the value by submitting ad
designs or co-creating firm events. Customer collaboration may also
occur in each marketing management function, depending on firm com-
petences to integrate customer resources in business processes.
Summing up, positioning CE (forms) within dual context of market-
ing management (value delivery process and management functions)
highlights the need for perceiving CE as an object of managerial deci-
sions. Firms should decide on whether they engage customers and how
many marketing tasks are to be performed by customers in certain stages
of value delivery process or managerial functions. Such decisions impact
firm competitive advantage and consequently cash flows. So the effective
process of customer engagement management is quite prevailing chal-
lenge for companies.
Therefore, in order to propose the normative model of CE manage-
ment, in the context of value proposition formation, we recognized the
recommendations offered in the existing CE literature (see Table 3.1) and
combined it with key managerial implications identified within the
broader context of customer activism (see Chap. 1). Key managerial
issues we recognize within this CE normative management model refer to
Table 3.1 Perspectives on customer engagement management in the CE literature
Author(s) Construct Managerial recommendations
Van Doorn et al. CEB management 1. Identifying engagement behaviours and customers:
(2010) process • Forms of CEB, actors, places, content of CEB, potential effect of CEB.
• Key questions:
What are locations and channels where CEB manifests? (online vs.
offline venues; one-to-many vs. one-to-one channels; channels
directed towards the firm, finite customer group, or public).
Who are the firm’s most and least engaged customers?
What is the relative proportion of positively vs. negatively engaged
customers?
How can CEB be identified in an integrated manner across customers,
forms, and channels?
2. Evaluating engagement manifestations:
• Evaluating the likely consequences in terms of short- and long-term
objectives.
• Measuring and examining CEBs as multidimensional and
comprehensive set of indicators.
• Developing the CEB scorecard to monitor and evaluate CEBs
relatively to firm’s strategy.
• Translating CEBs into financial metrics integrated with other metrics
of marketing and organizational performance.
3. Acting on customers’ engagement behaviour:
• Four areas of developing a set of capabilities and resources to manage
CEB:
(a) Leverage: Setting up effective information systems and procedures
Placing Customer Engagement Within Marketing Management
to make the content of relevant CEBs (e.g. suggestions) available

to the right persons inside the firm so they can use it appropriately
(e.g. to generate new product ideas).
61
(continued)
62

(b) Stimulate: Fostering processes and venues to nurture and harness
the positive potential of CEB in the following ways:
• giving customers a site or platform to express their ideas or
thoughts,
• establishing set of incentives (e.g. rewards for
recommendations, granting a specific status level in an activity-
based or peer-evaluated rank system),
K. Żyminkowska
• establishing and contributing to customer communities.

(c) Mitigate and translate: Capturing formal and informal negative
customers’ statements to get a complete assessment of customers’
opinions and to enhance the firm’s ability to address them
internally.
(d) Neutralize: Firms’ externally visible actions and reactions to
negative forms of CEB to turn them into positive CEB (e.g.
empowering frontline personnel in deterring negative
engagement in proper way—refunds/apologies, speed and type of
communication, etc.).
Kumar et al. (2010) Capturing customer Conceptualization of CEV for efficient marketing strategies that enable
engagement value higher long-term contribution from the customer including:
(CEV) 1. CLV—Customer Lifetime Value
2. CRV—Customer Referral Value
3. CIV—Customer Influencer Value
4. CKV—Customer Knowledge Value
(continued)
Verhoef and Managing customer CE management is an emerging perspective on managing customer value
Lemon (2013) engagement and refers to the strategies that encourage customers’ non-transactional
behaviour.
Managerial recommendations similar to van Doorn et al.’s (2010). Firms
should:
• Identify actors, places, and content of CEB, and understand its
potential effects.
• Consider customer engagement consequences in terms of short- and
long-term objectives.
• Translate CEBs into financial metrics to improve decision making about
the customer base, including the engaged customer base.
• Quantify CE into the components proposed by Kumar et al. (2010):
customer influence value, customer referral value, and customer
knowledge value.
• Develop a set of capabilities and resources to manage CE to leverage
the potential benefit or threat of a CEB internally (CEB content available
to the right people inside the firm) and externally (stimulating CEB).
Kumar (2013) Profitable customer Firm’s customer engagement strategies to gain maximum profitability from
engagement each of its customers while ensuring their continued loyalty.
CEV framework includes:
1. Defining firm objectives.
2. Aligning objectives with CEV metrics.
3. Deciding which CEV metric to prioritize.
4. Deciding which metric can be measured with available data.
5. Building data towards the CEV metrics for future analysis.
(continued)
63
64

Harmeling et al. Customer CE management as firm’s deliberate effort to motivate, empower, and
(2017) engagement measure a customer’s voluntary contribution to the firm’s marketing
marketing functions beyond the core, economic transaction.
Five features of CE marketing include:
1. Primary objective is to encourage customers’ active participation in and
contribution to the firm’s marketing functions.
2. The effectiveness of CE marketing depends on the firm’s ability to
K. Żyminkowska
identify and leverage customer-owned resources.

3. Information flows through networked communication among the
customer, other customers, and the firm.
4. Firm must train the customers how to enact their roles as pseudo-
marketers (i.e. how to contribute their resources).
5. Control is relinquished and value creation shifted from firm to the
customer in certain marketing functions.
Beckers et al. Firm-initiated CE management refers to companies’ explicit strategies to stimulate
(2018) customer customer engagement. It can affect a company’s financial performance by:
engagement 1. Affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of value creation (thereby
enhancing and accelerating cash flow).
2. Building customer relationship (thereby growing the customer base,
and consequently the residual value of cash flows).
3. Increasing or decreasing risk.
the process of CE management and its components, CE effects for firms

and risks associated with CE.
Process of CE Management
Regarding the process of CE management, there are some important man-

agerial recommendations on its architecture in the CE literature. Van
Doorn et al. (2010) offer the model of customer engagement behaviour
(CEB) management process that allows to understand how customer
engagement can be managed in ways that benefit the focal firm and its
customers. They distinguish three stages of this process, such as identifying,
evaluating, and acting, and indicate four steps within the last stage recog-
nizing how firms’ actions can enhance, mitigate, or neutralize various forms
of customer engagement. This proposition is further supported by Verhoef
and Lemon (2013). Harmeling et al. (2017) also assume that firms attempt
to guide the role for the engaged customer in beneficial ways, so CE is
deliberately initiated and actively managed by firms. With regard to the CE
management process, they propose the terms customer engagement mar-
keting or engagement marketing consisting of three core elements: moti-
vating, empowering, and measuring customer contributions to marketing.
Above-mentioned propositions on how to design the CE management
process are in line with managerial implications from the network man-
agement and related concepts. Key tasks in network management include
defining the actors’ positions and roles in the network, their resources
and capabilities, and goals (Möller and Halinen 2017). The management
activities consist of network visioning, positioning, mobilizing, goal con-
struction and organization, effectiveness and efficiency seeking, and net-
work maintenance (Tikkanen and Halinen 2003; Järvensivu and Möller
2009; Möller and Halinen 2017). Similarly, the process of managing user
and open innovation consists of defining, finding participants, collabo-
rating, and leveraging sub-processes (Piller and West 2017).
Finally, recommendations on CE management process (and managing
customer activism in general) concur with Cova and Salle’s (2008) prop-
osition of five steps in the formulation of the customer network value
proposition, including identification of the actors in the customer net-
66 K. Żyminkowska
work, targeting those actors, identification of the mobilizing factors of

targeted actors, setting up an approach of the actors targeted in the cus-
tomer network, and setting up a value co-creation approach with each
customer network actor (with a focus on the resource integration).
Drawing on the above-mentioned findings from the literature on CE
management, as well as network and user and open innovation manage-
ment, we propose the components that constitute CE management pro-
cess. Key elements in this process include actors involved such as dedicated
organizational units in a firm and/or external suppliers of services in CE
management. Other elements include firms’ tasks and activities such as
linking CE strategy with the overall customer relationship management
endeavours, offering systems and platforms by facilitating customer-to-
customer and customer-to-firm interactions, mobilizing CE by offering a
set of tangible and intangible incentives, and developing the CE metrics
for monitoring and controlling effects and costs of CE. Regarding the CE
management process outputs, we emphasize not only positive effects, but
also risks that may be associated with engaging the customers by firms,
which is elaborated below.
CE Effects
According to van Doorn et al. (2010) customer engagement manage-

ment must be considered in the context of other marketing initiatives,
such as advertising, customer retention and complain management, ser-
vice recovery, and rewards and loyalty programmes. On the other hand,
Verhoef and Lemon (2013) perceive managing customer engagement as
an emerging perspective on managing customer value. If so, CE manage-
ment should be perceived as the component of firm’s effort to increase the
value of its customer base by attracting new customers, retaining existing
customers, reducing the costs of current customers, and selling more
products or services to the customers. Beckers et al. (2018) also notice
that companies’ explicit strategies to stimulate customer engagement (i.e.
firm-initiated customer engagement) can increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of value creation and enhance customer relationships. Also
Kumar et al. (2010) emphasize the need for quantifying and measuring
the customer’s engagement in firms to grow the bottom line and propose
four components of a customer’s engagement value (CEV) and metrics

for those components. Further, Kumar (2013) proposes CEV framework
and comprehensive metrics that would aid firms to capture and measure
CEV in order to make customer engagement profitable.
CE management is then the vital component of customer value man-
agement and its effectiveness and efficiency, in terms of short- and long-
term perspective, need to be integrated with the logic of marketing
performance metrics. Therefore, the assessment of the CE management
effects should be done in accordance with the logic of marketing produc-
tivity chain, that is, marketing strategy and tactics → customer impact
(on satisfaction, attitude towards the brand, loyalty) → marketing assets
(as customer equity) → firm’s market position (market share and
sales) → firm’s financial position (profits and cash flows) → value of the
firm (market capitalization) (Rust et al. 2004). Consequently, regarding
marketing assets, the effects of CE management should be coordinated
with the objectives of customer asset management referring to customer
acquisition, customer retention, and margin expansion (Gupta and
Lehmann 2005).
CE Risks
The CE literature offers some understanding of potential risks associated

with CE management. Beckers et al. (2018) notice that companies’
explicit strategies to stimulate customer engagement (i.e. firm-initiated
customer engagement) can increase risk, which may negatively affect
companies’ financial measures. Harmeling et al. (2017) also posit that
empowering customers, essential to engagement marketing, may be
associated with potential risks. These include a state of vulnerability for
the firm or increase of negative word-of-mouth due to amplifying cus-
tomers’ actions by providing them platforms and audiences that increase
their reach. Also unintended effects of customer engagement marketing
may occur, such as disrupting existing mechanisms that facilitate repur-
chase behaviours or inflated costs.
Generally CE management risks need to be seen in a broader context
of risks related to the integration of the resources of external partners
(including customers) in the value proposition formation. Those risks,
68 K. Żyminkowska
discussed in detail in the Chap. 1, include some internal problems in

firms, such as increased job stress and role conflicts (Mustak et al. 2016;
Hsieh et al. 2004), disturbance of internal processes (Bartl et al. 2012),
and so on. The proposition of revised marketing planning function rele-
vant to networked organization, which emphasizes the need for removing
the organizational resistances (Lusch and Webster 2010), also demon-
strates the crucial role of firm’s employees in introducing the engagement
orientation in company (Kumar and Pansari 2016). So, perhaps firms
may outsource some tasks in CE management process to the external
partners in order to improve CE management effectiveness, especially
since the industry that offers the professional services in engaging cus-
tomers is rapidly growing (Dienner and Piller 2010).
Summing up, firms need to design and implement the framework of
CE management in order to capture the value from the customer activ-
ism, that is, maximizing the positive effects and minimizing the CE risks.
Mobilizing the customers to engage is one of the key tasks in this frame-
work. To do it effectively, firms need to know the factors that drive cus-
tomer engagement. Those factors refer to customer involvement and
loyalty, as well as to the CE value for customer, as mentioned in Sect. 2.3.
In the next section we further explore the issues of customer perspective
on value—that is, customer perceived value of customer engagement—to
identify detailed customer motivations to engage that need to be addressed
by firms in mobilizing the profitable customer engagement.
3.2 P
erceived Customer Value and Customer
Engagement Linkages
Although the concept of customer value (CV) has dynamically evolved in
marketing literature, there is a general agreement that it is subjectively
defined by a customer, not by a supplier (Khalifa 2004). Therefore, it is
also labelled as customer perceived value. Two aspects of the evolution of
this category need to be taken into account in the marketing manage-
ment context: enhancing dimensionality of customer value interpreta-
tions and changing logic of customer value measurement reflected in the
CV models.
Regarding the customer value dimensions, this construct was originally

understood as something tangible, packed in the product (Baggozzi 1975;
Khalifa 2004; Heinonen et al. 2013). Later conceptualizations of customer
value, within the relationship marketing, introduced some intangible
dimensions too. For instance, Kotler and Armstrong (2016) list four deter-
minants of customer perceived value associated with the benefits contained
in product, services, personnel, and firm/brand image. Finally the phe-
nomenon of customer experiences was emphasized in the customer value
definition based on Holbrook’s (1999) view, according to which value is
interactive, relativistic, experiential, and preferential (Talonen et al. 2016).
Customer perceived value is then characterized as a customer experience
(Helkkula et al. 2012; Vargo and Lusch 2017). Furthermore, customer
value is formed in various visible and invisible experiential spaces (e.g.
social, virtual, mental, biological, physical) that reflect the customer’s eco-
system and life sphere (Heinonen et al. 2013). Therefore the understanding
of customer value as value-in-social-context was suggested to reflect the
variety of actors who may be involved in value creation (Edvardsson et al.
2011; Saarijärvi et al. 2013; Vargo and Lusch 2017). Consequently, there
are four customer value dimensions recognized in recent marketing litera-
ture: economic, functional, emotional and experiential, and symbolic and
social (Sánchez-Fernández and Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo 2007; Talonen et al.
2016). In more synthesized proposition of customer value dimensions it is
conceptualized as a set of tangible (utilitarian) and intangible (hedonic)
elements (Heinonen et al. 2013; Babin et al. 1994). Utilitarian elements
includes economic and functional value dimensions, and hedonic elements
comprise of emotional and experiential as well as symbolic and social value
dimensions (Talonen et al. 2016) (Table 3.2).
Regarding the measurement approaches to customer value, the second
aspect of the evolution in the CV interpretation, three customer value
models may be distinguished, as proposed by Khalifa (2004). First, value
components models that focus on customer benefits and demote the cus-
tomer’s sacrifice side of the value equation. Second, benefits/costs ratio
models, consider customer value as the difference between the customer’s
evaluation of all the benefits (positive consequences) and costs (negative
consequences/sacrifices/costs) of an offering and the perceived alterna-
tives (competing offers) (Kotler and Armstrong 2016). Those models are
70 K. Żyminkowska
Table 3.2 Dimensions of customer value

Dimensions and sub-
dimensions of customer value Characteristics
Utilitarian Economic Money savings, value for money, and finding
the lowest price or the best trade-off
between price and quality.
Functional Quality, convenience, quality/performance,
and finding the right time at the right place.
Hedonic Emotional and Exploration, entertainment, aesthetics,
experiential playfulness, escapism and enjoyment,
pleasure, and the emotional experience.
Symbolic and Status and self-esteem, and self-expression.
social
Talonen et al. (2016)
broader than the value components and more complete, but they do not
address the problem of importance of various benefits and the signifi-
cance of sacrifices in the context of customer behaviour. This problem is
emphasized within the third, means-ends models, of customer value.
Those models envisage customer value in terms of the customer acquiring
and using a firms’ offerings to accomplish favourable and predefined
ends, that is, personal values (Khalifa 2004; Huber et al. 2001), so they
focus on customer benefits while failing to pay attention to the customer
sacrifices. According to means-ends models of customer value, customers
choose actions that produce desired consequences and minimize unde-
sired ones and thus personal values provide the overall direction, and
consequences determine the selection of behaviour (Peter and Olson
1990). Therefore, based on those models (e.g. Woodruff and Gardial
1996) the favourable ends (i.e. customer’s goals and purposes) may be
identified in terms of personal values arising from engagement. Personal
or consumption values consist of functional, social, emotional, epistemic,
and conditional elements (Sheth et al. 1991) that reflect above-mentioned
multidimensional character of customer value.
Summing up, while linking customer perceived value, the basic mar-
keting concept, with customer engagement, we need to draw on the
above-mentioned, developed recognition of customer value dimensions,
as well as on those customer value models that will help firms to discover
why the customers engage, that is, means-ends models. In other words,
companies need to know what are their customers’ motivations to engage
in order to be able to manage such engagement effectively. Customer

motive (drive) is a need that is sufficiently pressing to direct the person to
seek satisfaction (Kotler and Armstrong 2016). So, identifying the cus-
tomer needs that drive their engagement is crucial in CE management.
The review of the literature (see Table 3.3) reveals that various customer
value components were studied with regard to either overall customer
engagement concept or certain CE forms (such as customers’ communi-
cation or customer collaboration).
The existing literature on the linkages between customer value dimen-
sions and customer engagement offers two approaches. According to the
first, predominating view, customer value components are perceived as
the antecedents of CE (or its certain forms). In the second approach,
which is still underdeveloped, customer value dimensions are perceived
as the effects of customer engagement (Groeger et al. 2016; Marbach
et al. 2016). Besides, studying the customer value dimensions associated
with the customer engagement, the authors focus either on hedonic com-
ponents only (Verhagen et al. 2015; Marbach et al. 2016) or identify
both utilitarian and hedonic elements, but the latter predominate among
components under study (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014; Groeger et al.
2016). In the studies of the customers’ communication drivers, hedonic
elements of customer value are investigated as drivers of electronic WOM
(Abrantes et al. 2013) and motivations for creating brand-related content
in social media (Muntinga et al. 2011). On the other hand, utilitarian
dimensions of customer value are explored as drivers of customer collabo-
ration, next to hedonic ones, as motivations for participating in innova-
tion and product development communities (Shah 2004), motivations to
engage in virtual projects in product development (Füller et al. 2010),
motivations of customer integration in innovation process (Rohrbeck
et al. 2010), or drivers of willingness to engage in collaborative innova-
tion activities (Fernandes and Remelhe 2016).
The above review of the literature reveals that both hedonic and utili-
tarian values drive the customer engagement. Therefore, the recognition
of those detailed motivations is the key element of effective CE manage-
ment framework, which enables firms to design the effective set of CE
incentives to address the needs and wants of target customers.
* * *
Table 3.3 Literature review on customer value and customer engagement linkages
72
Customers’ Customer
Authors Construct Customer value elements under study CE communication collaboration
Jaakkola and Drivers of 1. Enhanced knowledge and reputation x
Alexander customer 2. Social benefits
(2014) engagement 3. Economic benefits (such as cost savings)
behaviours (based on Füller et al. 2010; Nambisan
and Baron 2009)
Confirmed:
K. Żyminkowska
1. Ownership
2. Need for improvements
3. Relationship and communication
Verhagen Determinants of 1. Cognitive benefits (access to knowledge, x
et al. (2015) CE intentions in feedback)
virtual customer 2. Social integrative benefits (social
environment identification, social ties)
1. Personal integrative benefits (peer
recognition, company recognition)
2. Hedonic benefits (self-expression,
altruism)
(based on Katz et al. 1974)
Groeger et al. Value for non- 1. Free trial x
(2016) paying 2. Enhanced knowledge/experience
consumers from 3. Premiums for campaign participation
consumer 4. Brand/product self-identification
engagement 5. Recognition
behaviours (above-mentioned based on Jaakkola and
Alexander 2014)
6. Curated/filtered exposure
(continued)
Marbach et al. Forms of customer 1. Social value x
(2016) perceived value 2. Play
of online 3. Efficiency
customer 4. Excellence
engagement 5. Aesthetic value
6. Altruistic value
(based on Holbrook 1999)
Muntinga Motivations for 1. Personal identity x
et al. (2011) creating 2. Integration and social interaction
brand-related 3. Empowerment
content in social 4. Entertainment
media
Abrantes et al. Drivers of 1. Mood enhancement x
(2013) electronic 2. Escapism
word-of-mouth 3. Experiential learning
4. Social interaction
(based on Blumler and Katz 1974)
Shah (2004) Motivations for 1. Need for product x
participating in 2. Enjoyment, desire to create, and improve
innovation and 3. Reputation and status within community
product 4. Affiliation
development 5. Identity
communities 6. Values, ideology
7. Training: learning, reputation outside the

community, career concerns
73
(continued)
74
Füller et al. Customer 1. Monetary rewards x
(2010) motivations to 2. Dissatisfaction with existing products
engage in virtual 3. Curiosity
customer 4. Intrinsic interest in innovation
integration 5. To gain knowledge
projects in 6. Help
K. Żyminkowska
product Confirmed:
development 1. Compensation
2. Interest in innovation
3. Help
4. Product improvement
Rohrbeck Motivation 1. Monetary incentives x
et al. (2010) sources of virtual 2. Product usage and personal needs
customer 3. Social recognition
integration in 4. Entertainment and curiosity
the innovation
process
Fernandes and Motivations/ 1. Intrinsic motives x
Remelhe drivers of 2. Knowledge motives
(2016) willingness to 3. Social motives
engage in 4. Financial motives
collaborative Confirmed:
innovation 1. Intrinsic motives
activities in 2. Knowledge motives
virtual 3. Social motives
environment
Summing up, firms need to design and implement the framework of CE

management in order to capture the value from the customer activism,
that is, maximizing the positive effects and minimizing the CE risks.
Effective CE mobilizing requires the proper recognitions of customer-
level factors that drive the target customers’ engagement. Therefore, we
propose the normative model of CE management (see Fig. 3.2). This
model reflects the integrative perspective on value formation in market-
ing: both firms’ approach to value proposition formation and customer
motivations to engage, including perceived value of engagement. This
model is then empirically investigated in the subsequent chapters of the
book.
Fig. 3.2 Customer engagement management framework in marketing manage-

ment field
76 K. Żyminkowska
References
Abrantes, J. L., Seabra, C., Lages, C. R., & Jayawardhena, C. (2013). Drivers of
In-Group and Out-of-Group Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM). European
Journal of Marketing, 47(7), 1067–1088.
AMA. (2007). American Marketing Association, Information Memorandum.
Retrieved December 30, 2012, from http:/www.marketingpower.com/
Community/ARC/Pages/Additional/Definition/default.aspx.
AMA. (2018). Retrieved August 30, 2018, from https://www.ama.org/
AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring
Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4),
644–656.
Baggozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as Exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39, 32–39.
366–383.
Blumler, J., & Katz, E. (1974). The Uses of Mass Communications: Current
Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service Systems: A Broadened Framework
and Research Agenda on Value Propositions, Engagement, and Service
Experience. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 6–22.
Cova, B., & Salle, R. (2008). Marketing Solutions in Accordance with the S-D
Logic: Co-creating Value with Customer Network Actors. Industrial
Dienner, K., & Piller, F. T. (2010). The Market for Open Innovation. Increasing the
Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Innovation Process. Aachen: RWTH Open
Innovation Accelerator Survey 2009. RWTH Aachen University, TIM Group.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding Understanding
of Service Exchange and Value Co-creation: A Social Construction Approach.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.
Fernandes, T., & Remelhe, P. (2016). How to Engage Customers in Co-creation:

Customers’ Motivations for Collaborative Innovation. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 24(3–4), 311–326.
Füller, J., Faullant, R., & Matzler, K. (2010). Triggers for Virtual Customer
Integration in the Development of Medical Equipment – From a Manufacturer
and a User’s Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 1376–1383.
Groeger, L., Moroko, L., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2016). Capturing Value from
Non-paying Consumers’ Engagement Behaviours: Field Evidence and
Development of a Theoretical Model. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3–4),
190–209.
Gupta, S., & Lehmann, D. (2005). Managing Customers as Investments. The
Strategic Value of Customers in the Long Run. Upper Saddle River: Wharton
School Publishing.
Science, 45(3), 312–335.
Heinonen, K., Strandvik, T., & Voima, P. (2013). Customer Dominant Value
Formation in Service. European Business Review, 25(2), 104–123.
Helkkula, A., Kelleher, C., & Pihlstrom, M. (2012). Characterizing Value as an
Experience: Implications for Service Researchers and Managers. Journal of
Holbrook, M. (1999). Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research.
Oxon: Routledge.
Hsieh, A.-T., Yen, C.-H., & Chin, K.-C. (2004). Participative Customers as
Partial Employees and Service Provider Workload. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 15(2), 187–199.
Huber, F., Herrmann, A., & Morgan, R. E. (2001). Gaining Competitive
Advantage Through Customer Value Oriented Management. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 18(1), 41–53.
Behavior in Value Co-creation. A Service System Perspective. Journal of
Järvensivu, T., & Möller, K. (2009). Metatheory of Network Management:
A Contingency Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(6),
654–661.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of Mass
Communication by the Individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The
78 K. Żyminkowska
Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research.

Beverly Hills: Sage.
Khalifa, A. S. (2004). Customer Value: A Review of Recent Literature and an
Integrative Configuration. Management Decision, 42(5/6), 645–666.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation,
and Control (9th International ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall
International.
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2016). Principles of Marketing (16th Global ed.).
Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Inc.
Kowalkowski, C. (2011). Dynamics of Value Propositions: Insights from
Service-Dominant Logic. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 277–294.
Lanning, M. (1998). Delivering Profitable Value. New York: Perseus
Publishing.
Lanning, M., & Michaels, E. (1988, July). A Business Is a Value Delivery System.
McKinsey Staff Paper No. 41.
Lanning, M., & Michaels, E. (2000, June). A Business Is a Value Delivery
System. McKinsey Quarterly. Retrieved August 18, 2018, from https://www.
mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-
insights/delivering-value-to-customers.
Lusch, R., & Webster, F. (2010). Marketing’s Responsibility for the Value of the
Enterprise. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, Report No.
10-111.
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016). Who Are You and What Do
You Value? Investigating the Role of Personality Traits and Customer-
Perceived Value in Online Customer Engagement. Journal of Marketing
Management, 32(5–6), 502–525.
Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing Business and Innovation
Networks – From Strategic Nets to Business fields and Ecosystems. Industrial
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs.
Exploring Motivations for Brand-Related Social Media Use. International
Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46.
Mustak, M., Jaakkola, E., Halinen, A., & Kaartemo, V. (2016). Customer
Participation Management: Developing a Comprehensive Framework and a
Research Agenda. Journal of Service Management, 27(3), 250–275.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual Customer Environments: Testing
a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 388–406.
Payne, P., Frow, P., & Eggert, A. (2017). The Customer Value Proposition:
Evolution, Development, and Application in Marketing. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 45, 467–489.
Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1990). Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Strategy
(2nd ed.). Homewood: Irvin.
Piller, F., & West, J. (2017). Firms, Users, and Innovation. An Interactive Model
of Coupled Open Innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough & W. Vanhaverbeke
(Eds.), New Frontiers in Open Innovation (pp. 29–49). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-creating
Unique Value with Customers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rohrbeck, R., Steinhoff, F., & Perder, F. (2010). Sourcing Innovation from Your
Customer: How Multinational Enterprises Use Web Platforms for Virtual
Customer Integration. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(4),
117–131.
Rust, R., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. (2004).
Measuring Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future
Directions. Journal of Marketing, 68, 76–89.
Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P. K., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Value Co-creation:
Theoretical Approaches and Practical Implications. European Business Review,
25(1), 6–19.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Ángeles Iniesta-Bonillo, M. (2007). The Concept of
Perceived Value: A Systematic Review of the Research. Marketing Theory,
7(4), 427–451.
Shah, S. (2004). Understanding the Nature of Participation and Coordination
in Open and Gated Source Software Development Communities. Academy of
Management Best Paper Proceedings.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why We Buy What We Buy:
A Theory of Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.
80 K. Żyminkowska
Talonen, A., Jussila, I., Saarijärvi, H., & Rintamäki, T. (2016). Consumer
Cooperatives: Uncovering the Value Potential of Customer Ownership. AMS
Review, 6(3–4), 142–156.
Tikkanen, J., & Halinen, A. (2003, September 4–6). Network Approach to
Strategic Management – Exploration to the Emerging Perspective. Proceedings
of the 19th Annual IMP Conference, Lugano, Switzerland.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-Dominant Logic 2025. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
Verhagen, T., Swen, E., Feldberg, F., & Merikivi, J. (2015). Benefitting from
Virtual Customer Environments: An Empirical Study of Customer
Engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 340–357.
Verhoef, P. C., & Lemon, K. N. (2013). Successful Customer Value Management:
Key Lessons and Emerging Trends. European Management Journal, 31(1),
1–15.
Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know Your Customer. New Approaches
to Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction. Oxford: Blackwell.
4
Why Do Customers Engage?
Abstract To meet customers’ expectations and profitably manage cus-

tomer engagement, firms need to know whether and why their customers
want to engage. This chapter sheds light on CE drivers from consumer
perspective and implies the repertory of customer incentives that need to
be developed by firms for profitable customer engagement management
on consumer markets. Based on the survey of 2080 consumers
Żyminkowska reveals rather low CE intensity among Polish consumers
across all markets under study. She discovers that customer motivations,
associated with customer goals and values, are more influential drivers of
CE than customer involvement or loyalty. This chapter also highlights
the role of hedonic and utilitarian motivations in driving the customer
engagement.
Keywords Customer engagement drivers • Customer engagement

motivations • Customer involvement • Customer loyalty • Empirical
findings on customer engagement

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_4
82 K. Żyminkowska
To meet customers’ expectations and profitably manage customer engage-

ment, firms need to know whether and why their customers want to engage.
In this chapter, we discuss the methodology and findings of our empirical
research referring to the engagement drivers from individual, consumer per-
spective. Thus, we answer two research questions formulated in the intro-
duction to this book. First, what is the intensity of the customer engagement
phenomenon in distinct consumer markets? We attempt to recognize the
intensity of customers’ communication about the brands or firms in cus-
tomer-to-customer interaction, the customers’ complaining activities, and
their collaboration with firms or brands. Besides, we try to discover if the
customer engagement intensity differs across distinct markets, and therefore
we study clothing, beer, mobile phones, and banking products. Second
research question addressed in this chapter refers to the consumer-based
antecedents of customer engagement. Based on the literature review dis-
cussed in previous parts of the book, we select three drivers for our analysis:
customer value, loyalty, and involvement. We attempt to recognize what
tangible and intangible benefits expected by customers (i.e. utilitarian and
hedonic components of customer perceived value) are important for them
to engage across distinct customer segments. We also try to assess the impact
of those values, as well as customer involvement and loyalty, on customer
engagement and compare it across distinct product categories.
Research results deliberated in this chapter shed light on CE drivers
from consumer perspective and implies the repertory of customer incen-
tives that need to be developed by firms for profitable customer engage-
ment management on consumer markets.
4.1 M
ethodology of Consumer Engagement
Research
In order to recognize the intensity and drivers of customer engagement
towards brands or firms on distinct consumer markets we conducted a
large study among the Polish consumers. The sampling framework was
stratified by gender and age to represent the Polish population structure
in the age of 15–64. The respondents were recruited from the IMAS
OnLine research panel, consisted of 44,500 participants, representing the
Why Do Customers Engage? 83
Table 4.1 Target population and sampling frame

Polish nationwide population
(according to the Central Statistical Sampling frame (selected
Office of Poland) from IMAS OnLine panel)
Age Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
15–29 3,818,139 3,671,735 14% 14% 1547 3343 13% 28%
30–45 4,530,146 4,420,948 17% 16% 1756 2168 15% 18%
46–64 5,039,805 5,359,631 19% 20% 1405 1729 12% 15%
Total 13,388,090 13,452,314 50% 50% 4708 7240 39% 61%
Polish nationwide population according to the age (see Table 4.1). The

computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) was used to collect data
between August 23 and September 13, 2017. We sent 11,948 e-mail
invitations, and 2080 respondents completed the questionnaire (17%).
To measure customer engagement forms and customer engagement
drivers (i.e. customer values, involvement, and loyalty) we adopted and
developed the conceptualizations and sets of items based on the existing
literature (see Table 4.2 for items and references to relevant chapters of
the book). A pretest with 101 respondents was conducted to evaluate the
reliability of the concepts before the final survey and to check the validity
of the questionnaire. After the pretest a few modifications were made to
obtain higher quality of analysis later. To operationalize the items, 5-point
Likert scales were used to measure all variables, except from the customer
involvement that was measured on the semantic differential scale.
We supported convergent validity of all measures as all standardized
factor loadings and average variances extracted (AVE) surpassed or be close
to the recommended value of 0.50 (MacKenzie et al. 2011) and all com-
posite reliability scores exceeded (or were close to) the recommended value
of 0.70 (Hair et al. 2010). The internal reliability of all scales is significant:
all constructs present the Cronbach Alphas above the recommended value
of 0.70 (Nunnally 1978) (see Table 4.2 for detailed statistics).
To analyse the dataset we used the structural equation modelling
(SEM) as the proper method not only used as a confirmatory factor anal-
ysis (CFA) but also as a way to identify the relation with other constructs
(via regression modelling). We used Mplus (version 8) for the analysis
(Muthén and Muthén 2017) to discover the linkages between customer
engagement and its customer-based antecedents (i.e. values, involvement,
Table 4.2 Validity and reliability statistics for variables used in customer research
84
Average variance Composite Alpha

Variables Items extracted AVE reliability CR Cronbach
Customer engagement forms
Items based on: Verleye et al. (2014), Muntinga et al. (2011), Stauss and Seidel (2007), Jaakkola and Alexander (2014),
and Rohrbeck et al. (2010, see chapter 2.2).
Customers’ communication Do you exchange the opinions on products, 0.638 0.876 0.838
brands or firms in the following ways:
1. I write positive product reviews in the
K. Żyminkowska
Internet.
2. I upload brand- or firm-related pictures,
films in the Internet.
3. I participate in the recommendation
programmes.
4. I click ‘likes’ related to brand/firms.
Customer complaints Do you complain about the products or brands 0.588 0.850 0.810
in the following ways:
1. I file the formal, written complaints.
2. I provide information verbally if
something is wrong with the product
during or after purchase.
3. I answer the call centre questions
informing them about my dissatisfaction.
4. I answer additional questions while my
complaint is proceeded.
(continued)
Customer collaboration Do you collaborate with brands or firms 0.633 0.873 0.813
helping to create solutions in the following
ways:
1. I participate in surveys concerning my
needs and expectations of the products.
2. I vote for the products or brands.
3. I participate in firm or brand contests, e.g.
providing the idea of packages or ads.
4. I attend the events associated with brands
or firms.
Customer engagement values
Items based on: Rohrbeck et al. (2010), Verhagen et al. (2015), Lattemann and Robra-Bissantz (2006), and Marbach et al.
(2016, see chapter 3.2).
Hedonic CV dimension How important are the following reasons of 0.701 0.875 0.846
your engagement in the relations focused on
brands or firms?
1. Making contacts with other users.
2. Joining the consumer communities (e.g.
brand fans).
3. Being respected by others (peers, users).
Utilitarian CV dimension 1. Getting a better product 0.646 0.846 0.797
2. Receiving discounts for next shopping
3. Receiving the material reward
(continued)
85
86

Customer involvement
Items based on: Zaichkowsky (1994) and Hollebeek (2011, see chapter 4.4).
Customer involvement For me, those products are: 0.512 0.689 0.711
1. Irrelevant—Relevant
2. Unexciting—Exciting
3. Unappealing—Appealing
K. Żyminkowska
4. Worthless—Valuable
Customer loyalty
Items based on Hayes (2009) and Rajah et al. (2008, see chapter 4.4).
Advocacy loyalty There is a brand/there are brands on the 0.509 0.674 0.815
market about which I can say that:
1. I feel superior satisfaction.
2. In the future I will choose it again.
Purchasing loyalty 1. I want to purchase it more often. 0.548 0.708 0.866
2. I want to purchase it larger.
Retention loyalty 1. I would feel upset if I stopped purchasing 0.511 0.676 0.830
it.
2. I would feel unhappy if I had to switch it
to another one.
and loyalty). We estimated structural equation models for a total sample

of 2080 respondents as well as separate models for each product category.
The fit indices for all those models, that is, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA reveal
that the models’ fits are quite good (Bentler 1990; Tucker and Lewis
1973; Steiger 1990). In our analysis, both CFI and TLI were above 0.95
or even close to 1.0 which confirms evaluation of goodness of fit of the
models. RMSEA estimates are less than 0.05, which indicates that the
models approximate the true models appropriately.
4.2 Intensity of Customer Engagement

Across Product Categories
In order to identify the intensity of particular forms of customer engage-
ment, the respondents from distinct consumer markets were asked about
their activities beyond purchase, that have brands or firms focus, and are
undertaken within customer-to-customer or customer-to-firm interac-
tions. Below we discuss some descriptive statistics regarding the full list of
customer engagement activities under study to present a broad picture of
engagement among Polish consumers (see Table 4.3).
Based on the means calculated for each form of CE, customer com-
plaints turned to be the most intensive activity undertaken by consumers
(mean 3.18). Slightly lower result is obtained for customers’ communica-
tion (3.08). On the other hand, the mean for customer collaboration is the
lowest one (2.74). The respondents’ answers about their activism were mea-
sured on a 5-point Likert scale, so the results close to 3.0 (neither agree nor
disagree) for each CE form indicate that the overall intensity of those forms
of customer engagement among Polish consumers is not substantial yet.
Referring to the intensity of CE on four consumer markets under study,
quite marginal differences are observed in case of customers’ communica-
tion: mean for each product category is close to 3.1. As to customer com-
plaints intensity, the highest mean is obtained for banking products
(3.30), and then for mobile phones (3.25). Customer collaboration is the
most intensive in case of banking products (2.81) and beer (2.80). The
respondents’ answers with regard to the specific examples of engagement
within each form were more diverse, and that is discussed below.
Table 4.3 The intensity of customer engagement forms among consumers
88
Total Mobile Banking

sample Clothing Beer phones products
Customer engagement form Customer engagement examples N = 2080 (n = 521) (n = 520) (n = 518) (n = 521)
Customers’ communication 1. I write positive product reviews 3.08 3.08 3.10 3.10 3.05
in the Internet.
2. I personally encourage my
relatives or peers to buy product
that I’m using.
K. Żyminkowska
3. I upload brand- or firm-related

pictures, films in the Internet.
4. I share my negative opinions about
brands or firms in the Internet.
5. I personally advise my relatives or
peers against purchasing certain
products or brands.
6. I help my relatives or peers to
select proper products.
7. I participate in the
recommendation programmes.
8. I click ‘likes’ related to brand/firms.
(continued)
Customer complaints 1. I file the formal, written 3.18 3.12 3.06 3.25 3.30
complaints.
2. I provide information verbally if
something is wrong with the
product during or after purchase.
3. I fill questionnaires to inform
about my dissatisfaction.
4. I answer the call centre questions
informing them about my
dissatisfaction.
5. I return products without giving
any reason.
6. I answer additional questions
while my complaint is proceeded.
7. I complain to other institutions,
such as consumer right advisor or
media.
(continued)
89
90

Customer collaboration 8. I participate in surveys 2.74 2.60 2.80 2.74 2.81
concerning my needs and
expectations of the products.
9. I submit my product designs.
10. I submit my suggestions of
K. Żyminkowska
improvements in firms’ products,

packages, sale, promotion (e.g.
firm website), and so on.
11. I vote for the products or brands.
12. I take the opportunity to
personalize the offer.
13. I participate in firm or brand
contests, e.g. providing the idea
of packages or ads.
14. I attend the events associated
with brands or firms.
15. I participate in crowdfunding to
finance new products (e.g. I pay
in some money in the Internet).
Customers’ Communication
Among eight examples of customers’ communication activities (i.e.

customer-to-customer communication), the respondents are relatively
active in helping relatives or peers to select proper products: 69% of
respondents agree (strongly or somewhat) that they undertake such an
activity (see Fig. 4.1). Substantial proportion of surveyed consumers
declare that they are active in spreading positive word-of-mouth: 69%
respondents personally encourage relatives or friends to buy certain prod-
ucts and 50% ‘click’ likes related to brand or firm. Regarding negative
word-of-mouth, 45% of respondents agree (strongly or somewhat), that
they advise others against purchasing certain products or brands, and
Customers' communication
I help my relatives or peers to select proper

69%
products.
I personally encourage my relatives or peers

69%
to buy product that I’m using.
I cl i ck “likes” related to brand/firms. 50%
I personally advise my relatives or peers

against purchasing certain products or 45%
brands.
I write positive product reviews in the
43%
Internet.
I participate in the recommendation

33%
programs.
I share my negative opinions about brands

23%
or firms in the Internet.
I upload brand or firm related pictures,

22%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Fig. 4.1 Examples of customers’ communication activities undertaken by

respondents
92 K. Żyminkowska
I upload brand or firm related pictures,
5
I personally encourage my relatives or peers 4 I share my negative opinions about
to buy product that I’m using. brands or firms in the Internet.
3
2
I help my relatives or peers to select
1 I participate in the recommendation
proper products.
programs.
I personally advise my relatives or I write positive product reviews

peers against purchasing certain in the Internet.
products or brands.
I click “likes” related to brand/firms.
Clothing (n=521) Beer (n=520) Mobile phones (n=518) Banking products (n=521)
Fig. 4.2 Customers’ communication activities undertaken by respondents across

product categories
23% agreed that they share negative opinions about the brands of firms
in the Internet. The latter activity is relatively uncommon among the
Polish consumers, just as uploading brand- or firm-related content in the
Internet, which is declared by only 22% of respondents.
Comparing the activism of the Polish consumers across distinct prod-
uct markets, no substantial differences in customers’ communication are
revealed (see Fig. 4.2 that presents the means for all examples of custom-
ers’ communication behaviours under study). This would indicate that
perhaps the intensity of customers’ communication activities is not
dependent on the product category.
Customer Complaints
Regarding customer complaining behaviour, the second form of CE dis-

tinguished in this book, respondents quite frequently engage in the activ-
ities initiated by firms, that is, customers answer additional questions
while the complaint is proceeded (67% of customers agree, strongly or
somewhat, that they undertake such actions), and answer call centre
questions on dissatisfaction (64%) (see Fig. 4.3). On the other hand,
Customer complaints
I answer additional questions while my

67%
complaint is proceeded.
I provide information verbally if something

is wrong with the product during or after 66%
purchase.
I answer the call center questions informing

64%
them about my dissatisfaction.
I fill questionnaires to inform about my

52%
dissatisfaction.
I file the formal, written complaints. 46%
I complain to other institutions, such as

22%
consumer right advisor or media.
I return products without giving any reason. 18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Fig. 4.3 Examples of customer complaining activities undertaken by respondents
complaining to the other institutions, such as media or consumer right

advisor, is quite rare among the Polish consumers, only 22% agree to
undertake such activity.
The analysis also revealed that there are some differences in cus-
tomer complaining behaviour across product categories under study
(see Fig. 4.4). The highest intensity of customer complaints is found
in case of banking products—means for all examples of customer
complaining activities on that market, except filing written com-
plaints, are higher than that of the remaining product categories’ mar-
kets. This intensity is also relatively high for mobile phones, where
three examples of customer complaining behaviour have the means
higher than average for total sample. Both banking products and
94 K. Żyminkowska
Customer complaints
I return products without giving any reason.
5
I answer additional questions while my 4 I complain to other institutions, such as
complaint is proceeded. consumer right advisor or media.
3
1
I provide information verbally if something
is wrong with the product during or after I file the formal, written complaints.
purchase.
I answer the call center questions informing I fill questionnaires to inform about my
them about my dissatisfaction. dissatisfaction.
Fig. 4.4 Customer complaining activities undertaken by respondents across

product categories
mobile phones belong to the high involvement thinking product cat-

egories (according to FCB grid), so perhaps the intensity of customer
complaining behaviour is higher in case of such objects, compared
with two other categories under study, perceived as high involvement
feeling product (clothing) and low involvement feeling product (beer)
according to the FCB grid.
Customer Collaboration
The intensity of customer collaboration activism, third form of CE

analysed in the book, is relatively lower than the previous forms, that
is, customer complaints and customers’ communication. The only
customer activity in which frequency is higher than 50% is the col-
laboration initiated by firms: 55% of respondents agree (strongly or
somewhat) that they participate in surveys concerning their needs
and product expectations (see Fig. 4.5). Activities undertaken by cus-
tomers themselves, as submitting product designs or suggestions for
improvements, are still very rare among Polish consumers (14% and
22% respectively).
Customer collaboration
I participate in surveys concerning my

55%
needs and expectations of the products.
I vote for the products or brands. 50%
I take the opportunity to personalize the

50%
offer.
I attend the events associated with brands

31%
or firms.
I participate in firm or brand contests, e.g.

30%
providing the idea of packages or ads.
I submit my suggestions of improvements in

firms’ products, packages, sale, promotion 22%
(e.g. firm website) etc.
I submit my product designs. 14%
I participate in crowdfunding to finance

new products (e.g. I pay in some money in 12%
the Internet).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Fig. 4.5 Examples of customer collaboration activities undertaken by respondents
Some differences in customer collaboration behaviour across product

categories under study were found. The highest intensity of customer
collaboration is revealed in case of beer: means for five examples of cus-
tomer collaboration activities are higher than in the remaining product
categories (see Fig. 4.6). The intensity of customer collaboration is also
relatively high for banking products, where four examples of customer
collaboration behaviour have the means higher than average for total
sample. This would indicate that the customer activism in collaboration
with brand or firm may be initiated not only for high involvement
product categories, but also in case of low involvement ones.
96 K. Żyminkowska
I participate in crowdfunding to
finance new products (e.g. I pay in
some money in the Internet).
5
I participate in surveys concerning
my needs and expectations of the 4 I submit my product designs.
products.
3
2
I submit my suggestions of
I vote for the products or brands. 1 improvements in firms’ products,
packages, sale, promotion (e.g. firm
website) etc.
I participate in firm or brand

I take the opportunity to personalize contests, e.g. providing the idea of
the offer. packages or ads.
I attend the events associated with

brands or firms.
Fig. 4.6 Customer collaboration activities undertaken by respondents across

product categories
4.3 C
ustomer Values in Driving the Customer
Engagement
To answer the question included in the title of this chapter, ‘Why do
consumers engage?’, the respondents were asked about their motivations
to engage. We attempted to identify how important are various consumer
values (or customer perceived benefits) in driving the customer engage-
ment. The list of 11 customer perceived values under study is included in
Table 4.4. Those values reflect customer value dimensions recognized
previously in the marketing literature (see Chap. 3). Respondents declared
how important are those values in driving their engagement focused on
brands or firms using 5-point Likert scale.
According to the opinions of 2080 surveyed consumers, the values within
the utilitarian dimension are the most important motivations for CE: mean
close to 4.0 implies that respondents consider those values as rather impor-
tant CE drivers. Remaining, rather important CE motivations include
enjoyment, acquiring new skills (3.8), and curiosity (3.7) that represent
emotional and experiential value dimension. Furthermore, no significant
differences among product categories under study are observed as to the
importance of individual consumer benefits driving the engagement.
Table 4.4 The importance of customer values in driving customer engagement
Perceived values of sample Clothing Beer phones products
Customer value dimensions engagement N = 2080 (n = 521) (n = 520) (n = 518) (n = 521)
Hedonic Emotional and experiential Enjoyment 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.7
Curiosity 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.7
Acquiring new skills 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.8
Receiving the invitation to 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3
interesting event
Symbolic and social Making contacts with other 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2
users
Joining the consumer 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0
communities (e.g. brand
fans)
Being respected by others 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.3
(peers, users)
Priority in receiving news 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6
(e.g. about new products)
Utilitarian Functional Getting a better product 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1
Economic Receiving discounts for 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
next shopping
Receiving the material 3.8 3.7 3.9 3.8 3.8
reward
97
98 K. Żyminkowska
Enjoyment
5
Receiving the material reward Curiosity
4
Receiving discounts for next 3

Acquiring new skills
shopping
2
1
Receiving the invitation to
Getting a better product
interesting event
Priority in receiving news Making contacts with other users

Being respected by others Joining the consumer communities
(peers, users) (e.g. brand fans)
Younger than 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 or more
Fig. 4.7 Customer engagement values across the age segments
However, more diversity in the respondents’ opinions on CE motiva-

tions is revealed across customer segments. For the youngest consumers
(less than 18 years old) all benefits of engagement under study are more
important than for older persons. The only exception to this observation
is the priority in receiving news that is more important for consumers in
the age between 18 and 44 than for the youngest respondents (see
Fig. 4.7). The findings indicate the overall tendency: the younger the
customer, the higher the importance of perceived values in driving his/
her engagement.
Similar tendency is observed across customer segments according to
their feel about current household’s income: the better feel, the higher
importance of customer engagement benefits (see Fig. 4.8).
Returning to the findings on the customer benefits that drive customer
engagement across distinct product categories, we attempted to designate
the most and the least important customer benefits according to the
respondents’ opinion. It turned out that the same customer values are
indicated by respondents in each product category under study (see
Fig. 4.9). In the respondents’ opinion, receiving discounts for next shop-
ping, which is the example of economic value (the element of the utilitar-
ian value dimension), and getting a better product, which is the example
Enjoyment
5
Receiving the material reward Curiosity
4
Receiving discounts for next 3

Acquiring new skills
shopping
2
1
Receiving the invitation to
Getting a better product
interesting event
Priority in receiving news Making contacts with other users

Being respected by others Joining the consumer communities
(peers, users) (e.g. brand fans)
Living comfortably on present income

Coping on present income
Finding it difficult or very difficult on present income
Fig. 4.8 Customer engagement values across the income segments
of functional value (also the component of the utilitarian value dimen-

sion), are the most important benefits that drive CE in each consumer
market under study, that is, clothing, beer, mobile phones, and banking
products. On the other hand, joining the consumer communities and
making contacts with other users, which are the examples of social and
symbolic values (elements of the hedonic value dimensions), are the least
important CE drivers according to the consumers’ opinion.
So our study revealed that the utilitarian values are more important
CE drivers than the hedonic ones according to the respondents. But does
it mean that the utilitarian values have stronger impact on customer
engagement activities undertaken by customers than the hedonic ones?
To answer this question the structural equation modelling was used, as
we mentioned in Sect. 4.1. The results indicate that hedonic value dimen-
sion impact on CE is positive and higher (0.66, p < 0.01) than the utili-
tarian dimension, which also influences CE positively, but the impact is
a bit weaker (0.22, p < 0.01). Besides, the percentage of variance in CE
explained by the antecedents, that is, hedonic and utilitarian dimensions
of customer value (CV), is quite high: 67%. Moreover, the impact of
100 K. Żyminkowska
The most important CE benefits The least important CE benefits

5 5
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1

4 4
3.1 3.3 3.2 3.2
3.0 3.1 3.0 3.0
3 3
2 2
1 1
Clothing Beer Mobile Banking Clothing Beer Mobile Banking
(n=521) (n=520) phones products (n=521) (n=520) phones products
(n=518) (n=521) (n=518) (n=521)
Receiving discounts for next shopping Joining the consumer communities (e.g. brand fans)
Getting a better product Making contacts with other users
Fig. 4.9 The most and the least important customer engagement motivations
across product categories
hedonic dimension of CV on CE is higher than the impact of utilitarian

dimension in each product category tested under the study. However, in
case of clothing and mobile phones (examples of high involvement prod-
uct categories) it is more evident (0.67, p < 0.01) than in case of beer
(0.57, p < 0.01). The highest impact of hedonic value dimension is dem-
onstrated for banking products (0.75, p < 0.01). Concerning the inter-
face of utilitarian dimension of CV and CE, the impact is stronger in low
involvement product category such as beer (0.31, p < 0.01), than in
clothing (0.21, p < 0.01) and mobile phones (0.23, p < 0.01). What is
quite interesting is the utilitarian value dimension impact on CE is not
significant in case of banking products, the only product category in this
study that represents services.
4.4 C
ustomer Involvement and Loyalty
Impact on Customer Engagement
In order to compare the influence of customer values on customer
engagement with the impact of other CE drivers suggested in the litera-
ture (i.e. customer involvement and customer loyalty), first the level of
Unimportant Important
Boring Interesting
Irrelevant Relevant
Unexciting Exciting
Means nothing Means a lot
Unappealing Appealing
Mundane Fascinating
Worthless Valuable
Uninvolving Involving
Not needed Needed
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Total Sample Clothing Beer Mobile phones Banking products
Fig. 4.10 Customer involvement with four product categories
involvement and loyalty towards four product categories under study is

recognized among Polish consumers.
According to Zaichkowsky, customer involvement is a customer’s
perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and
interests (1985). We applied 10-item involvement scale (Zaichkowsky
1994) to measure the respondents’ involvement with four product cat-
egories under study. The semantic differential scale was used and the
items on the left were scored −3, low involvement to +3 high involve-
ment on the right (see Fig. 4.10). Not surprisingly, the highest level of
customer involvement appeared with clothing (mean equals 1.25). On
the other hand, banking products turned to be the category with the
lowest respondents’ involvement (0.59), what contrasts with the posi-
tion of this category in FCB grid as the high involvement thinking
product (Vaughn 1986).
Customer loyalty towards a brand is a positively biased emotive evalu-
ation and/or behavioural response tendency towards a branded, labelled
or graded alternative or choice by an individual (Sheth and Park 1974).
Therefore, according to a two-dimensional definition of loyalty (Day
102 K. Żyminkowska
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
4
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3
1
N=2.080 Clothing (n=521) Beer (n=520) Mobile phones Banking products
(n=518) (n=521)
Advocacy loyalty Purchasing loyalty Retention loyalty Overall loyalty
Fig. 4.11 Loyalty towards product categories under study
1969), it should be evaluated on the basis of both attitudinal and behav-

ioural criteria. To measure customer loyalty towards the brands within
four product categories we applied the indicators proposed by Hayes
(2009) for advocacy, purchasing, and retention loyalty, which included
both attitudinal and behavioural criteria (see Table 4.2). Polish customers
declared the highest level of loyalty to the beer brands (mean 3.8), and
the lowest towards the brands of banking products (3.5); however, the
differences among four product categories are not significant (see
Fig. 4.11).
To compare the influence of both CE drivers, the structural equation
modelling was used. The analyses provide support for the close and posi-
tive linkage between loyalty and involvement and CE forms. Those effects
are quite strong for customers’ communication and customer collabora-
tion (0.92, p < 0.01 and 0.90, p < 0.01 respectively), and also strong for
customer complaints (0.58, p < 0.01). However, customer loyalty impact
on CE is stronger (0.48, p < 0.01) than involvement influence (0.10,
p < 0.01), and this is apparent across each product category tested under
study. Additionally, the customer involvement impact on CE is not sta-
tistically significant in case of beer. Involvement and loyalty together
explain only 30% of CE variance.
References
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Day, G. S. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of
Advertising Research, 9(3), 29–36.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate
Data Analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Hayes, B. E. (2009). Beyond Ultimate Question: A Systematic Approach to Improve
Customer Loyalty. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Hollebeek, L. D. (2011). Demystifying Customer Brand Engagement: Exploring
the Loyalty Nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7–8), 785–807.
Behavior in Value Co-creation: A Service System Perspective. Journal of
Lattemann, С., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2006). Customer Governance – IC Based
Concepts for a Successful Customer Integration. In M. Hannula,
A.-M. Järvelin, & M. Seppä (Eds.), Frontiers of e-Business Research Conference
Proceedings (pp. 93–206). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of
Technology.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, F. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct
Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research:
Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 35(2), 293–334.
Marbach, J., Lages, C. R., & Nunan, D. (2016). Who Are You and What Do
You Value? Investigating the Role of Personality Traits and Customer-
Perceived Value in Online Customer Engagement. Journal of Marketing
Management, 32(5–6), 502–525.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rajah, E., Marshall, R., & Nam, I. (2008). Relationship Glue: Customers and
Marketers Co-creating a Purchase Experience. Advances in Consumer Research,
35, 367–373.
104 K. Żyminkowska
Rohrbeck, R., Steinhoff, F., & Perder, F. (2010). Sourcing Innovation from You
117–131.
Sheth, J. N., & Park, W. C. (1974). A Theory of Multidimensional Brand
Loyalty. Advances in Consumer Research, 1, 449–459.
Stauss, B., & Seidel, W. (2007). Beschwerdemanagement. Unzufriedene Kunden
als profitable Zielgruppe. Munchen: Hanser Verlag.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval
Estimation Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum
Likelihood Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.
Vaughn, R. (1986). How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited.
Journal of Advertising Research, 26(1), 57–66.
Verhagen, T., Swen, E., Feldberg, F., & Merikivi, J. (2015). Benefitting from
Virtual Customer Environments: An Empirical Study of Customer
Engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 340–357.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of
Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction,
Revision, and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4),
59–70.
5
Firms’ Practices in Customer
Engagement Management
Abstract Firms should manage not only CE they initiate, but also CE
initiated by customers. Based on the findings of survey conducted in 402
companies, Żyminkowska reveals current practices in the CE manage-
ment and its firm-level effects across distinct industries, including bene-
fits and risks. She uncovers rather low intensity of CE in firms’ practices
and some disparities across CE forms, industries, and types of business.
Although Żyminkowska finds the positive impact of CE management
process on firm performance, this chapter confirms immaturity of CE
management process in firms indicating the gaps that need to be addressed
in order to minimize the risks and thus manage customer engagement
profitably.
Keywords Customer engagement management process • Customer

engagement benefits • Customer engagement risks • Firm performance
• Empirical findings on customer engagement
It’s important to emphasize that firms may and should manage not only
CE they initiate, but also CE initiated by customers themselves. In this

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_5
106 K. Żyminkowska
chapter, we discuss the methodology and findings of empirical research

uncovering whether firms manage CE in the systematic way and what are
the effects of such management efforts. In this chapter, we answer three
consecutive research questions formulated in the introduction to this
book. First, what is the intensity of the forms of customer engagement in
companies’ practices across distinct industries? We attempt to recognize
CE examples initiated by both firms and customers themselves, as well as
customers’ behavioural manifestations occurring in both online and
offline environment. Second, we attempt to answer whether and how
companies manage customer engagement by exploring CE management
process in firms and its components. To answer the third research ques-
tion on the firm-level outcomes of customer engagement we recognize
detailed firm-level benefits (including customer asset management issues)
and risks associated with CE, as well as CE impact on firm
performance.
Based on research findings discussed in this chapter we obtain the
knowledge on whether and to what extent firms’ practices in the CE
management differ from the normative model. Therefore, this chapter
identifies the gaps in CE management process implicating the potential
scopes for its improvements in order to minimize CE risks and increase
profitability of CE for firms.
5.1 M
ethodology of Research of Firms’
Practices in Customer Engagement
Management
We conducted an empirical study in firms operating in the field of con-
sumer goods and services. The sampling framework was stratified by
industry type and number of employees to represent the population
structure of firms registered in Poland employing at least five persons.
The sample was selected from the Polish Bisnode database by Dun &
Bradstreet since all firms registered in the Central Statistical Office in
Poland are included in Bisnode. Total number of firms in this database is
approximately 6.3 million. We focused on firms operating in the following
Firms’ Practices in Customer Engagement Management 107
consumer markets: fashion, food and beverages, household appliances,

and banking and financial services. In each firm one manager responsible
for marketing or marketing-related activities (such as customer relation-
ship management, promotion campaigns, customer complaints manage-
ment, new product development and innovation, etc.) was interviewed.
The data was collected through computer-assisted telephone interviewing
(CATI) between August 22 and September 21, 2017. From a total sam-
ple framework of 9384 companies, we collected data from 402 firms
(Table 5.1 presents sample description).
It is important to highlight that our research on customer engagement in
firms refers to the management practices that firms undertake towards the
certain type of customers, that is, individuals. We then refer to consumer
buyers, final consumers, or consumer end users of particular consumption
goods and services. This way we recognize the intensity of engaging con-
sumers in firms’ marketing process and management functions in order to
compare it with the findings on the intensity of engagement among con-
sumers themselves. Therefore, in our research, we do not refer to the cus-
tomer engagement within business-to-business interactions.
To measure customer engagement management process in firms and
its outcomes we adopted and developed the conceptualizations and sets
of items based on the existing literature (see Table 5.2 for items and refer-
Table 5.1 Firms’ sample characteristics

Consumer goods/services sector Fashion 24.9%
Food and beverages 25.1%
Household appliances 24.9%
Banking and financial services 25.1%
Predominating business of firm Manufacturing 29.9%
Trading 56.2%
Services 39.6%
Number of employees 5–9 31.6%
10–49 37.3%
50–249 22.9%
250 and more 8.2%
Management position of the Lower 10.2%
interviewee Middle 34.3%
Upper 55.5%
Table 5.2 Validity and reliability statistics for variables used in firms’ research
108
Average
variance Composite Alpha
Customer engagement forms
Items based on: Verleye et al. (2014), Muntinga et al. (2011), Stauss and Seidel (2007), Jaakkola and Alexander (2014),
and Rohrbeck et al. (2010, see chapter 2.2).
Customers’ communication In my company we deal with customers’ 0.478 0.864 0.849
communication about our products/brands or
K. Żyminkowska
firm in the following ways:

1. We initiate the consumers’ discussion about
firm, brand, or product on our website, fun
page, and so on.
2. We encourage our consumers to click ‘likes’
for our firm, brand, products, or posts.
3. We encourage consumers to share the
content, pictures, and movies that we deliver.
4. W e answer negative consumers’ comments
about brand, firm, or products.
5. W e initiate the consumers’ discussion about
firm, brand, or product on internet forums,
discussion groups, and so on.
6. W e have recommendation programme for
our consumers.
7. W e collaborate with independent bloggers
who initiate the consumers’ discussions
about our products or firm.
(continued)
Average
Customer complaints In my company we make use of customer 0.418 0.798 0.787
complaints received in the following ways:
1. Filed to the firm formally, in writing.
2. Provided verbally, when consumers inform
that something is wrong with the product
during or after purchase.
3. Included in surveys that we conduct, where
consumers may speak or write about their
dissatisfaction.
4. Provided to call centre or customer service
staff by consumers who inform about their
dissatisfaction.
5. Provided by consumers who answer
additional questions while their complaints
are proceeded.
6. Filed to other institutions than firm, for
example to media, consumer rights advisor.
(continued)
Firms’ Practices in Customer Engagement Management
109
110
Average
Customer collaboration In my company we engage consumers in the 0.465 0.885 0.896
following forms of collaboration during
development of various ideas and solutions:
1. We invite consumers to participate in surveys
concerning their preferences about products
K. Żyminkowska
or ideas.
2. We encourage consumers to submit their
own product designs (e.g. in design contests).
3. We gather consumer suggestions on
products, packages, promotion (including
website), or sales.
4. We organize customer voting for the
products/brands.
5. We give consumers the opportunity to
personalize the offer according to their
needs and preferences.
6. We organize various contests for consumers
for submitting the ad or package designs.
7. We organize events for consumers, related
to our brands, products or firm.
8. We organize crowdfunding to finance our
product prototypes.
9. We make data on product prototypes
available to consumers so as they could
improve it.
(continued)
Average
Customer engagement management process
Items based on: van Doorn et al. (2010), Kumar et al. (2010), Verhoef and Lemon (2013), Kumar (2013), and Harmeling
et al. (2017, see chapter 3.1).
Components of CE How would you describe CE management in your 0.529 0.885 0.903
management process firm?
1. Consumer engagement strategy is a
component of customer relationship
management in our firm.
2. We purchase some services from external
partners to manage consumer engagement.
3. There are designated organizational units
responsible for consumer engagement in our
firm.
4. We have effective information systems and
procedures to enable our consumers to
communicate their concerns, complaints,
suggestions, or ideas directly to our firm.
5. We have established processes and platforms
that enable our consumers to communicate
one another, spreading opinions, advice,
pictures etc.
6. We offer set of tangible and intangible
incentives for engaging consumers (e.g.

rewards for recommendations, ideas, ranks
etc.).
7. We measure costs and effects of customer
111
engagement.
(continued)
112
Average
Customer engagement effects
Firm benefits and risks items based on: Bartl et al. (2012), Siakas and Siakas (2016), Hoyer et al. (2010), and Beckers et al.
(2016, see chapters 2.3 and 5.4).
Firm performance items based on Rust et al. (2004, see chapter 5.3).
CE benefits From my company standpoint, the customer 0.448 0.829 0.833
K. Żyminkowska
engagement benefit is:

1. Reducing time and costs of acquiring and
using customer data.
2. Decreasing risk of introducing new products
or new solutions.
3. Broader decision base since several products
or solutions can be tested simultaneously.
4. Increased customer satisfaction.
5. Increased market share.
6. Acquisition of new customers.
7. Increased customer retention.
(continued)
Average
CE risks From my company standpoint, the customer 0.520 0.884 0.894
engagement risk is:
1. Lack of or diminishing control of business
processes.
2. Additional costs of integrating customers’
ideas in business processes and coordinating
those processes.
3. Receiving ideas infeasible from firm
standpoint due to lack of customer
knowledge.
4. Lack of target market orientation.
5. Information overload.
6. Loss of secrecy of information or know-how
for competitors’ advantage.
Firm performance How do you assess performance metrics in your 0.699 0.874 0.787
firm for the last three years comparing with
your key competitors:
1. Sales growth
2. Market share
3. Net profit
113
114 K. Żyminkowska
ences to relevant chapters of the book). A pretest with 31 firms was con-
ducted to evaluate the reliability of the concepts before the final survey
and to check the validity of the questionnaire. After the pretest a few
modifications were made to obtain higher quality of analysis later. To
operationalize the items 5-point Likert scales were used to measure all
variables.
We supported convergent validity of all measures as all standardized
factor loadings and average variances extracted (AVE) surpassed (or were
close to) the recommended value of 0.50 (MacKenzie et al. 2011) and all
composite reliability scores exceeded the recommended value of 0.70
(Hair et al. 2010). The internal reliability of all scales is significant: all
constructs present the Cronbach Alphas above the recommended values
of 0.70 (Nunnally 1978) (see Table 5.2 for detailed statistics).
To discover the linkages between CE forms, CE management process,
and firm performance we used the structural equation modelling (SEM)
and Mplus (version 8) for the analysis (Muthén and Muthén 2017). We
estimated structural equation model. The fit indices, that is, CFI, TLI,
and RMSEA reveal that the model’s fits are quite good (Bentler 1990;
Tucker and Lewis 1973; Steiger 1990). In our analysis, both CFI and TLI
were above 0.95 or even close to 1.0 which confirms evaluation of good-
ness of fit of the model. RMSEA estimates are less than 0.05, which
indicates that the model approximates the true model appropriately.
5.2 Intensity of Customer Engagement Forms

in Firms’ Practices
In order to assess the intensity of customer engagement in firms’ prac-
tices, the managers were asked to refer to detailed examples of consumer
activism among each particular CE form. Concerning customers’ com-
munication about focal brand or firm in the interactions among consum-
ers, the most frequent firms’ practices include reaction (answering) to the
negative consumers’ comments (66% of firms agree, strongly or some-
what, to undertake such efforts), and encouraging customers to click
‘likes’ in social media (62%) (see Fig. 5.1). Relatively few firms initiate
Fig. 5.1 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to the customers’ communication
115
116 K. Żyminkowska
customers’ communication about brand or firm: only 37% of companies

initiate the discussions in firm’s media (website, fan page), and 23% initi-
ate such conversations in the external channels (internet forum, discus-
sion groups, etc.). The companies quite rarely collaborate with
independent bloggers to make them initiate the consumers’ discussions
about products or firms (only 12% of surveyed companies).
On the other hand, firms are more operative in utilizing customer
complaints (see Fig. 5.2). More than three quarters of companies make
use of complaints provided verbally during or after purchase (81% of
firms agreed) and in writing (75%). Quite frequently companies use cus-
tomers’ input provided when the complaints are proceeded (73%).
With regard to companies’ practices in utilizing customer collabora-
tion behaviour, organizing the events dedicated to brand or firm is the
most frequent activity (48% of firms agree, strongly or somewhat, to do
it), next to giving the consumers the opportunity to personalize the offer
(44%) (see Fig. 5.3). Only 6% of surveyed companies organize crowd-
funding to finance product prototypes, and 8% organize customer voting
for the products or brands offered.
Generally, the potential of customer collaboration, just like the cus-
tomers’ communication capabilities, is still weakly utilized by the sur-
Fig. 5.2 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to customer

complaints
Fig. 5.3 Firms’ practices in customer engagement with reference to customer

collaboration
veyed firms. The mean of engaging consumers by companies ranges from

2.1 for collaboration with consumers, through 2.57 for managing con-
sumers’ communication, to 3.50 for using customers’ complaints (see
Table 5.3). There are some disparities in the intensity of main CE forms
in firms’ practices among companies representing distinct industries
under study. Companies in fashion and household appliances declare
slightly higher intensity of practices in utilizing customers’ communica-
tion, than remaining firms, however the mean 2.66 indicates ambivalent
attitude to such efforts (neither agree nor disagree). On the other hand,
companies in banking and financial services have the highest mean for
using customer complaints (3.91) compared with remaining firms, espe-
cially with fashion firms (3.08). As to the intensity of practices in utiliz-
ing customer collaboration, it is slightly higher in banking and financial
industry (2.29) than in the other firms, however considering 5-point
Likert scale used to measure this efforts, it indicates that companies
somewhat disagree that those actions are undertaken. Results for detailed
firms’ actions within each CE form are also a little diverse across indus-
tries under study (see Table 5.3).
118 K. Żyminkowska
Table 5.3 Firms’ practices in customer engagement across industries under study
Banking
and
Total Food and Household financial
Customer sample beverages Fashion appliances services
engagement forms (N = 402) (n = 101) (n = 102) (n = 100) (n = 101)
Customers’ 2.57 2.57 2.66 2.66 2.54
communication
We initiate the 2.57 2.39 2.82 2.40 2.66
consumers’
discussion about
firm, brand, or
product on our
website, fun
page, and so on
We encourage our 3.47 3.74 3.54 3.44 3.16
consumers to click
‘likes’ for our
firm, brand,
products, or posts
We encourage 2.47 2.40 2.63 2.50 2.35
consumers to
share the content,
pictures, and
movies that we
deliver
We answer 3.73 4.03 3.42 3.62 3.84
negative
consumers’
comments about
brand, firm, or
products
We initiate the 2.09 2.18 2.27 2.07 1.85
consumers
discussion about
firm, brand, or
product on
internet forums,
discussion groups,
and so on
We have 2.08 2.20 1.98 2.10 2.02
recommendation
programme for
our consumers
(continued)
Banking
and
We collaborate 1.61 1.69 1.96 1.62 1.18
with independent
bloggers who
initiate the
consumers
discussions about
our products or
firm
Customer 3.50 3.56 3.08 3.41 3.91
complaints
Filed to the firm 4.16 3.94 4.00 4.11 4.57
formally, in
writing
Provided verbally, 4.19 4.47 3.81 4.24 4.24
when consumers
inform that
something is
wrong with the
product during or
after purchase
Included in surveys 2.57 2.87 2.00 2.31 3.09
that we conduct,
where consumers
may speak or
write about their
dissatisfaction
Provided to call 3.00 3.27 2.35 2.86 3.48
centre or
customer service
staff by
consumers
informing about
their
dissatisfaction
(continued)
120 K. Żyminkowska
Banking
and
Provided by 3.98 3.99 3.62 3.96 4.36
consumers
answering
additional
questions while
their complaints
are proceeded
Filed to other 3.07 2.85 2.72 3.00 3.70
institutions than
firm, for example
to media,
consumer rights
advisor
Customer 2.13 2.15 1.96 2.06 2.29
collaboration
We invite 2.44 2.62 2.41 2.13 2.64
consumers to
participate in
surveys
concerning their
product or ideas
and preferences
We encourage 1.71 1.79 1.71 1.57 1.78
consumers to
submit their own
product designs
(e.g. in design
contests)
We gather 2.42 2.44 2.18 2.28 2.79
consumer
suggestions on
products,
packages,
promotion
(including
website), or sales
(continued)
Banking
and
We organize 1.56 1.69 1.54 1.57 1.47
customer voting
for the products/
brands
We give consumers 2.96 2.39 2.63 3.35 3.33
the opportunity
to personalize the
offer according to
their needs and
preferences
We organize 1.68 1.89 1.47 1.57 1.84
various contest
for consumers for
submitting the ad
or package
designs
We organize events 2.90 3.11 2.43 2.65 3.42
for consumers,
related to our
brands, products,
or firm
We organize 1.52 1.46 1.55 1.53 1.51
crowdfunding to
finance our
product
prototypes
We make data on 1.84 1.94 1.76 1.88 1.81
product
prototypes
available to
consumers so as
they could
improve them
Bold values signify the highest result among four industries
122 K. Żyminkowska
Comparing practices in utilizing the potential of CE in firms with

distinct types of predominating business (see Fig. 5.4), it turns out
that service companies declare the highest level of such an overall
activity and trading firms the lowest one. The latter represents also the
lowest intensity of utilizing customer collaboration and customer
complaints (mean 1.87 and 3.30 respectively). On the other hand,
manufacturing companies declare slightly higher intensity of the
above-mentioned efforts related to customers’ communication than
other firms.
There are also some differences in firms’ CE practices among compa-
nies with distinct types of predominating direct buyer. Firms that sell
mainly to resellers declare the highest CE practices intensity (both overall
as well as across each CE form) among surveyed companies (see Fig. 5.5).
Firms with final consumers as predominating direct buyers declare
slightly lower intensity of the above-mentioned practices. On the other
8
2.27
7 2.03 1.87
6
5
3.88 3.31 3.30
4
2
2.43 2.50 2.48
1
Services Manufacturing Trading
Customers' communication Customer complaints Customer collaboration
Fig. 5.4 Firms’ practices in customer engagement according to predominating

type of business
10
9
8
2.25
7 2.09 2.14
6 2.05
5
3.66 3.56
4 3.40
2.66
3
2 2.80 2.59 2.49 2.08
1
Reseller Final Consumer Final Business User Producer
Customers' communication Customer complaints Customer collaboration
Fig. 5.5 Firms’ practices in customer engagement according to predominating

type of direct buyer
hand, companies selling mainly to producers declare the lowest intensity

of CE efforts regarding each CE form.
5.3 P
rocess of Customer Engagement
Management
In order to recognize whether and how companies manage customer
engagement, respondents were asked to refer to seven components of CE
management process. Existence of effective information systems and pro-
cedures enabling consumers to communicate directly to the firms is the
only component of CE management process that is well established
among the relatively significant proportion of surveyed companies: 50%
of respondents agree (strongly or somewhat) that their companies have
such an infrastructure (see Fig. 5.6). Only 35% of surveyed firms agree
that they have organizational units responsible for customer engagement.
Then, only 32% of firms have established processes and platforms that
124 K. Żyminkowska
We have effective information systems and procedures to

enable our consumers to communicate their concerns, 42% 50%
complaints, suggestions or ideas directly to our firm.
There are designated organizational units responsible for
57% 35%
consumer engagement in our firm.
We have established processes and platforms that enable
our consumers to communicate one another, spreading 60% 32%
opinions, advice, pictures etc.
We offer set of tangible and intangible incentives for
engaging consumers (e.g. rewards for recommendations, 61% 30%
ideas, ranks etc.).
Consumer engagement strategy is a component of
55% 29%
customer relationship management in our firm.
We measure costs and effects of customer engagement. 60% 28%
We purchase some services from external partners to

79% 15%
manage consumer engagement.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Disagree (strongly or somewhat) Neither agree nor disagree

Agree (strongly or somewhat) Don't know
Fig. 5.6 Components of customer engagement management process in firms’

practices
enable customer-to-customer communication. The Polish firms seldom

outsource customer engagement management services from external
partners: only 15% of surveyed firms agree that they purchase such
services.
Considering the above-mentioned research results we posit that the
process of CE management in surveyed companies is still underdevel-
oped. This state is evident across distinct industries under study as well
(see Table 5.4). Firms that offer banking and financial services have the
highest mean for the overall CE management process (2.54); however, it
is still at the level that indicates ambivalent answer (neither agree nor
disagree). On the other hand, fashion firms have the lowest mean for the
overall CE management process (2.42).
The research also reveals some differences as to the level of develop-
ment of CE management process among companies with distinct types
Table 5.4 Components of customer engagement management process in firms’ practices across distinct industries
Total Food and Household Banking and
Components of customer engagement management sample beverages Fashion appliances financial services
process (N = 402) (n = 101) (n = 102) (n = 100) (n = 101)
Consumer engagement strategy is a component of 2.48 2.39 2.26 2.58 2.68
customer relationship management in our firm.
We purchase some services from external partners to 1.78 1.93 1.74 1.87 1.59
manage consumer engagement.
There are designated organizational units 2.50 2.48 2.34 2.48 2.70
responsible for consumer engagement in our firm.
We have effective information systems and 3.02 2.78 2.78 2.97 3.55
procedures to enable our consumers to
communicate their concerns, complaints,
suggestions, or ideas directly to our firm.
We have established processes and platforms that 2.40 2.43 2.50 2.41 2.28
enable our consumers to communicate with one
another, spreading opinions, advice, pictures, and
so on.
We offer a set of tangible and intangible incentives 2.36 2.66 2.14 2.23 2.41
for engaging consumers (e.g. rewards for
recommendations, ideas, ranks, etc.).
We measure costs and effects of customer 2.35 2.29 2.15 2.40 2.57
engagement.
CE management process 2.41 2.42 2.27 2.42 2.54
Bold values signify the highest result among four industries tested under study
125
126 K. Żyminkowska
2.17
Overall CE management process 2.31
2.43
2.10
We measure costs and effects of customer engagement. 2.22
2.45
We offer set of tangible and intangible incentives for engaging 2.07

consumers (e.g. rewards for recommendations, ideas, ranks 2.37
etc.). 2.31
We have established processes and platforms that enable our 2.34

consumers to communicate one another, spreading opinions, 2.35
advice, pictures etc. 2.26
We have effective information systems and procedures to 2.78

enable our consumers to communicate their concerns, 2.70
complaints, suggestions or ideas directly to our firm. 3.28
There are designated organizational units responsible for 2.32

2.21
consumer engagement in our firm. 2.62
We purchase some services from external partners to manage 1.47

1.94
consumer engagement. 1.62
Consumer engagement strategy is a component of customer 2.10

2.38
relationship management in our firm. 2.49
1 2 3 4 5
Manufacturing Trading Services

practices according to predominating type of business
of predominating businesses. The overall CE management process is

slightly more advanced in the service firms (mean 2.43) than in trading
companies (2.31) or manufacturing firms (2.17); however, this score is
still close to the answer ‘somewhat disagree’ in the 5-point Likert scale
(see Fig. 5.7).
Regarding the development of the overall CE management process in
firms with distinct types of predominating direct buyers, companies sell-
ing to final consumers reach the highest score (mean 2.45) that is quite
close to the result of companies that sell mainly to the resellers (2.44) (see
Fig. 5.8). On the other hand, firms selling to producers have the lowest
score (1.84) among surveyed companies.
1.84
Overall CE management process 2.35
2.44
2.45
1.88
We measure costs and effects of customer engagement. 2.31
2.39
2.38
We offer set of tangible and intangible incentives for engaging 1.75

consumers (e.g. rewards for recommendations, ideas, ranks 2.14
2.45
etc.). 2.47
We have established processes and platforms that enable our 1.63

consumers to communicate one another, spreading opinions, 2.26
2.41
advice, pictures etc. 2.47
We have effective information systems and procedures to 1.88

enable our consumers to communicate their concerns, 3.06
2.97
complaints, suggestions or ideas directly to our firm. 3.05
2.13
There are designated organizational units responsible for 2.57
consumer engagement in our firm. 2.65
2.45
1.63
We purchase some services from external partners to manage 1.63
consumer engagement. 1.74
1.86
2.00
Consumer engagement strategy is a component of customer 2.51
relationship management in our firm. 2.44
2.51
1 2 3 4 5
Producer Final Business User Reseller Final Consumer

practices according to predominating type of direct buyer
5.4 F irm-Level Outcomes of Customer

Engagement
Although the intensity of customer engagement in firms’ business prac-
tices is rather low, and the components of the CE management process
are generally insufficiently developed, quite important question about
the firm-level effects of such CE practices arises. In order to recognize
those effects, as mentioned in Sect. 3.1, we draw on the idea of the mar-
keting productivity chain (Rust et al. 2004) and assume the following
logic of the CE effects: marketing strategy and tactics → customer impact
(on satisfaction, attitude towards the brand, loyalty) → marketing assets
(as customer equity) → firm’s market position (market share and
sales) → firm’s financial position (profits and cash flows) → value of the
128 K. Żyminkowska
firm (market capitalization). In order to assess CE effects associated with

customer impact and marketing assets impact the list of benefits was
developed, including customer satisfaction impact, customer acquisition
and retention effects, as well as some more detailed benefits (see Table 5.2).
To recognize firm-level effects of customer engagement also negative out-
comes are taken into the consideration and labelled as CE risks (see
Table 5.2). And finally, to assess a firm’s market position (both sales
growth and market share are consisted in the measurement scale) and
financial position (net profit is included in the scale) we analysed firm
performance using 5-point Likert scale (1 = our firm’s performance is
much worse than the main competitors’ results; 5 = our firm performance
is much better than the main competitors’ results) (see Table 5.2).
Regarding the positive effects of CE (associated with CE customer and
marketing assets impact), increased customer satisfaction and acquisition
of new customers turn to be the highest ranked benefits of CE in sur-
veyed companies (respectively 87% and 86% managers agree, strongly or
somewhat, that these are the CE benefits in their firms) (see Fig. 5.9).
Increased customer satisfaction 87%
Acquisition of new customers 86%
Increased market share 73%
Increased customer retention 72%
Reducing time and costs of acquiring and using

63%
customer data
Broader decision base since several products or

53%
solutions can be tested simultaneously
Decreasing risk of introducing new products or

52%
new solutions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fig. 5.9 Customer engagement benefits in firms’ perspective

Table 5.5 Benefits of customer engagement across distinct industries

Banking
and
Customer engagement sample beverages Fashion appliances services
benefits (N = 402) (n = 101) (n = 102) (n = 100) (n = 101)
Reducing time and 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.7 3.8
costs of acquiring
and using customer
data.
Decreasing risk of 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.6 3.6
introducing new
products or new
solutions.
Broader decision base 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.5
since several products
or solutions can be
tested
simultaneously.
Increased customer 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5
satisfaction.
Increased market 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.1
share.
Acquisition of new 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.3
customers.
Increased customer 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.1
retention.
Overall CE benefits 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0
Other, highly ranked CE benefits include increased market share (73%)

and increased customer retention (72%).
The assessment of CE benefits in surveyed companies representing dis-
tinct industries is quite similar, the means for the overall CE benefits
range from 4.0 in household appliances and banking and financial ser-
vices to 3.8 in fashion and food and beverages sectors (see Table 5.5).
Among CE risks, receiving ideas infeasible from firm standpoint due
to the lack of customer knowledge is the most important one in manag-
ers’ perception: 56% managers agreed that this is the risk in their compa-
nies (see Fig. 5.10). Other risks noticed by significant number of managers
include information overload (54%), the loss of secrecy of information or
know-how for competitors’ advantage (51%), and additional costs of
130 K. Żyminkowska
Receiving ideas infeasible from firm standpoint

56%
due to the lack of customer knowledge
Information overload 54%
Loss of secrecy of information or know-how for

51%
competitors' advantage
Additional costs of integrating customers' ideas in

business processes and coordinating those 46%
processes
Lack of or diminishing control of business

33%
processes
Lack of target market orientation 32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Fig. 5.10 Customer engagement risks in firms’ perspective
integrating customers’ ideas in business processes and coordinating those

processes (46%). On the other hand, only one-third of surveyed compa-
nies perceive the lack of target market orientation and the lack of or
diminishing control of business processes as CE risks (32% and 33%
respectively).
The assessment of CE risks in surveyed companies representing dis-
tinct industries is also quite similar, the means for the overall CE risks
range from 3.3 in household appliances through to 3.2 in fashion and
3.1 in banking and financial and food and beverages sectors (see
Table 5.6).
In view of above-mentioned findings, it is worth noticing that the
awareness of both CE benefits and risks among surveyed firms is slightly
lower in the small companies and higher in larger ones (see Fig. 5.11). In
companies with 250 and more employees the mean of overall CE risks
was 3.37, while in firms with less than 10 employees it was 3.15, in
5-point Likert scale. The mean for overall perceived CE benefits was 4.03
and 3.74 respectively.
Table 5.6 Risks of customer engagement across distinct industries

Banking
and
engagement risks (N = 402) (n = 101) (n = 102) (n = 100) (n = 101)
Lack of or 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8
diminishing control
of business
processes.
Additional costs of 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1
integrating
customers’ ideas in
business processes
and coordinating
those processes.
Receiving ideas 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.5
infeasible from
firm standpoint
due to the lack of
customer
knowledge.
Lack of target 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.7
market orientation.
Information 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.4
overload.
Loss of secrecy of 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.4
information or
know-how for
competitors’
advantage.
Overall CE risks 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1
With regard to the customer engagement influence on the firm perfor-

mance, the analyses included the impact of both firms’ practices within
three forms of customer engagement and the CE management process.
Surprisingly no direct, statistically significant, effect of CE actions on
firm performance is identified in our study (−0.15, p value exceeds 0.5).
However a significant positive impact of CE managerial process on firm
performance is confirmed (0.54, p < 0.05). CE management process
explains 17% of variance in firm performance, which indicates that man-
agerial efforts within customer engagement are just the component of
overall marketing actions. Our analyses also provide strong support for
132 K. Żyminkowska
3.95 4.01 4.03

4
3.74
3.29 3.37
3.15 3.17
3
1
CE benefits CE risks
less than 10 employees 10-48 employees
50-249 employees 250 and more employees
Fig. 5.11 Customer engagement benefits and risks according to firms’ size
the close linkage between CE management process and CE forms occur-

ring in firms (0.91, p < 0.01). Those effects are quite strong for customer
collaboration (0.89, p < 0.01) and also strong for customers’
communication and customer complaints (0.79, p < 0.01, and 0.77,
p < 0.01 respectively). That indicates that the higher level of CE manage-
ment process in a company results in more intensive practices in CE
undertaken by firms. Additionally the percentage of variance in CE
actions undertaken by firms explained by CE managerial process is quite
substantial (76%).
References
Beckers, S. F. M., van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Economic Outcomes
of Customer Engagement: Emerging Finding, Contemporary Theoretical
Perspectives, and Future Challenges. In R. J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, &

J. Conduit (Eds.), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and Challenges
(pp. 21–52). New York: Routledge.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2010). Multivariate
Data Analysis (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
Science, 3, 312–335.
Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010).
Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 283–296.
Behavior in Value Co-creation: A Service System Perspective. Journal of
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, F. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct
Measurement and Validation Procedures in MIS and Behavioral Research:
Integrating New and Existing Techniques. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 35(2), 293–334.
Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs:
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (2017). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Rohrbeck, R., Steinhoff, F., & Perder, F. (2010). Sourcing Innovation from You
117–131.
134 K. Żyminkowska
Rust, R., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G., Kumar, V., & Srivastava, R. (2004).
Measuring Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future
Directions. Journal of Marketing, 68, 76–89.
Siakas, D., & Siakas, K. (2016). User Orientation Through Open Innovation
and Customer Integration. In C. Kreiner, R. V. O’Connor, A. Poth, &
R. Messnarz (Eds.), Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement
(Communications in Computer and Information Science) (Vol. 633,
pp. 325–341). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Stauss, B., & Seidel, W. (2007). Beschwerdemanagement: Unzufriedene Kunden
als profitable Zielgruppe. Munchen: Hanser Verlag.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval
Estimation Approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum
Likelihood Factor Analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.
Verhoef, P. C., & Lemon, K. N. (2013). Successful Customer Value Management:
Key Lessons and Emerging Trends. European Management Journal, 31(1),
1–15.
6
Customer Engagement Trends
and Perspectives in Modern Business
Abstract The findings of a multilevel analysis of customer engagement

intensity in modern business presented in this chapter shed light on CE
management prospects. Żyminkowska provides the macro-scale analysis
of firms’ practices in collaborating with its clients, based on the OECD
and CIS data, and reveals significant disproportions across countries. On
the other hand, she finds the importance of customers as source of infor-
mation for innovation is quite similar in the mezzo-scale, across distinct
industries in Poland. Drawing attention to the firms’ plans for increasing
the intensity of engaging customers during the next years, this chapter
confirms overall positive CE prospects across each industry under study,
although it outlines some disparities across distinct customer engagement
forms.
Keywords Trends in customer activism in modern business •

Perspectives of customer engagement • Firms’ plans for customer
engagement

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_6
136 K. Żyminkowska
Active customers engaged in firms’ processes of creating, communicating,

and delivering customer value are perceived as the source of innovations.
Indeed, CE may result in various product and process innovations.
Moreover, certain CE forms itself may be perceived as process innova-
tions. Therefore CE category is closely related to open innovation issues.
From that perspective, in this chapter we attempt to identify CE trends
and perspectives in the macro- and mezzo-scale and thus to answer the
final research question about the trends and perspectives of customer
engagement management in modern business.
First, we discuss the intensity of firms’ collaboration with customers
on innovation and customers’ importance for firms as partners for inno-
vation activities. Based on the survey results conducted by international
institutions (OECD, Eurostat) we present CE trends in the macro-scale
picture. Second, we try to discover CE trends and perspectives in mezzo-
scale analysing CE phenomenon in distinct industries and markets, based
on our research conducted among consumers and firms. The findings of
a multilevel analysis of CE intensity in modern business presented in this
chapter shed light on CE management prospects in modern business.
6.1 T
rends in Customer Activism
Across Countries
As mentioned in Chap. 1, open and user innovation issues are closely
associated with customer engagement concept, as all of them refer to the
customer activism within firms’ business processes. Therefore, the analy-
ses of firms’ practices in collaborating on innovation with clients are quite
valuable in the recognition of the macro-scale picture of customer activ-
ism, including engagement phenomenon. It is evident that the intensity
of such practices is highly diversified across distinct countries. Among 28
countries under the study of OCED (2017), Finland and Denmark have
the highest proportion of large businesses (more than 249 employees)
that collaborated with clients on the innovation (68% and 53% respec-
tively) during the years 2012–2014 (see Fig. 6.1). Collaboration is
understood as the active participation in joint innovation projects,

excluding pure contracting in this research.
Customer Engagement Trends and Perspectives in Modern… 137
Fig. 6.1 Business collaborating on innovation with clients, by size, 2012–2014 (as
percentage of product and/or process-innovating businesses in each size cate-
gory). *Australia 2014–2015, Chile 2013–2014, Korea 2013–2015. Based on OECD
(2017)
138 K. Żyminkowska
On the other hand, Chile and Korea have the lowest proportion of
large businesses that collaborate with clients on the innovation (5% and
7% respectively). It is also apparent that the large business cooperate on
innovation with its customers more frequently than the small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) hire 10–249 employees. Only SMEs from Island,
Korea and Chile are more active than large firms in such a cooperation.
It is also worth noticing that the United Kingdom is the only country
under the study having balanced proportion of SMEs and large firms
that collaborate with clients on innovation (46% and 47% respectively).
The Community Innovation Survey (CIS 2014), conducted in the
European countries, reveals that the proportion of firms that perceive
customers as the most valuable partners for innovation activities under-
taken during the years 2012–2014 is rather low. Norway has the highest
proportion of such companies among the selected countries under the
study that is close to 5% (see Fig. 6.2). Germany, that is the largest
European economy, hosts 1.6% of firms for which clients or customers
are the most valuable partner for innovation activities.
5%
4.6%
4%
3.1%
3%
2% 1.9%
1.6%
1.2%
1.0%
1%
0%
Norway Czech Spain Germany Croatia Hungary
Republic
Fig. 6.2 Proportion of enterprises for which clients or customers are the most
valuable partner for innovation activities. Based on CIS (2014)
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
CIS 2010 CIS 2012 CIS 2014
Germany Norway Spain
Czech Republic Hungary Croatia
Fig. 6.3 Proportion of enterprises for which clients or customers are the most
valuable partner for innovation activities—trends from 2008 to 2014. Based on CIS
(2010, 2012, 2014)
In order to identify the alterations in the firms’ opinions on customers

as the most valuable partners in innovation, the data from three consecu-
tive CIS surveys covering the period from 2008 to 2014 was compared
(see Fig. 6.3). Among six countries selected for the study, the growing
trend is observed only in Norway and Spain.
6.2 C
ustomer Engagement Perspectives
Across Industry Type
The research that we conducted in Poland, among 402 firms from four
distinct industries, reveals the degree of importance of customers as
sources of information for product and process innovation. For 48% of
surveyed companies this importance is high, and for 35% of firms, it is
medium (see Fig. 6.4). On average, 52% of firms operating in banking
and financial sector assess customer importance as high, which is the
higher proportion across sectors under study. On the other hand, the
140 K. Żyminkowska
Banking & financial services 8% 35% 52% 5%
Household appliances 11% 38% 47% 4%
Fashion 16% 29% 50% 5%
Food & beverages 9% 38% 41% 13%
Total sample 11% 35% 48% 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Low Medium High Not used
Fig. 6.4 Degree of importance of customers as sources of information for

innovation
largest proportion of firms for which this importance is low is evident in

fashion firms (16%).
Based on the research findings on the customer engagement activities
undertaken by consumers and firms’ practices in customer engagement
management (presented in the previous chapters of this book), the poten-
tial for engaging customers within each CE form may be identified. Firms
seem to utilize customer complaints quite well, since the overall customer
activism within this CE form is lower (3.2) than the intensity of firm
practices (3.5) (see Fig. 6.5). On the other hand, the overall activism of
customers within customers’ communication and customer collaboration
is higher than the intensity of firms’ practices undertaken within those
CE forms. So there is still the potential for firms to increase the intensity
of engaging customers in their communication about firms and brands,
as well as in their collaboration with firms.
However, are the firms going to use the above-mentioned potential in
the future? To answer this question we asked surveyed companies to assess
the perspectives for engaging their customers during the next three years.
4
3.5
3.1 3.2
3 2.7
2.6
2.1
2
1
Customers’ Customer Customer
communication complaints collaboration
Customers Firms
Fig. 6.5 Customer engagement activities undertaken by consumers versus the

intensity of firms’ practices in customer engagement
Quite a significant proportion of companies plan to engage customers

into the communication activities (62% strongly or somewhat agree to
do it in the next three years) (see Fig. 6.6). This would suggest that sur-
veyed firms plan to utilize the existing customers’ communication poten-
tial. On the other hand, 33% of surveyed firms plan to engage customers
in collaboration activities, so using the customer collaboration potential
in the future looks less optimistic than communication one.
The highest proportion of firms is going to use customer complaints
for the next three years. There are some disparities in CE perspectives
across surveyed companies across distinct industries under study. The
highest proportion of firms that are going to engage customers into the
collaboration interactions exists among banking and financial firms (40%
of them plan to collaborate with customers during the next three years)
(see Fig. 6.7). Firms in the household appliances industry are going to be
the most active in using customers’ communication potential (70%). The
strongest activity in customer complaints usage is planned by food and
beverages players (92%).
142 K. Żyminkowska
Customer collaboration 52% 33%
Customer complaints 7% 87%
Customers' communication 24% 62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Disagree (strongly or somewhat) Neither agree nor disagree
Agree (strongly or somewhat) Don't know
Fig. 6.6 Perspectives for engaging customers by firms during the next three years
40%
27%
31%
33%
90%
86%
Customer complaints
81%
92%
65%
70%
53%
61%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Banking & financial services Household appliances Fashion Food & beverages
Fig. 6.7 Perspectives for engaging customers by firms during the next three
years, across industries
4.5 4.4
4.3
4.1
4 3.9
3.7 3.6
3.5 3.6
3.4
3.3
3.1
3 2.8
2.8
2.72.7
2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4
2.3
2.1 2.1
2 2.0
1
Current Future Current Future Current Future
practices perspectives practices perspectives practices perspectives
Customers’ communication Customer complaints Customer collaboration
Food & beverages Fashion Household appliances Banking & financial services
Fig. 6.8 Current practices and future perspectives for engaging customers across
industries
Finally, to assess the future trends in customer engagement practices in

distinct sectors under study, we opposed the data on current intensity of
firms’ CE practices with declared future perspectives in that matter. The
analysis reveals that firms in each sector under study are going to increase
their CE practices regarding each CE form (see Fig. 6.8).
Comparing the scores for current intensity of firms’ CE practices
with those reflecting perspectives in engaging customers during the
next three years, the forecasted growth in firm’s customer engagement
practices in the next three years was calculated (see Fig. 6.9). The high-
est increase is expected in engaging customers in customer-to-customer
communication about firm or brand for banking and financial services
(47% growth), and household appliances firms (45%). Regarding the
firms’ customer collaboration practices, the highest growth is calculated
for food and beverages and fashion companies (29% and 28%
respectively).
144 K. Żyminkowska
50% 47%
45%
40% 34%
33%
30% 29% 28%
25% 24% 26% 24%
20% 17%
14%
10%
0%
communication
Customer complaints
communication
Customer complaints
communication
Customer complaints
communication
Customer complaints
Customers’
Customers’
Customers’
Customers’
Food & beverages Fashion Household Banking & financial
appliances services
Fig. 6.9 Growth perspectives for firms’ customer engagement management in

the next three years across industries
References
CIS. (2010). Eurostat, Community Innovation Survey Microdata (CIS-2010).
Access to the Microdata Set Granted for the Research Proposal No.
331/2016-CIS.
331/2016-CIS.
331/2016-CIS.
OECD. (2017). Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The Digital
Transformation. Paris: OECD.
7
Conclusion
Abstract The last chapter of the book offers a quick glance at the key
theoretical and empirical contributions of the entire publication and
forms the foundations for further enhancement of the effective and effi-
cient customer engagement management in the marketing field.
Żyminkowska provides a summary guide useful for further advanced
research in the fields of engagement marketing, engagement orientation,
or customer engagement-based business models, that form likely looking
stream in marketing domain for business and academia.
Keywords Discussion of customer engagement research findings •

Contributions to customer engagement knowledge
The concept of customer engagement refers to the customer activism in

value formation which is not a new notion in the marketing and manage-
ment literature. Therefore, existing theories of customer activism consti-
tute particular anchors for systemizing the knowledge on customer
engagement in the broader, theoretical context. Based on the two influ-
ential metatheories, such as value co-creation and network management,
and related concepts (including service-dominant logic, customer

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4_7
146 K. Żyminkowska
articipation, prosumption, customer integration, or user and open

p
innovation) we recommend the realistic approach towards the CE phe-
nomenon in management perspective in Chap. 1 of this book. We recog-
nized that customer activism may bring not only positive firm-level
outcomes, but also some risks and disadvantages, such as additional costs
and increased job stress associated with customer participation, difficul-
ties with controlling the prosumers, diminishing control over planning
and information overload in value co-creation, inertia for change and
disturbance of internal processes in open innovation, and so on. Therefore,
with regard to the realistic managerial view on CE, both its positive and
negative outcomes for firms need to be taken into account. For that rea-
son we recommend the expression of ‘(interactive) value co-formation’ to
describe the role of CE in firm-level value creation, instead of using ‘value
co-creation’ that is quite often used in the marketing literature and repre-
sents optimistic view on CE. The recommended term of value co-
formation encompasses both positive CE consequences for firm (i.e.
value co-creation with active customer) and potential negative outcomes
(i.e. value co-destruction by active customer). Besides, the literature on
prosumption reveals that there is customers’ resistance to engage, and the
literature on customer participation suggests that the level of customer
activism may vary across customer segments and product categories, and
not each customer prefers to be active in the relationships. Therefore, we
again suggest realistic view on customer engagement, since not each cus-
tomer wants to be active, and perhaps the CE is not a common notion
among consumers.
In Chap. 2 of the book we address the problem of CE research frag-
mentation and terminology confusions, and we systemize knowledge on
that phenomenon adapting the integrative approach that brings together
the contributions from parallel streams that evolved in the CE research.
We recognize CE interpretations, forms, and models distinguished in
previous marketing literature, and we confront them with other market-
ing categories (including psychological factors of consumer behaviour
or customer relationship) to recognize the originality of distinct CE
understandings in the marketing discipline. We posit that existing CE
interpretations, such as (1) attitudinal and multidimensional, (2) one-
dimensional and behavioural (including non-transactional behaviours),
Conclusion 147
and (3) one-dimensional and behavioural (including both transactional

and non-transactional behaviours) that drive parallel research streams,
are rather complementary than competitive. After recognizing how
those streams interact and evolve, we propose the integrative CE under-
standing as customer behavioural manifestations, beyond purchase,
focused on brand or firm’s offerings and activities, occurring in cus-
tomer-to-firm and customer- to-customer interactions, and resulting
from psychological factors (attitudinal, motivational, and social). We
then support one-dimensional, behavioural CE interpretation that com-
prises non-transactional customer behaviour. The other behavioural
approach that additionally includes customer transactional behaviours
closely corresponds with other marketing category, that is, customer
relationship, based on the dyadic interactions between customer and
firm, although it adds the network aspects associated with customer-
to-customer interactions to this relational view. The integrative CE
understanding, preferred in this book, is based on behavioural interpre-
tations but is also enriched with attitudinal factors of customer behav-
iour that are exposed in multidimensional, attitudinal perspective.
Although the attitudinal CE interpretations seem to coincide the cate-
gory of customer attitudes, which is a well-known marketing construct
in the theory of customer behaviour, this perspective contributes to the
better understanding of the drivers of customer behavioural manifesta-
tions that need to be recognized by firms in order to profitably manage
CE. Based on the above-mentioned, integrated CE interpretation, we
distinguish three forms in the CE typology. First, customers’ communi-
cation (i.e. customer-to-customer communication), which refers to
word-of-mouth (both positive and negative), and helping others, which
occurs in customer-to-customer interactions. Second, customer com-
plaints that are actually a kind of customer feedback or customer knowl-
edge behaviour in customer-to-firm interactions (or with other
institutions, such as media or consumer right advisor); however, it is
driven by customer dissatisfaction. And third, customer collaboration
that also occurs in customer-to-firm interactions and includes providing
feedback, ideas, and information (i.e. customer knowledge), or perform-
ing some tasks providing customer skills, for example, in product design
or assembly. We do not prefer distinguishing co-creation as CE form
148 K. Żyminkowska
because of the terminology rigour: each type of customer engagement

may lead not only to value co-creation, but also to value co-destruction
from the company standpoint.
In Chap. 3 of the book, we developed the comprehensive CE manage-
ment framework in order to enrich the pragmatic understanding of CE
as an object of effective marketing management. We placed customer
engagement in the marketing management field and explored how it
altered value formation from the firm and customer perspective. From
the firm standpoint, the formation of value proposition is not the exclu-
sive domain of a company yet, because customer may actively attend this
process, be engaged in the formation of value proposition. Therefore we
position CE and its forms within the dual context of marketing manage-
ment that comprises value delivery process (choosing, providing, and
communicating the value) and management functions within network
perspective (sensing, resourcing, realizing, and learning) to highlight the
need for perceiving CE as an object of managerial decisions. Firms should
decide whether they engage customers and how many marketing tasks
are to be performed by customers in certain stages of value delivery pro-
cess or managerial functions. Such decisions impact the firm’s competi-
tive advantage and consequently cash flows. So the effective customer
engagement management is quite prevailing challenge for companies.
Therefore, drawing on the findings from the literature on CE manage-
ment, as well as network and user and open innovation management, we
proposed the comprehensive framework of CE management and recog-
nized the following managerial issues within this CE normative model:
the process of CE management and its components, CE effects for firms,
and risks associated with CE. Key components of CE management pro-
cess include actors involved (i.e. dedicated organizational units in a firm
responsible for CE and/or external suppliers of CE management services)
and tasks and activities (i.e. linking CE strategy with the overall customer
relationship management, offering systems and platforms facilitating
customer-to-customer and customer-to-firm interactions, mobilizing CE
by offering a set of tangible and intangible incentives, and developing the
CE metrics for monitoring and controlling effects and costs of CE).
Regarding the CE management process outputs, we emphasize not only
positive effects, but also risks that may be associated with engaging the
Conclusion 149
customers by firms. Besides, in the above-mentioned CE management

framework we highlighted the challenge for firms in effectively mobiliz-
ing CEs which require the proper recognitions of customer-level factors
that drive the target customers’ engagement. Therefore, in the third chap-
ter we also explored the issues of customer perspective on value—that is,
customer perceived value of customer engagement—which is strictly
associated with customer motivation to engage. According to means-ends
models of customer value, customers choose actions that produce desired
consequences and minimize undesired ones and thus personal values pro-
vide the overall direction and consequences determine the selection of
behaviour. Therefore, based on those models the favourable ends (i.e.
customer’s goals and purposes) may be identified in terms of personal
values arising from engagement. Those values, including both hedonic
and utilitarian issues, drive the customer engagement. Therefore, the rec-
ognition of those motivations is the key element of effective CE manage-
ment that enables firms to design the effective set of CE incentives to
address the needs of target customers. The normative model of CE man-
agement, that is, finally proposed in this chapter, reflects the integrative
perspective on value formation in marketing: both firms’ approach to
value proposition formation, and customer motivations to engage,
including perceived value of engagement. This model is then empirically
investigated in the subsequent chapters of the book.
In Chap. 4, we discussed the intensity and drivers of CE across distinct
markets, revealed on the basis of the consumer survey. The overall inten-
sity of customer behavioural manifestations focused on brand or firm’s
offerings and activities, that go beyond purchase, turned to be rather low
among 2080 surveyed consumers (the average level of 3.0, measured on
a 5-point Likert scale). The disparities across distinct CE forms were not
substantial: consumers’ complaining behaviours and their activism in
customer-to-customer communication about the brand or firm were a bit
more intense (3.18 and 3.08 respectively) than customer collaboration
with firms (2.74). This low level of customer engagement appeared across
all distinct markets under study, that is, clothing, beer, mobile phones,
and banking products. So we confirmed the need for the realistic view on
CE phenomenon, since not everyone wants to engage in the interactions
focused on brands or firms occurring in the interactions with firms or
150 K. Żyminkowska
with other customers. This finding is in line with the suggestions about
the likelihood of resistance on the part of consumers who are against
being asked to contribute to firms (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010). This is
also in line with the views on diverse customers’ preferences towards the
modes of their relationships with firms: some people prefer active, others
favour passive relationship mode and seldom respond to invitations to
interact (Grönroos 2007). Also Gallup findings support the existence of
different types of customers: fully engaged, indifferent (neutral), and
actively disengaged (Sorenson and Adkins 2014). This explains why the
average level of CE intensity discovered in our survey was neutral (3.0 on
5-point Likert scale). In this chapter we also uncovered the role of certain
customer-based drivers of customer engagement. It turned out that cus-
tomer motivations are more influential factors of customer engagement
than customer involvement or customer loyalty: motivations explain
67% of CE variance, while involvement and loyalty together explain only
30%. If so, it is crucial for firms to know what those motivations are, and
whether they differ across distinct product categories or customer seg-
ments. Based on research results, the utilitarian motivations of engage-
ment, including getting a better product and receiving discounts for next
shopping, appeared to be the most important reasons to engage in the
respondents’ opinion. On the other hand, the hedonic motivations were
generally less important for consumers. It is interesting that no signifi-
cant differences among product categories under study were observed as
to the perceived importance of individual consumer values from engage-
ment. However, more diversity was revealed across customer segments:
for the youngest consumers (less than 18 years old) benefits from engage-
ment were more important than for older persons. The findings indicated
the overall tendency: the younger the customer, the higher the impor-
tance of consumer values as engagement reasons. Similar tendency was
observed across customer segments according to their feel about current
household’s income: the better feel, the higher importance of customer
engagement values. Although the respondents perceived utilitarian values
as more important reasons of their engagement than the hedonic ones, it
doesn’t mean that those utilitarian values have stronger impact on CE
activities actually undertaken by customers. It turned out that hedonic
values had a higher positive direct impact on CE (0.66, p < 0.01) than the
Conclusion 151
utilitarian ones, which also influenced CE positively, but the impact was
a bit weaker (0.22, p < 0.01), and this was noticed on each consumer
market tested under the study. Regarding the strength of hedonic values
influence on CE, some distinctions among product categories were
revealed: the highest impact was demonstrated for banking products, and
the lowest for beer. Revealing the crucial role of consumers’ motivations,
associated with customers’ goals and purposes, in driving certain CE
forms across each consumer market under study we provided managerial
insights on designing the set of incentives to mobilize CE. Those incen-
tives need to match the customers’ hedonic or utilitarian needs to enhance
the engagement behaviour beyond purchase. Also the systems and plat-
forms for facilitating CE need to be adjusted according to the values that
customers are willing to get for their engagement in interactions with
firms or other customers.
In Chap. 5 we discussed the intensity of the forms of customer engage-
ment in companies’ practices across distinct industries based on the find-
ings of survey conducted among firms. This overall intensity turned out
to differ across distinct CE forms: it was relatively high in case of utilizing
customer complaints by firms (the average is 3.5 on 5-point Likert scale),
and quite low for employing the potential of consumer-to-consumer
communication (2.57) or customer collaboration (2.13). Besides, some
disparities in the intensity of main CE forms in firms’ practices among
companies representing distinct industries under study were revealed.
Fashion and household appliances firms declared slightly higher intensity
of utilizing customers’ communication than the remaining firms. Banking
and financial companies exploited customer complaints more intensively
than the remaining firms, especially when compared with fashion busi-
ness. Also the intensity of employing customer collaboration was slightly
higher in banking and financial sector than in the other firms. Some dif-
ferences in the intensity of CE in firms’ practices were also manifested in
distinct type of business: service firms declared the highest overall inten-
sity of CE, whilst trading firms the lowest one. The latter represented also
the lowest intensity of utilizing customer collaboration and customer
complaints. On the other hand, manufacturing companies declared
slightly higher intensity of above-mentioned efforts related to customers’
communication than other firms. Those findings correspond to the
152 K. Żyminkowska
Pansari and Kumar’s (2017) suggestion to perceive the nature of industry

(i.e. manufacturing vs. service) as an important moderator of the rela-
tionships between components of CE model. In Chap. 5 we also recog-
nized the components of CE management process in firms in order to
reveal whether those firms manage CE in the systematic way. It turned
out that the process of CE management in surveyed companies was still
underdeveloped and this state was evident across each industry under
study. Approximately 60% of surveyed firms didn’t develop the basic CE
management process components, such as dedicated organizational units
responsible for CE, processes and platforms that enable customer-to-
customer communication, set of CE tangible and intangible incentives,
or CE metrics used for monitoring effects and costs of CE. Besides, only
29% of the surveyed firms declared that CE was a component of a broader
customer relationship management strategy. The effective information
systems and procedures enabling consumers to communicate directly to
the firms turned out to be the only component of CE management pro-
cess that was developed among the relatively significant proportion of
surveyed companies (50%). Thus our research results confirmed that the
systemic CE management is still not evident among firms. That corre-
sponds with the findings of Convero Customer Engagement Study
(Convero 2016) in which 58% of the surveyed executives (such as CEOs
and senior sales, marketing, and customer service managers) said that
their companies don’t have a formal customer engagement programme in
place. Finally, in Chap. 5, we also discussed the positive and negative
firm-level effects of customer engagement. Regarding the positive effects
of CE, increased customer satisfaction and acquisition of new customers
turn to be the highest ranked benefits of CE in surveyed companies
(declared by almost 90% of surveyed firms). Other, highly ranked CE
benefits include increased market share (73%) and increased customer
retention (72%). These findings again correspond with Convero study, in
which 88% of companies declared that customer engagement programme
in place drove significant increases in customer loyalty and 51% indi-
cated that it increased sales to existing customers. Drawing on the realis-
tic view on CE, we also identified the CE risks important for surveyed
firms. The most important risks included receiving ideas infeasible from
firm standpoint due to the lack of customer knowledge, information
Conclusion 153
overload, the loss of secrecy of information or know-how for competitors’

advantage, and additional costs of integrating customers’ ideas in busi-
ness processes and coordinating those processes. This chapter then con-
firms immaturity of CE management process in firms indicating the gaps
that need to be addressed in order to minimize the risks and thus manage
customer engagement profitably.
In Chap. 6 of this book we attempted to identify trends and perspec-
tives of customer engagement management in modern business. It pro-
vides the macro-scale analysis of firms’ practices in collaborating with its
clients, based on the OECD and CIS data, and reveals significant dispro-
portions across countries. On the other hand, this chapter reveals the
importance of customers as sources of information for innovation in the
mezzo-scale, across distinct industries in Poland. Comparison of the inten-
sity of CE declared by surveyed consumers with the intensity of CE in
companies’ practices revealed that the former is higher with regard to cus-
tomer-to-customer communication, and customer collaboration with
firms or brands. This implicates the existence of the unutilized potential of
these two forms of CE in firms. Regarding firms’ plans within customer
engagement for the next three years, 87% is going to make use of customer
complaints, 62% plan to exploit customers’ communication, and only
33% of companies plan to utilize customer collaboration. Relatively small
proportion of firms that plan to develop the collaboration with customers
is probably caused by the fact that this particular CE form is associated
with the significant costs (and risks) of integrating customers into the busi-
ness processes, or even with the restructuring of the entire business model.
However, it was revealed that firms in each sector under study are going to
increase the intensity of all CE forms in their practices in the next three
years compared with the current practices. This chapter than confirms
overall positive CE prospects across each industry under study, although it
outlines some disparities across distinct customer engagement forms.
In summary, the work presented in this book provides a comprehen-
sive portrayal of customer engagement phenomenon seen through the
lenses of both firms and their customers. The findings implicate the
future growth of its intensity across distinct industries. Firms need to
develop the components of CE management process, since, as revealed in
this book, it positively impacts the performance. This challenges the
154 K. Żyminkowska
arketing academia and marketing practitioners to enhance the solu-

m
tions in the field of effective and efficient CE management. This book
offers the foundations for advancing the research in this domain. It sys-
temizes knowledge on customer engagement phenomenon and integrates
fragmented CE research streams with the body of knowledge on market-
ing management and with the umbrella paradigms referring to customer
activism in value formation. It also offers the pragmatic understanding of
CE as an object of marketing management and recommends more realis-
tic view on CE in value formation. Therefore, this book may serve as a
guide for advanced research in the fields of engagement marketing,
engagement orientation, or customer engagement-based business models
that form likely looking stream in marketing domain for business and
academia.
References
Convero. (2016). Convero Customer Engagement Study: Customer Loyalty, Sales
and Profits. Westlake, OH: Convero.
Grönroos, C. (2007). Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management
Pansari, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Customer Engagement: The Construct,
Antecedents, and Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
45, 294–311.
Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption:
The Nature of Capitalism in the Age of Digital ‘Prosumer’. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.
Sorenson, S., & Adkins, A. (2014, July 22). Why Customer Engagement
Matters So Much Now. Business Journal.
Index
B Customer activism, xv–xvii, 2–18,

Basic marketing concepts, 56, 70 41, 50, 56, 60, 65, 68, 75, 95,
Benefits/costs models, 5, 7, 8, 14, 136–140, 145, 146, 154
46, 50, 56–58, 63, 65, 69, 70, Customer attitudes, 24, 29, 31, 147
82, 96, 98, 99, 106, 128–130, Customer-based antecedents of CE,
132, 150, 152 83
Business collaborating on innovation Customer collaboration, 42, 59, 60,
with clients, 137 71, 87, 94–96, 102, 116, 117,
122, 132, 140, 141, 143, 147,
149, 151, 153
C Customer complaints, xviii, 42, 59,
Community Innovation Survey 60, 87, 92–94, 102, 107, 116,
(CIS), 138, 139, 153 117, 122, 132, 140, 141, 147,
Components of customer 151, 153
engagement management Customer engagement (CE)
process, 32, 33, 38, 124–127 antecedents, 43–50, 71
Contributions to customer attitudinal interpretation, 31, 50
engagement knowledge, 7 behavioural interpretation, 39, 42,
(Co)production, 7 59
Customer actions, 31, 39, 42 benefits, 98, 128–130, 132, 152

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11677-4
156 Index
Customer engagement (cont.) parallel research streams, xv, 147

classification, 39, 42 perspectives, xvi, 2, 25, 29, 31,
consequences, 18, 43–50, 146 50, 61–64, 139–144
and customer perceived value, 68, process, 50
149 risks, 67–68, 75, 106, 128–132,
definitions, 24–31 148, 152
dimensions, 29, 31–43 theoretical foundations, 2, 15
disadvantages, 18 trends, 136–144, 153
drivers, 15, 29, 82, 83, 96, 99, types, xvii, 35, 39, 41
100, 102, 149, 150 and value proposition, 57–68
effects, 65–67, 75, 127, 128, 131, Customer experience, 25, 26, 69
148 Customer feedback, 28, 42, 49, 59,
in firms’ practices, 105–132, 141, 147
143, 151 Customer influencer behaviour, 42
forms, xvii, 2, 12, 31–43, 59, 60, Customer integration, 7, 14, 15, 17,
65, 71, 83, 87–90, 92, 94, 71, 146
102, 106, 114–123, 131, 132, Customer interactions, 30, 39, 60
136, 140, 143, 146–149, 151, Customer involvement, xvi, 41, 50,
153 68, 82, 83, 86, 100–102, 150
impact on firm performance, 106 Customer involvement impact on
incentives, 71 CE, 102
influence on firm performance, Customer knowledge behaviour, 42,
114, 131 59, 147
in interactive value co-formation, Customer loyalty, 44, 100–102, 150,
9, 18, 146 152
interpretations, xv, 24, 25, 29, 31, Customer loyalty impact on CE, 102
39, 40, 42, 43, 50, 59, 69, Customer motivation, 13, 29, 68,
146, 147 75, 149, 150
management framework, xvi, Customer network value proposition,
xviii, 24, 71, 75, 148, 149 57, 65–66
management process, xviii, 9, 60, Customer participation, 4–8, 15–17,
65–66, 68, 106, 107, 114, 145, 146
123–127, 131, 132, 148, 152, Customer participation
153 management, 5
management process components, Customer perceived value, 56,
152 68–70, 73, 82, 96, 149
models, 43, 50, 57, 60, 65, 75, Customer referral behaviour, 41
152 Customer relationship, xviii, 24, 42,
motivations, 96, 98, 100 43, 50, 56, 64, 66, 107, 111,
operationalization, 31, 39, 42 125, 146–148, 152
Index 157
Customer resources, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, Firm-level outcomes of customer

29, 60 engagement, xvii, 6, 106,
Customers as the most valuable 127–132
partners for innovation, 138, Firm-level risks of customer
139 engagement, 67, 132, 146
Customers’ communication, 41, 42, Firm performance, 10, 43, 113, 128,
59, 60, 71, 82, 87, 91–92, 94, 131
102, 114–117, 122, 132, 140, Firms’ plans for customer
141, 147, 151, 153 engagement, 153
Customer-to-customer interactions, Formation of value proposition, 56,
30, 39, 41–43, 59, 60, 58, 59, 148
82, 147
Customer value, 56, 57, 63, 66–75,
82, 83, 96–100, 136, 149 G
dimensions, 69–71, 96 Growth perspectives for firms’
models, 69, 70 customer engagement
proposition, 56, 57 management, 144
D H
Discussion of customer engagement Hedonic value dimension impact on
research findings, 106, 140 CE, 99, 100
Helping others, 5, 41, 42, 59, 60,
147
E
Empirical findings on customer
engagement, xviii I
Empirical research, xvi, xviii, 39, 82, Integrated perspective on customer
106 engagement, 43, 50
Enhanced network, 10, 16 Integrative approach, xvi, 146
Extended resource-based view Intensity of customer engagement,
(ERBV), 9, 10 87, 114–123, 127
Interactive value formation, 8
F
Firm-initiated engagement, 11 L
Firm-level benefits of customer Learning, 12, 13, 17, 29, 31, 58, 60,
engagement, 106, 128 148
158 Index
M Perspectives of customer
Managerial view, xvi, 9, 18, 146 engagement, xvi–xviii, 2,
Market as forum, 3 25–31, 44–50, 61–64, 130,
Marketing basics, xvii, 24 135–144
Marketing management functions, Positive outcomes of customer
13, 59, 60 engagement, 5, 15
Marketing management in network, Process of customer engagement
17 management, 9, 60
Marketing process, 56, 60, 107 Prosumer, 3, 146
Marketing productivity chain, 67, Prosumption, 3, 15, 146
127 Psychological drivers of customer
Market offering, 57, 58, 60 behaviour, 24, 29
Means-ends models, 70, 149
Misuse of resources, 8
Motive, 29, 71 R
Realistic approach, 15, 146
Realistic view on customer
N engagement, 15, 43, 146, 149,
Negative outcomes of customer 152, 154
engagement, 18, 128, 146 Realizing, 12, 13, 58, 148
Network manageability, 11 Relationship definition, 42
Network management, 2, 9–18, 57, Relationship modes, 150
65, 145 Resource integration, 6, 8, 10, 66
Network-to-network perspective, 9 Resource redundancy, 10
Normative model of customer Resourcing, 12, 13, 58, 148
engagement management, 57, Revised marketing management
60, 75, 106, 148, 149 functions, 59, 68
O S
Open innovation, 13, 14, 16, 65, 66, Sensing, 13, 58, 148
136, 146, 148 Service-dominant (S-D), 6–8, 145
Service logic (SL), 6–8
Slack resources expanded network,
P 10
Partial employees, 5 Stages of value delivery process, 59,
Personal values, 70, 149 60, 148
Index 159
Structural equation modelling Value co-destruction, 8, 9, 15, 18,

(SEM), 83, 87, 99, 102, 114 41, 146, 148
Value co-formation, 9, 18, 146
Value constellation, 10
T Value delivery sequence, 58
Trends in customer activism in Value for customer, 56, 68
modern business, 135–144 Value proposition, 6, 56–68, 75,
148, 149
U
User entrepreneurship, 13 W
User innovation, 13–15, 136 Word-of-mouth (WOM), 39, 41,
Utilitarian value dimension impact 42, 59, 67, 91, 147
on CE, 98–100
V
Value co-creation, 3–9, 12, 15, 18,
41, 57, 66, 145, 146, 148

Book - Customer Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book - Customer Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book - Customer Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main concepts discussed in the document?

What are the main concepts discussed in the document?

What marketing management perspectives are discussed?

What marketing management perspectives are discussed?

Customer Engagement

in Theory and Practice

ISBN 978-3-030-11676-7 ISBN 978-3-030-11677-4 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019931334

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

Cover illustration: Pattern © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com

1 Concepts of Customer Activism 1

2 Interpreting Customer Engagement in the Marketing

3 Placing Customer Engagement Within Marketing

4 Why Do Customers Engage? 81

5 Firms’ Practices in Customer Engagement Management105

6 Customer Engagement Trends and Perspectives in Modern

Fig. 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—theoretical foundations for

Fig. 6.5 Customer engagement activities undertaken by consumers

Table 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—key implications for

Table 5.3 Firms’ practices in customer engagement across industries

The notion of customer engagement (CE) reflects the broad spectrum of

ment evolved. This often results in research fragmentation and terminol-

category), mobile phones (high involvement thinking product), and

RQ1: What is the intensity of the forms (types) of customer engage-

The objectives and research questions determine the structure of this

Abstract The concept of customer engagement refers to the customer

Keywords Customer engagement theoretical foundations • Customer

© The Author(s) 2019 1

The phenomenon of customer activism, which is the inevitable feature of

Fig. 1.1 Concepts of customer activism—theoretical foundations for understand-

customers. The significance of this idea, based on value co-creation

s­egments and product categories involved, and may be associated with

tasks or self-service. Second, information and knowledge, including infor-

complexity of managing firm’s objectives, and complexity of managing mis-

inimitable, and non-substitutable make it possible for businesses to

in a value chain (Normann and Ramirez 1998). Therefore, the network

over the external partner—customer—should be considered. The net-

emphasizing the need for new marketing management functions (sens-

defining and defending intellectual property, internal organization, and

a realistic view on customer activism in innovation networks, open and

Summing up, two influential metatheories and related, lower-order con-

information and knowledge, co-operative time and effort.

model components in order to profit from

Third, with regard to the realistic managerial view on CE, it should be

Chesbrough, H., & Brunswicker, S. (2013). Managing Open Innovation in Large

Abstract This chapter addresses the problem of the CE research frag-

Keywords Integrated perspective on customer engagement • Customer

© The Author(s) 2019 23

The scientific research into the customer engagement in marketing intensi-

second one interprets CE as customer behaviours including transactions.

consistent evaluations, feelings, and tendencies towards an object or idea

cognitive affective/ behavioural

Fig. 2.1 Customer engagement domain in attitudinal and behavioural

by the researchers representing both perspectives (Jaakkola and Alexander

behavioural CE interpretation that we enrich by attitudinal factors of

CE perspective Author(s) Construct CE components

3. Behavioural activity (activation)

4. Shopping behaviours

CE perspective Author(s) Construct CE components

1 Concepts of Customer Activism 1

2 Interpreting Customer Engagement in the Marketing

3 Placing Customer Engagement Within Marketing

4 Why Do Customers Engage? 81

5 Firms’ Practices in Customer Engagement Management105

6 Customer Engagement Trends and Perspectives in Modern

segments and product categories involved, and may be associated with

3. Behavioural activity (activation)

4. Shopping behaviours

2. Co-creation in new product

3. Customer influence

• establishing and contributing to customer communities.

Process of CE Management

7. Training: learning, reputation outside the

4.2 Intensity of Customer Engagement

3. I upload brand- or firm-related