Relevance Marketing:
The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
2
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
Jeremy Bottom
This dissertation is submitted for the award of MA in Interactive Marketing.
I declare that this dissertation is the result of my own independent investigation
and that all sources are duly acknowledged.
Signed……………………………………………………
Academic Year of Submission: 2003-04
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
3
Abstract
There is a view that the degree of scholarly and practitioner interest in
relationship marketing established it as the key marketing issue of the decade in
the 1990s. But what is relationship marketing? Moreover, do consumers actually
want relationships or just relevant propositions in today’s dynamic and complex
marketing environment? These questions framed this exploratory research. This
paper is concerned with the validity, generality and practical applicability of six
‘relationship marketing’ concepts within the UK’s Business-to-Consumer (B2C)
marketing environment: relationship marketing (per se); one-to-one marketing
(Peppers and Rogers, 1993); many-to-many marketing (Gummesson, 2004a);
loyalty marketing; electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM); and what the
literature (academic and professional) generally refers to as Customer
Relationship Management (CRM). The paper then introduces an alternative
consumer marketing perspective (relevance marketing) and a contemporary CRM
measurement framework: Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby,
2004). An objective of the research was to determine whether the medley of
concepts and frameworks presented in the literature review are largely academic
rhetoric or a marketing reality for a group of senior marketing managers,
independent marketing consultants and leading authorities on marketing in the
academic field. A qualitative methodology was adopted resulting in eleven one-
to-one (in-depth) primary data collection events. The author tentatively suggests
that this investigation has provided a critical understanding of the development
and future of relationship marketing as an academic and professional domain
within the UK’s B2C marketing environment. The paper concludes with a
challenging question for all marketing academicians.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
4
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction
1.1 Confused and Disorientated: Consumers and Marketers
1.2 Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment: Rhetoric or
Reality?
1.3 Relevance Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment: Rhetoric or Reality?
1.4 Summary of Investigation
2. Literature Review
2.1 Confused and Disorientated: Academics
2.1.1 Relationship Marketing: Academic Perspectives
2.1.2 Buzzwords
2.1.3 The Emergence of Relationship Marketing in the Academic Literature
2.1.4 Theory Anorexia
2.1.5 Relationship Marketing: Are Academics Missing the Obvious?
2.1.6 Relationship Marketing: Academic Rhetoric or Business Reality?
2.1.7 Relationship Marketing Definitions
2.2 The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) on Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment
2.2.1 One-to-One Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
2.2.2 Many-to-Many Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
2.2.3 Consumers: Empowered and Confused
2.2.4 Loyalty Marketing
2.2.5 Relationship Marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) and
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
2.2.6 ICT-Enabled Buzzwords
2.3 Relevance Marketing: A Criticism of Relationship Marketing
2.3.1 Customer Relevance Management (CRM) at Tesco
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
5
Table of Contents (cont’d):
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Strategy: An Exploratory, Qualitative Approach
3.2.1 Rich and Relevant Data
3.3 Epistemological Considerations
3.4 Bias, Reliability and Validity
3.5 A Holistic and Non-Commercial Perspective
3.6 Method
3.7 The Interlocutors
3.8 Evaluation of Research Design
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1 Relationship Marketing > Relevance Marketing
4.2 Data Gathering > Data Analysis > Value Delivery
4.3 Win-Win-Win > Many-to-Many
4.4 One-to-One Marketing > Multi-Channel Integration
4.5 CRM Checklist
4.6 Prospect Relationship (Relevance) Management
4.7 Empowered Consumers
4.8 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM)
4.9 The Marketing of the Marketing
5. Conclusion
6. References
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
6
List of Tables:
1 The Interlocutors
List of Figures:
1a Conceptual Areas of Primary Investigation (Phase 1)
1b Conceptual Areas of Primary Investigation (Phase 2)
2 Relationship Marketing Definitions (Source: Various)
3 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Relationship Marketing
4 One-to-One vs. Many-to-Many (Gummesson, 2004a)
5 A Functional Model for CRM (Clark et al, 2002)
6 Relevance Marketing
7 Customer Relevance Management (Humby, 2004)
8 Relationship Marketing and Relevance Marketing Perspectives
9 CRM Framework (Shaw, 1999)
10 Prospect Relationship Management (PRM) (Lexus)
11 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM) Perspectives
Appendices:
1 From One-to-One to Many-to-Many Marketing (Gummesson, 2004a)
2 R is for Relevance: An Antidote to CRM Hype (Humby, 2004)
3 Semi-Structured Questionnaire
4 Multi-Channel Direct Marketing 2004 (Centaur Conferences, 2004)
5 Interview with Jonathan Latham, Head of Relationship Management,
Sainsbury’s (July, 2004)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
7
1. Introduction
1.1 Confused and Disorientated: Consumers and Marketers
Research by Mintel (2002, p.3) suggests that a significant percentage of UK
consumers are suffering from “information and decision overload”. Excess
information, too many choices and brand proliferation have generated a
confusing commercial environment for over 50% of today’s consumers (Mintel
2002, p.3). The research used cluster analysis to segment this group into
“Confused and Disorientated”, “Simplicity Seekers” and “Search Engineers”
(Mintel 2002, p.3). Moreover, a survey of UK marketers and customer insight
specialists suggests that many of today’s commercial organisations are finding
the practice of marketing more complex with increasing media fragmentation and
declining customer loyalty (The Future Foundation 2003, p.7). This recent survey
also suggests that consumer marketing has become more complicated because
consumers have less clearly defined and segmented lifestyles and are, as a
consequence, less predictable than in the past (The Future Foundation 2003,
p.7). The questions arise: how do commercial organisations add value to their
propositions and combat customer confusion; and how do commercial
organisations identify their ‘profitable’ customers and sustain loyalty? Mintel’s
(2002, p.3) research suggests many commercial organisations may benefit from
using “relationship marketing” techniques. But what is relationship marketing?
Moreover, do consumers actually want a ‘relationship’ or just relevant
propositions in today’s dynamic and complex, Business-to-Consumer (B2C)
marketing environment? These questions frame this exploratory study.
1.2 Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment:
Rhetoric or Reality?
This investigation is concerned with the validity of relationship marketing as
presented in the academic literature. Within this discussion, “validity means (in
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
8
essence) that a theory, model, concept or category describes reality with a good
fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93). Acknowledging that the Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) explosion of the 1990s has had a significant
impact on the practice of B2C marketing, this investigation is predominately
concerned with ICT-enabled relationship marketing concepts and frameworks.
The primary areas of investigation determined by the literature review include:
one-to-one marketing (Peppers and Rogers, 1993); many-to-many marketing
(Gummesson, 2004a); loyalty marketing; electronic Relationship Marketing
(e-RM); and an exploration of what the literature (academic and professional)
generally refers to as Customer Relationship Management (CRM). The author
then seeks to determine whether the relationship marketing concepts presented
are largely academic rhetoric or a marketing reality for a group senior B2C
marketing managers, independent consultants and academics. Figure 1a
diagrammatically represents this phase of the investigation.
1.3 Relevance Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment:
Rhetoric or Reality?
The second phase of the investigation is concerned with the validity of relevance
marketing as presented within this paper. Within the domain of relevance
marketing, it is assumed that a consumer’s loyalty to a commercial organisation
is primarily driven by the organisation’s ability to continuously deliver relevant
propositions rather than the consumer’s desire to have a ‘relationship’. In
essence, relevance marketing is a criticism of relationship marketing as
presented in the academic literature. Within this phase of the investigation, the
author seeks to determine whether the concept of relevance marketing and its
ICT-enabled cousin, Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby, 2004),
are largely academic rhetoric or valuable contributions to the development of
B2C marketing from the viewpoint of the study’s interlocutors.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
9
1.4 Summary of Investigation
This investigation focuses on the B2C marketing environment and does not seek
to explore the validity, generality and practical applicability of relationship
marketing and relevance marketing in a Business-to-Business (B2B) context: the
duration of the MA Interactive Marketing programme limits the scope of the
present study. In summary, the study aims to provide a critical understanding of
the development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing
environment. Moreover, the study seeks to determine whether relevance
marketing is the new, improved relationship marketing or just another marketing
buzzword.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
10
Fig.1a: Conceptual areas of primary investigation (Phase 1)
Fig.1b: Conceptual areas of primary investigation (Phase 2)
One-to-OneMarketing
(Peppers andRogers, 1993)
Many-to-ManyMarketing
(Gummesson,2004a)
CustomerRelationshipManagement
(CRM)
electronicRelationshipMarketing
(e-RM)
LoyaltyMarketing
Business-to-Consumer Marketing Environment (B2C), UK
Phase 1
Information andCommunication Technologies
(ICT)
RelationshipMarketing
(RM)
Business-to-Consumer Marketing Environment (B2C), UK
Phase 2
Information andCommunication Technologies
(ICT)
RelationshipMarketing
(RM)
Information andCommunication Technologies
(ICT)
CustomerRelevance
Management(Humby, 2004)
RelevanceMarketing
Business-to-Consumer Marketing Environment (B2C), UK
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
11
2. Literature Review
2.1 Confused and Disorientated: Academics
The study’s literature review highlights: a fuzzy and ambiguous academic domain
suffering from “theory anorexia” (Gummesson 2002a, p.588); a teleological
climate where academics publish “self-serving jargon” (Tapp 2003, p.107); and a
marketing industry where the majority of practitioners neither read nor recognise
contemporary academic research, concepts or theories published in today’s
academic marketing journals (McKenzie et al 2002, p.1196). The question arises:
are marketing academics also ‘confused and disorientated’ in today’s dynamic
and complex marketing environment?
2.1.1 Relationship Marketing: Academic Perspectives
Ballantyne et al (2003, p.160) suggest that the degree of scholarly and
practitioner interest in relationship marketing established it as the “key marketing
issue of the decade” in the 1990s. Indeed, there is a plethora of relationship
marketing textbooks and journals. However, the precise meaning of relationship
marketing is not always clear in the academic literature (Zineldin, 2000). Brodie
et al (1997, p.383) suggest relationship marketing has become a “catch-all”
phrase with the concept being used to reflect a number of different types of
relational activity, including database marketing. However, Ballantyne et al
(2003, p.164) do not wholly support Coviello et al’s (1996) classification of
database marketing as relational marketing and suggest database marketing is
more likely to be “an enabling technology that may support any kind of practice
perspective”. This study does not intend to explore every conceptual quagmire
surrounding the relationship marketing concept within the academic literature
given the limits of this study and the sheer volume of relationship marketing
definitions, theories and perspectives. However, a useful starting point for this
discussion is Christopher et al’s (2004, p.1) perspective:
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
12
“It is now widely accepted that the goal of any business is to create and sustainmutually beneficial relationships with customers. Equally widely accepted is theview that the cement that binds successful relationships is the two-way flow ofvalue. This is the context from which the philosophy and practice of relationship
marketing has emerged”
The author notes Christopher et al (2004) are commonly recognised as some of
relationship marketing’s chief protagonists and have been concerned with the
development of the concept for many years. However, this worldview of business
is not universally accepted within the academic community. McDonald (2000,
p.28) suggests the relationship marketing domain exists “without any
underpinning process, occupied by happy-clappy, touchy-feely, weepy-creepy,
born-again zealots”. This study’s research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore these diametrically opposed worldviews.
2.1.2 Buzzwords
Egan (2001a, p.188) suggests relationship marketing is perhaps the best
example of a buzzword in the marketing literature where “different authors use
the same term to describe different concepts or different terms to describe the
same concept”. However, Gummesson (1994) suggests multiple uses of the term
relationship marketing are perhaps not surprising given the complexity of
relationships themselves. Furthermore, Egan (2001b, p.376) suggests
relationship marketing theory is often “highly selective” citing Reichheld’s (1996)
popular publication ‘The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits
and Lasting Value’ as an example of relationship marketing research “designed to
support a particular (often consultant based) perspective”. The question arises:
how many of today’s relationship marketing academicians are guilty of
teleologism in their research and subsequent publications? This study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to further
explore this contentious issue.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
13
2.1.3 The Emergence of Relationship Marketing in the Academic
Literature
Sheth (2002, p.590) suggests relationship marketing emerged as a field of
marketing enquiry due to a shift in marketing focus from customer acquisition to
customer retention. Bruhn (2003, p.xiv) supports this observation suggesting
that the principal aim of relationship marketing is to transform marketing from
the “inside-out” focus on transactions to an “outside-in” focus on customer
relationships. A common view within the literature is that relationship marketing
is a “criticism” (Bruhn 2003, p.9) of pure transaction-focused marketing concepts
such as McCarthy’s (1960) 4P classification of the marketing mix (product, place,
promotion and price). Gummesson (2002b, p.326) vehemently supports the
relationship marketing worldview commenting “transaction marketing theory is
clearly manipulative and management centric”. Petrof (1997, p.26) comments on
the popularity of relationship marketing in the 1990s:
“With few exceptions, marketing specialists and, in particular, academiciansaccepted relationship marketing as the latest gospel and began spreading it
faithfully as loyal disciples”
However, the issue of whether relationship marketing is (or was) a “paradigm
shift” (Morgan and Hunt 1994; Gronroos 1994; Buttle 1996; Palmer 2002; Sheth
and Parvatiyar 2002) still seems largely unresolved within the academic
literature. For example, Sheth and Parvatiyar (2002, p.14) suggest relationship
marketing is considered a paradigm change in both academic and practitioner
literature and relationship marketing has the potential to become a well-
respected, freestanding and distinct discipline in marketing. Conversely,
McDonald’s (2000) previously cited criticism of the domain highlights that
relationship marketing is not necessarily a paradigm shift universally accepted
within the academic community.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
14
2.1.4 Theory Anorexia
Gummesson’s (1996 cited Egan 2001b, p.376) summary of research efforts into
the concept as a “theory-less stack of fragmented philosophies and observations”
still appears valid today with at least 26 definitions of relationship marketing in
the academic literature (Harker, 1999). Daskou and Mangina (2003, p.87)
highlight that the conceptual quagmire surrounding the definition of relationship
marketing in the academic community is fuelled by the academic diversity of the
discipline’s developers and their socio-political heritage. Although the domain and
conceptual foundations of relationship marketing do not appear to be fully
developed, the author suggests there is merit in continuing this exploration
primarily because; many leading academics including McDonald (2003) and
Gummesson (2002b) have noted marketing theory is increasingly divorced from
reality; this study’s primary objective is to provide a critical understanding of the
development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing
environment. Gummesson (2002a, p.588) suggests,
“Marketing management today suffers from theory anorexia and cannot feed onand digest what is happening in the new economy”
2.1.5 Relationship Marketing: Are Academics Missing the Obvious?
Relationship marketing is not in itself a new concept: it is clearly a “new-old”
concept for the straightforward reason that concern for relationship development
is as old as the nature of business itself (Palmer 1996; Ballantyne 2000; Payne et
al 2002). Gummesson (2003) supports this view suggesting that relationship
marketing has always existed between the consumer and the supplier and
challenges the academic community (p.168):
“Isn’t it simply that academia is often too closed and smug, thus missing theobvious?”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
15
Supporting Gummesson’s (2003) critique of the academic community, the author
tentatively suggests that it is likely that many of today’s relational marketing
concepts and ubiquitous buzzwords such as one-to-one marketing (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993), loyalty-based management (Reichheld, 1996) and even Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) were effectively practised at the beginning of
the 20th century by UK shopkeepers. The study’s research design will aim to offer
the author an opportunity to further explore this empirical finding.
2.1.6 Relationship Marketing: Academic Rhetoric or Business Reality?
There is a view within the academic literature that the practical applicability of
relationship marketing in B2C marketing environments is limited (Barnes 1997;
Hibbard and Iacobucci 1998; O’Malley and Tynan 2000). O’Malley and Tynan
(2000, p.804) suggest that it is neither possible nor profitable for most
organisations in a B2C marketing environment to create close, personal and long-
term relationships with all their customers. The practical and economic
arguments for dismissing this form of relationship marketing seem valid but has
the academic community been ‘over-selling’ the relationship marketing concept
for O’Malley and Tynan (2000) to reach this rather obvious conclusion?
Moreover, are marketing academics becoming ‘confused and disorientated’ by
trying to fit the realities of marketing into tight, theoretical boxes for their
academic peers? McDonald (2003, p.158) comments:
“Marketing must find a way of escaping from the increasing proclivity of theacademic community to creep further and further into the more esoteric groves
of academe, talking about increasingly narrow issues in an increasinglyimpenetrable language to an increasingly restricted audience”
Harker’s (1999, p.16) exploration of relationship marketing definitions refers to a
“relationship marketing community”. The questions arise: who inhabits the
relationship marketing community and what is the relevance of their body of
work for today’s marketing practitioners? This study’s bibliography highlights
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
16
relationship marketing’s chief protagonists (the community) and the domain’s
specific publications such as the ‘Journal of Relationship Marketing’. But how
many of today’s B2C marketers actively embrace this knowledge resource?
Recent research by McKenzie et al (2002, p.1196) suggests that within the UK
marketing industry, the majority of practitioners neither read nor recognise
contemporary academic research, concepts or theories published in today’s
academic marketing journals. Moreover, Tapp (2003, p.112) suggests currently
there is a misalignment between the academic work published in the majority of
journals and the requirements of marketing managers. The methodological
design of this study will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore
whether there is a significant gap between the professional practice and
theoretical development of the domain.
2.1.7 Relationship Marketing Definitions
Eloquently summarising the conceptual fuzziness of relationship marketing,
Harker (1999, p.15) highlights there is no universally accepted definition of the
concept because attempts to define relationship marketing are attempts to
stipulate what concepts should form the essence of relationship marketing.
However, embracing content analysis as a qualitative data research
methodology, Harker (1999, p.16) suggests Gronroos’s (1994) definition of
relationship marketing is the “best” in terms of its coverage of the underlying
conceptualisations of relationship marketing and its acceptability throughout the
“relationship marketing community”. Furthermore, Daskou and Mangina (2003,
p.87) suggest Gronroos’s (1994) definition is still popular within the academic
community predominately because the definition is viewed as reasonably
comprehensive. Gronroos (1994) suggests:
“Relationship marketing is to identify and establish, maintain and enhance andwhen necessary also to terminate relationships with customers and other
stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties are met, and thatthis is done by a mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
17
At this stage of the report, the author feels obliged to highlight several key
references that have informed the study’s understanding and presentation of the
relationship marketing concept: Gronroos’s (1994) popular definition; a medley
of contemporary definitions (see Figure 2); an article in the professional
publication ‘Data Strategy’ (Webber 2004, p.16); Christopher et al’s (2004, p.1)
previously cited relationship marketing worldview; and Chaffey et al’s (2000 cited
Egan 2001a, p.193) one-to-one relationship marketing perspective.
Fig.2 Relationship Marketing Definitions (Source: Various)
“Relationship Marketing covers all actions for the analysis, planning, realisation,and control of measures that initiate, stabilise, intensify, and reactivate businessrelationships with the corporation’s stakeholders – mainly customers – and to the
creation of mutual value”
Bruhn (2003, p.11)
“Relationship marketing has the aim of building mutually satisfying long-termrelations with key parties – customers, suppliers, distributors – in order to earn and
retain business” *
Kotler (2003, p.13)
“Relationship marketing is the consistent application of up-to-date knowledge ofindividual customers to product and service design which is communicated
interactively, in order to develop a continuous and long-term relationship, which ismutually beneficial”
Cram (1994 cited Chaffey et al 2003, p.42)
“Relationship marketing is marketing based on interaction within networks ofrelationships” **
Gummesson (2002c, p.3)
* Kotler (2003, p.13) notes this definition embraces three definitions from the literature: Christopher et al (1991); McKenna (1991); and Gummesson (1999).
** Gummesson (2003) suggests this definition is the outcome of an inductive grounded theory approach, “going beyond the usual descriptive definitions” (p.168).
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
18
Reflecting upon relationship marketing’s axioms and definitions, the author
suggests: relationship marketing implies the development of long-term
relationships with key parties (consumers within the context of this
investigation) in order to better understand how to develop and deliver
propositions tailored to the needs of the specific market segments identified.
Furthermore, relationship marketing appears to respect and value markets
segmented at the level of the individual i.e. one-to-one marketing (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993). In summary, the author suggests the philosophy of relationship
marketing is to create and sustain a ‘win-win’ scenario within a commercial
environment. Moreover, the practice of relationship marketing requires
commercial organisations to develop ‘interactive’ methodologies to determine
and sustain a two-way flow of value. Within this context, value is defined as “the
balance between benefits received and sacrifices made to experience those
benefits” (Buttle 2004, p.228). Figure 3 diagrammatically represents the author’s
worldview of relationship marketing in a B2C marketing environment.
Fig.3 Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Relationship Marketing
Business Consumer
* Value is defined as “the balance between benefits received andsacrifices made to experience those benefits” (Buttle 2004, p.228)
MutualExchange
Of Value *
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
19
2.2 The Impact of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICT) on Relationship Marketing in a B2C Marketing Environment
2.2.1 One-to-One Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
Prior to the mass marketing approach that had accompanied the Industrial
Revolution and dominated commercial activity in the 20th century, sellers often
knew their customers and generally understood their needs (Mitchell 2000; Egan
2001a; Chen and Popovich 2003). With mass retailing (e.g. supermarkets) and
the marketing of standardised products through one-to-many (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996) marketing channels (e.g. analogue television), buyers and sellers
(inevitably) lost their “intimate relationships” (Chen and Popovich 2003, p.685).
However, there is a view that the contextual changes of the 1990s and 2000s
(i.e. the explosion of IT and the Internet) have offered commercial organisations
the opportunity to re-establish one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) marketing
relationships with their customers (Falk and Schmidt 1997; Mitchell 2000;
Zineldin 2000; Lindgreen and Pels 2002; Chen and Popovich, 2003; Urban 2004).
The questions arise: are one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) marketing
relationships genuinely achievable, economically viable or even desired by
today’s B2C marketing practitioners? This study’s methodological design will aim
to offer the author an opportunity to explore whether the one-to-one marketing
approach (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) is just enthusiastic, academic rhetoric
(driven by ICT developments) or a reality for today’s B2C marketing practioners.
2.2.2 Many-to-Many Marketing: Rhetoric or Reality?
Gummesson (2004a) contends relationship marketing theory will develop in a
many-to-many (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), networked marketing environment.
Specifically, Gummesson (2004a, p.1) argues:
“Marketing does not live in one-to-one relationships but in many-to-manynetworks”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
20
Supporting Gummesson’s (2004a) development of the one-to-one (Peppers and
Rogers, 1993) relational marketing framework (see Figure 4), Peters and Fletcher
(2004, p.1) suggest today’s marketing researchers may benefit from modifying
existing theoretical perspectives in order to take account of the increasing
interconnectedness of today’s consumers and businesses through ICT-enabled
social systems, such as the Internet. The many-to-many (Hoffman and Novak,
1996) structure of the Internet coupled with the adoption of the channel by
increasing numbers of UK consumers and businesses (Interactive Advertising
Bureau UK, 2004) suggests to the author that Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-
many marketing framework may prove to be academically robust within the UK’s
B2C online marketing environment. The question arises, is this contemporary
framework useful in today’s broader B2C marketing environment where many
organisations are finding the practice of marketing “complex” (The Future
Foundation 2003, p.6) and many consumers are “confused and disorientated”
(Mintel 2002, p.3)? Gummesson (2004a, p.1) contends:
* Identify your customers* Differentiate your customers* Interact with your customers* Customize* Learning relationships
* Identify your networks of relationships* Differentiate your relationships* Interact with the network members* Customize* Learning networks
One-to-One MarketingPeppers and Rogers (1993)
Many-to-Many MarketingGummesson (2004)
CustomerNetwork
SupplierNetwork
SupplierCustomer
Fig.4 One-to-One (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) versus Many-to-Many Marketing(Gummesson, 2004a)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
21
“The contribution from one-to-one, not least through the expressive wording, isfirst and foremost to put the light on individual interaction in marketing. The
contribution of many-to-many is taking one-to-one further and addressing thewhole context of a complex world”
The author suggests Samli and Bahn’s (1992) definition of a market supports
Gummessson’s (2004a) many-to-many relationship marketing perspective as
presented in Figure 4. Samli and Bahn (1992, p.147) suggest:
“A market is a communication network, with communication defined as all meansof facilitating the exchange of knowledge, the expression of desires, and the
dissemination of information”
Moreover, Peters and Fletcher (2004, p.1) suggest Samli and Bahn’s (1992)
definition of a market has merit in today’s complex marketing environment
because it is “dynamic, focuses on the flow of information and behavioural
patterns, and considers both consumers and businesses as critical nodes in a
communication network”. However, it should be noted that there appears to be
little support within the academic literature for Gummesson’s (2002c, p.315)
foundational work:
“Relationships, networks and interaction are the core concepts of relationshipmarketing”
This empirical finding suggests that the “relationship marketing community”
(Harker, 1999) may not readily adopt Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-many
marketing perspective. The research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore Gummesson’s (2004a) many-to-many relationship
marketing thesis from both an academic and a professional perspective. It is
noted that the academic textbook from which this body of work emanates ‘Many-
to-Many Marketing’ (Gummesson, 2004b) has only been published in Sweden.
However, Evert Gummesson has kindly provided the author with a recent paper
‘From One-to-One to Many-to-Many Marketing’ (Gummesson, 2004a) for
reference within this discussion. The thesis is presented in Appendix 1.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
22
2.2.3 Consumers: Empowered and Confused
There is a view that technological developments have “empowered” consumers
within the customer-supplier dyad (Chaffey et al, 2003; Kotler, 2003; Urban,
2004). Daskou and Mangina (2003, p.87) suggest there is a new type of
consumer who is more informed, demanding and sophisticated. Enthusiastically,
Urban (2004, p.78) suggests today’s consumers now have the opportunity to
effectively verify an organisation’s claims (value propositions) and efficiently
search for superior alternatives through “enabling” many-to-many (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996) technologies, such as the Internet. However, Mintel’s (2002)
previously cited research suggests to the author that such conclusions should be
tempered with reference to the UK’s B2C marketing environment i.e. ICT
developments may also be fuelling consumer “information and decision overload”
(Mintel 2002, p.3). This study’s research design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to further explore relationship marketing strategies in a many-to-
many (Hoffman and Novak, 1996), networked marketing environment where it is
postulated that consumers are becoming increasingly empowered and confused.
2.2.4 Loyalty Marketing
There is a view that for commercial organisations to achieve closer relationships
with their customers in today’s “new economy” (Gummesson 2002c; Kotler et al
2002), a rich customer database is required. Gilbert (2003, p.189) suggests that
some of the UK’s leading mass retailers (e.g. Tesco and Sainsbury’s) are
successfully adopting ICT-enabled programmes that generate rich and relevant
data: loyalty schemes. However, Enver (2004, p.1) suggests true customer
“knowledge” is virtually impossible to achieve within many B2C sectors where
poor data, and privacy laws, often militate against relationship building.
Furthermore, UK research by Pressey and Matthews (2000, p.272) suggests
relational marketing strategies are not practical for mass retailers, such as
supermarkets, where many transactions are “discrete, short-term, one-off acts”.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
23
The question arises: do any loyalty marketing programmes within the UK’s B2C
marketing environment generate ‘win-win’ scenarios? Stone et al (2003, p.308)
suggest approximately 80% of UK households participate in at least one
customer loyalty scheme and Tesco attribute more than £100 million of
incremental sales per annum directly to their loyalty programme ‘Clubcard’
(Humby et al, 2003). Moreover, Humby et al (2003, p.5) suggest Tesco has
issued more than £1 billion of ‘Clubcard’ loyalty vouchers to customers and the
organisation has run the programme for no net cost since 1995. These findings
suggest that loyalty programmes can be effective relational strategies within the
UK’s B2C marketing environment. The study’s research design will aim to offer
the author a further opportunity to investigate loyalty schemes and the concept
of loyalty marketing.
2.2.5 Relationship Marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM)
and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
A review of the academic publications the ‘Journal of Relationship Marketing’
(2002a; 2002b; 2002c; 2003a; 2003b) and the Institute of Direct Marketing’s
‘Interactive Marketing’ (2004a; 2004b; 2004c) highlights that a number of
academics and practitioners assume relationship marketing, Customer
Relationship Marketing (CRM) and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
are effectively synonymous terms in today’s B2C marketing environment. The
academic question arises: are the terms conceptually interchangeable? The
author suggests this is a challenging question because there are no universally
accepted definitions of relationship marketing, Customer Relationship Marketing
(CRM) or Customer Relationship Management (CRM) within the literature (Harker
1999; Egan 2001a; Kenyon and Vakola 2003; Enver 2004). However, to satisfy
the study’s primary objective, ‘to provide a critical understanding of the
development and future of relationship marketing as an academic and
professional domain within the UK’s B2C marketing environment’, the author will
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
24
explore various CRM perspectives and definitions within the literature. The
study’s methodological design will aim to offer the author a further opportunity
to explore this conceptual quagmire from both an academic and a professional
perspective. This research strategy should also offer the author an opportunity to
explore whether a significant gap exists between the professional practice and
theoretical development of relationship marketing, Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) and Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM).
Kotler (2003, p.52) contends the merits of a Customer Relationship Marketing
(CRM) strategy:
“Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM) enables companies to provide excellentreal-time customer service by developing a relationship with each valued
customer through the effective use of individual account information”
Kenyon and Vakola (2003) suggest Chablo’s (1999, p.12) definition of Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) is purposeful within a B2C marketing context:
“Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a comprehensive approach whichprovides seamless integration of every area of business that touches thecustomer – namely marketing, sales, customer service and field support –
through the integration of people, processes and technology, taking advantageof the revolutionary impact of the Internet”
However, Coad (2004, p.323) suggests the idea of a ‘single-customer view’ is
somewhat utopian and in practice unworkable for many organisations in a B2C
marketing environment. Srivastava et al (1999, p.170) suggest:
“The Customer Relationship Management (CRM) process addresses all aspects ofidentifying customers, creating customer knowledge, building customer
relationships, and shaping their perceptions of the organisation and its products”
Acknowledging Srivastava et al’s (1999) definition, Zinkham (2002, p.83)
suggests Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is perhaps a broader
concept than relationship marketing. Conversely, Gummesson (2004a, p.1)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
25
argues relationship marketing is the broader, overriding concept and suggests
CRM is a relationship marketing “brand” offered by consultants and practitioners:
“CRM (Customer Relationship Management) is the values and strategies ofrelationship marketing – with emphasis on the dyadic customer-supplier
relationship – turned into practical application and dependent both on humanaction and information technology”
Buttle’s (2004, p.34) definition of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is
interesting because it takes a business strategy view of CRM rather than focusing
on the ICT component:
“CRM is the core business strategy that integrates internal processes andfunctions, and external networks, to create and deliver value to targeted
customers at a profit. It is grounded on high quality data and enabled by IT”
The author suggests that a recent CRM definition by Zikmund et al (2003, p.3)
neatly fits the ‘win-win’ and ‘interactive’ relationship marketing worldview
presented within this literature review:
“Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a business strategy that usesinformation technology to provide an enterprise with a comprehensive, reliable,
and integrated view of its customer base so that all processes and customerinteractions help maintain and expand mutually beneficial relationships”
With CRM’s proximity to the fuzzy and ambiguous concept of relationship
marketing, the plethora of CRM definitions and perspectives is perhaps
unsurprising. In summary, the author suggests that the term CRM is more
associated with the use of ICT as a means of implementing the relational
marketing approach. This conclusion is supported by Clark et al’s (2004, p.24)
value framework for CRM (see Figure 5) and Gummesson’s (2002, p.314)
observation “relationship marketing is an attitude and CRM is a tool”. The study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore the
validity of Clark et al’s (2002) CRM framework within the B2C marketing
environment.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
26
Fig.5 A functional model for Customer Relationship Management (CRM)(Source: Clark et al, 2004)
2.2.6 ICT-Enabled Buzzwords
A review of the contemporary academic relationship marketing literature yields a
plethora of ICT-enabled ‘relationship marketing’ definitions and perspectives, for
example, Technologicalship Marketing [TM] (Zineldin, 2000), electronic Customer
Relationship Marketing [e-CRM] (McIntyre, 2003; Luck and Lancaster, 2003) and
e-loyalty (Reichheld et al, 2000). The question arises: are these electronic
Relationship Marketing (e-RM) concepts substantive variants of the relationship
marketing concept or ICT-enabled buzzwords? The author acknowledges that
marketing theory is “context driven” (Sheth and Sisodia, 1999) and endorses the
view that marketing academics must challenge “in-bedded concepts” (Egan
2001a, p.24) as the competitive environment changes but are these electronic
Relationship Marketing (e-RM) concepts inhabiting a cul-de-sac of relationship
marketing theory and impeding the development of a cohesive relationship
Cultural and Climate Conditions
IT ConditionsMarketingStrategyConditions
Data Analysisand Value
Identification
Monitoring,Feedback and
Control
Data Gatheringand Organisation Value Delivery
“CRM is the managementprocess that uses individualcustomer data to enable atailored and mutually viable
value proposition”(Clarke et al 2002, p.23)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
27
marketing domain? Moreover, will tomorrow’s mobile technological developments
offer relationship marketing’s primary interlocutors an opportunity to generate a
plethora of m-RM, m-CRM and m-loyalty definitions and frameworks? The study’s
methodological design will aim to offer the author an opportunity to explore the
fuzzy and ambiguous ‘umbrella’ concept of electronic Relationship Marketing (e-
RM) from both an academic and a professional perspective.
2.3 Relevance Marketing: A Criticism of Relationship Marketing
The question arises: do consumers actually want ‘relationships’ or just relevant
propositions in today’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing environment? The
author suggests that it is not unreasonable to presuppose that a significant
percentage of UK consumers may find the idea of having ‘relationships’ with
commercial organisations simply absurd. So where does this leave the domain of
relationship marketing within the context of this investigation? Assuming that the
function of B2C marketing is to offer relevant propositions to relevant customers
(i.e. profitable customers) and to provide relevant solutions to customers’
problems, the author tentatively suggests branding the domain of relationship
marketing as relevance marketing may enhance the validity of the definitions and
frameworks promulgated by the domain’s chief protagonists. Within this
discussion, “validity means (in essence) that a theory, model, concept or
category describes reality with a good fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93).
The author notes: this is not a criticism of the relationship marketing philosophy
or the practical applicability of the definitions and frameworks but a criticism of
the terminology. The author presents a sample of relevance marketing and
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) definitions, perspectives and
frameworks in Figure 6. Relevance marketing is built upon the (rather obvious)
premise that if a customer is presented with a relevant proposition or solution, it
is more likely that a mutual exchange of value will occur. Within the domain of
relevance marketing, it is assumed that a consumer’s loyalty to a commercial
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
28
organisation is primarily driven by the business’s ability to continuously deliver
relevant propositions rather than the consumer’s desire to have a ‘relationship’.
Moreover, the author tentatively suggests that the marketing of relevant
propositions generally relies upon the organisation’s manipulation of the classic
pillars of marketing i.e. the marketing mix, or 4Ps (product, place, promotion and
price) coupled with an understanding of the customers’ perception of value
obtained through ‘interactive’ processes and marketing strategies.
Fig.6 Relevance Marketing
Cultural and Climate Conditions
IT ConditionsMarketingStrategyConditions
One-to-One Relevance Marketing(Adapted from Peppers and Rogers, 1993)
* Identify your customers* Differentiate your customers* Interact with your customers* Customize* Learning relevance (not relationships!)
“Relevance marketing is to identifyand establish, maintain an enhance and
when necessary also to terminateaccounts with customers and otherstakeholders, at a profit, so that the
objectives of all parties are met, and thisis done by a mutual exchange and
fulfilment of promises”
(Adapted from Gronroos, 1994)
“Customer RelevanceManagement, however
well designed and executedcan only work within an
environment delineated byMarketing Strategy, Cultural
and IT Parameters”
The Customer Relevance Management Space(Adapted from Clark et al, 2004)
“CustomerRelevance
Management(CRM) is a core
business strategythat integrates
internal processesand functions, and
external networks, tocreate and delivervalue to targetedcustomers at a
profit. It is groundedon high quality dataand enabled by IT”
(Adapted fromButtle, 2004)
Business Consumer
“Relevance marketing hasthe aim of building mutually
satisfying long-term, interactiveaccounts with key parties in
order to earn and retainbusiness”
(Adapted from Kotler, 2003)
“Relevance marketing is an attitude and Customer Relevance Management is a tool”(Adapted from Gummesson, 2002)
Mutual Exchange Of Value
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
29
2.3.1 Customer Relevance Management (CRM) at Tesco
Somewhat surprisingly, the study’s literature review has only established one
reference adopting this terminology and consumer marketing perspective: “R is
for Relevance: An antidote to CRM Hype” (Humby, 2004). The PowerPoint
presentation that accompanied Humby’s (2004) lecture at the Institute of Direct
Marketing’s (IDM) Annual Lecture is provided in Appendix 2 for further reference.
Humby (2004) contends, “the CRM revolution was a lot of hype and noise” and
“it’s time to tear up the rule book and develop some new metrics of customer
investments”. Humby (2004) suggests the Customer Relevance Management
(CRM) philosophy embraces a customer-centric approach which involves the
measurement and assessment of every aspect of customer interaction and works
on the assumption that an organisation’s brand assets are a function of its
customer assets (see Appendix 2 for explicit definitions of brands assets and
customer assets). Moreover, Humby (2004) suggests “customers generate
income and brand equity from the combination of advocacy, share of wallet and
financial value” and the Customer Relevance Management (CRM) measurement
framework “integrates all customer investment decisions and monitors their
impact across each segment in terms of current and future value”.
From an academic perspective, Humby (2004) does not explicitly define
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) and it should be noted that this concept
has not been formally published within the academic literature. However, Figure
7 (Humby, 2004) diagrammatically represents Humby’s (2004) Customer
Relevance Management (CRM) measurement framework as presented at the
IDM’s Annual Lecture in London, England. Humby is the chief information
architect behind Tesco’s loyalty programme ‘Clubcard’ and is therefore
considered to be a leading authority on (ICT-enabled) B2C marketing strategies
within the UK’s marketing environment. In a recent publication, ‘Scoring Points:
How Tesco is winning customer loyalty’, Humby et al (2003, p.16) comment:
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
30
“For Tesco Clubcard, the definition of Customer Relationship Management (CRM)is best summarised as: to improve our performance at every point of contact
with our customers, to make them happier and the company richer. It’s no morecomplicated than that”
Moreover, in a recent interview (Powell 2004, p.4), Humby contends:
“CRM is built on a fallacy because customers don’t want a relationship with theirbank or their grocer or their supermarket. Tesco does not have a CRM
programme. Tesco has a loyalty scheme and what this is saying is ‘we get yourdata for giving you money back, and with the data we will give you a more
relevant experience in our shops because you choose to shop there’ "
The author tentatively suggests Tesco’s Customer Relevance Management (CRM)
worldview ‘fits’ the relationship marketing and relevance marketing frameworks
presented within this study: the organisation’s B2C marketing strategy appears
to be framed an ‘interactive’ and ‘win-win’ philosophy. Moreover, recent figures
suggest that Tesco’s Customer Relevance Management (CRM) strategy is highly
effective within the UK’s B2C marketing environment with the behemoth
achieving a 12% share of the UK’s total retail sales (The Grocer 2004, p.15).
Humby et al (2003, p.1) comment:
“Before Clubcard, Tesco was stuck as the UK’s second-ranking supermarket.Today, not only is it the UK’s largest grocer, it is the world‘s most successful
Internet supermarket, one of Europe’s fastest growing financial servicescompanies and arguably one of the world’s most successful exponents of what
the jargon terms Customer Relationship Management, or CRM”
The author tentatively suggests that the concepts of relevance marketing and its
ICT-enabled cousin, Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby, 2004),
may have intuitive appeal for B2C marketers who are looking to add value to
their proposition, combat customer confusion and gain loyalty in a marketing
environment where many consumers are suffering from “information and
decision overload” (Mintel 2002, p.3). This study’s methodological design will aim
to offer the author an opportunity to further explore these concepts from both an
academic and a professional perspective. This strategy should offer the author
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
31
an opportunity to investigate whether relevance marketing is the new, improved
B2C relationship marketing or just another marketing buzzword.
Fig.6 Customer Relevance Management Measurement Framework(Source: Humby, 2004)
Fig.7 Customer Relevance Management Measurement Framework(Humby, 2004)
Price, Product, PromotionMarketing Inputs
Retention
Marketing Inputs
Upsell
Cross Sell
New Channels
Customer Service Inputs
Multi-DimensionalBehaviouralSegments
Outcomes
Price, Product, Promotion
Sales Desk
Call Centre
After Sales
Price
Promotions
ProductInnovation
Contribution
Commitment
Championing
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
32
3. Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The study’s primary aim is to provide a critical understanding of the development
and future of relationship marketing as an academic and professional domain
within the UK’s dynamic and complex, B2C marketing environment. Crudely
summarising, the study’s methodological design will aim to offer the author an
opportunity to explore the validity of the marketing concepts and frameworks
presented in the literature review. Within this context, “validity means (in
essence) that a theory, model, concept or category describes reality with a good
fit” (Gummesson 2000, p.93). Primary areas of investigation determined by the
literature review:
• Relationship Marketing;
• Customer Relationship Management (CRM);
• Loyalty Marketing;
• One-to-One Marketing (Peppers and Rogers, 1993);
• Many-to-Many Marketing (Gummesson, 2004a);
• electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM);
• Customer Relevance Management (Humby, 2004);
• Relevance Marketing
Considering the ambitious nature of the study’s primary aim and the plethora of
concepts, theories, threads, themes and tensions presented within the literature
review, the author suggests a purposeful sample would include senior B2C
marketing managers, independent marketing consultants and marketing
academics. The author notes: the conceptual areas of primary investigation are
diagrammatically represented by Figures 1a and 1b.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
33
3.2 Research Strategy: An Exploratory, Qualitative Approach
The author suggests that the adoption of an exploratory, qualitative research
methodology would be appropriate. Moreover, the author suggests that the
exploratory, qualitative nature of the research is implied by the study’s primary
aim. Denscombe (1998, p.174) suggests qualitative research tends to be
associated with: words as the unit of analysis rather than numbers; thick
description (Geertz, 1973) i.e. a detailed description of the process, context and
people in the research (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.100); small-scale studies
rather than large-scale studies; a holistic perspective rather than a specific focus;
researcher involvement rather than researcher detachment; and an emergent
rather than a prescriptive research strategy. Moreover, Daymon and Holloway
(2002, p.6) suggest qualitative researchers have a desire to explore and present
the various subjective perspectives of participants. These characteristics
generally associated with qualitative research and qualitative researchers have
framed the author’s strategic decision to adopt a qualitative approach i.e. the
author suggests that a qualitative methodology is more likely to “fit” (Denscombe
1998, p.3) the study’s primary objective than a quantitative approach.
3.2.1 Rich and Relevant Data
Daymon and Holloway (2002, p.159) suggest the underlying principle of gaining
rich, in-depth data should guide the sampling strategies of qualitative
researchers. The author suggests that exploring the marketing concepts and
frameworks presented in the literature review with senior B2C marketing
managers, independent marketing consultants and marketing academics may
generate rich and relevant data. Furthermore, exploring relationship marketing’s
axioms, definitions, theories and concepts with such an ambitious sample may
offer the author an opportunity to explore whether a significant gap exists
between the professional practice and theoretical development of the domain.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
34
3.3 Epistemological Considerations
It is important to consider the epistemological premise and ontological approach
of the research strategy in order to establish a conceptual framework to review
the research methodology (Gunter, 2000). The author suggests that the primary
research strategy of seeking the subjective opinions of the study’s participants is
informed by an interpretivist worldview. By adopting a hermeneutic position, the
author suggests the research is embracing constructivism as an ontological
approach and this is considered to be synergistic with the explorative nature of
the study. Supporting the author’s approach, Daymon and Holloway (2002, p.5)
suggest qualitative methods “are frequently seen to be inseparable from the
interpretive, constructivist worldview”. Embracing an inductive approach, the
author will analyse the qualitative data and then develop conclusions. It is hoped
that the research will move inductively from specific data to more general
patterns of commonalities (Daymon et al 2002, p.6). However, because the
research is qualitative in design, the author acknowledges that any findings can
never be more than strong possibilities. In summary, the research is primarily
concerned with gaining insight and understanding.
3.4 Bias, Reliability and Validity
It is imperative that the author does not introduce bias into the research and
therefore damage the educative authenticity of the findings. For example, the
author must be careful not to ‘over-sell’ the concept of relevance marketing
during the primary data collection. This scenario would be somewhat ironic
considering this study’s literature review highlights a marketing climate where
academics have published “self-serving jargon” (Tapp 2003, p.105) and “highly
selective” (Egan 2001b, p.376) marketing theory.
The criteria against which the quality of the research will be judged relate to the
benchmarks of reliability and validity. By embracing these benchmarks, the
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
35
author aims to overcome any charge of being too impressionistic during the data
collection and too subjective in the analysis. To enhance the overall validity and
reliability of the study, two strategies for ensuring the quality of the research
have been determined. The primary strategy is “member checking” (Lincoln and
Guba 1985 cited Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.95): presenting participants with
a summary of the data collected and the author’s interpretation of the data. The
second strategy is to provide a “thick description” (Geertz 1973 cited Daymon
and Holloway 2002, p.100): a detailed description of the process, context and
people in the research (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.100). A weakness of the
second strategy is that some participants may not wish to be identified.
3.5 A Holistic and Non-Commercial Perspective
The author suggests that his previous professional experience (UK Sales and
Marketing Manager for a leading multiple retailer in a niche market sector) and
his recent academic experience (post-graduate student of interactive marketing)
may provide a holistic focus to the research. Moreover, the author suggests that
his non-commercial (academic) approach is possibly a strategic advantage for
gaining access to purposeful individuals: participants may be less inclined to help
researchers from organisations that may commercially gain from their
involvement. Furthermore, a marketing consultant or journalist investigating this
topic would possibly have commercial objectives to consider and therefore their
findings and analysis may not be free from bias and teleological assumptions.
3.6 Method
It is a common view that the use of exploratory techniques such as group
discussions and in-depth interviews are appropriate for exploring fuzzy marketing
phenomena (Gummesson 2000; Daymon and Holloway 2002). However, the
author dismisses the strategy of organising group discussions for two reasons:
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
36
participants may moderate their views within a group discussion; and it would be
challenging to co-ordinate the diaries of such an ambitious sample.
The author suggests that an appropriate primary data collection method would
be to organise one-to-one, in-depth interviews with an appropriate number of
senior B2C marketing managers, independent marketing consultants and
marketing academics. This method choice has been primarily influenced by
contemporary studies including Mouncey et al’s (2002) ‘Interactive marketing:
The new marketing – Or more of the same?’. Mouncey et al (2002) aimed to
explore the fuzzy and ambiguous domain of interactive marketing within the UK’s
B2B and B2C marketing environments. Embracing a qualitative methodology,
Mouncey et al (2002) conducted individual, in-depth interviews with ten senior
marketing practitioners employed across a variety of industry sectors. Mouncey
et al (2002, p.133) suggest the primary data generated by this exploratory
technique was useful for their publication:
“While a limitation of the research is the small sample size, the in-depthinterview approach has provided valuable detailed case-study-based insights
enabling the key underlying principles to be identified”
Given the breadth of this study’s primary objective, the author aims to conduct at
least ten in-depth interviews. The one-to-one interviews are to be guided by a
semi-structured questionnaire framed by the key issues and crucial questions
identified within the literature review. The semi-structured questionnaire is
presented in Appendix 3. Ideally, the interviews would be conducted face-to-
face. However, the author would consider telephone interviews, or possibly
electronic interviews (e-interviews) framed by the semi-structured questionnaire,
if a “purposeful” (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.159) individual targeted by the
author agreed to participate but expressed a preference to contribute to the
study via these channels. The author acknowledges that semi-structured and
unstructured interviews are on a continuum and it is hoped that the interviewees
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
37
will elaborate on the issues raised by the author and “speak their minds”
(Denscombe 1998, p.113). However, the author acknowledges that this is less
likely via electronic (asynchronous) methods. With this in mind, the author hopes
that the majority of the primary data collection events will be face-to-face.
Moreover, the author suggests the real-time events should be at least 45
minutes in duration considering the ambitious nature of the investigation. Finally,
the author hopes to recruit individuals with diverse commercial and academic
interests to enhance the “generalizability” (Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.91) of
the research. For example, it would be useful to interview senior marketing
practioners from non-related commercial sectors (e.g. Fast Moving Consumer
Goods (FMCG) and luxury goods). An emergent rather than a prescriptive
research strategy will determine the precise ratio of senior marketing managers,
independent consultants and academics. However, the author hopes that the
sample will contain an appropriate balance of academic and professional
marketing perspectives.
3.7 The Interlocutors
The author presupposed that a percentage of the key speakers at Marketing
Week’s ‘Multi-Channel Direct Marketing 2004’ conference would be interested in
contributing to this study. Centaur Conferences (Appendix 4) comment:
“This event is dedicated to exploring and solving the challenge of how to delivereffective and measurable communications to customers within this virtual, multi-
channel world where every campaign must add to the bottom line”
The author approached (via e-mail) four of the fourteen keynote speakers and
was encouraged by a 75% response rate resulting in three face-to-face
interviews. Merlin Stone (Professor of Relationship Marketing - IBM / University
of the West of England); Jonathan Latham (Head of Relationship Management –
Sainsbury’s); and Matthew Button (CRM and Database Manager – Lexus GB)
have all agreed to be identified within the study.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
38
The Institute of Direct Marketing (2004c, p.5) publishes ‘Interactive Marketing’ :
“The aim of Interactive Marketing is to provide an indispensable resource forsenior marketing managers seeking awareness of new marketing concepts,
strategies and applications from around the world”
The author presupposed that a percentage of the editorial board would be
interested in contributing to this exploratory study. Encouraging communications
with the journal’s publishing editor and co-editor in chief determined a shortlist
of potential interlocutors. The author approached (via e-mail) seven members of
the editorial board and was encouraged by 85.7% response rate resulting in one
face-to-face interview, one telephone interview and two e-interviews. For the
telephone interview, the respondent kindly offered to record the event.
Furthermore, all e-participants offered the author the opportunity to question
their responses via e-mail. Note: after initially dismissing the idea of
e-interviewing the National CRM Manager for Sears (Canada), the author
contacted the individual hoping that this strategy may enhance the study’s
external reliability. Bruce Clarkson (National CRM Manager – Sears); Peter
Mouncey (Independent Consultant & Visiting Fellow at Cranfield University); Alan
Mitchell (Business Writer); and Richard Webber (Independent Consultant &
Visiting Professor at University College London) have all agreed to be identified
within the study. The author approached (via e-mail) seven marketing
academics. This resulted in a 71.4% response rate and three face-to-face
interviews. Malcolm McDonald (Emeritus Professor of Marketing at Cranfield
University); John Egan (Principal Lecturer at Middlesex University); and Keith
Fletcher (Professor of Marketing at the University of East Anglia) have all agreed
to be identified within the study. The editorial board of ‘The Journal of
Relationship Marketing’ has only one member based in the UK. Christine Ennew
(Professor of Marketing at Nottingham University) has agreed to be identified in
the study: a 100% response rate. A “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of all the
participants is provided in table 1 with interview timings and event details.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
39
Interlocutor Organisation /Primary Role
Event Details Background / RelevantInformation
ProfessorMalcolm
McDonald
Malcolm McDonaldInternational Ltd
Cranfield University
IndependentConsultant
CharteredInstitute ofMarketing(Cookham,
Berks)30-06-04
(45 minutes)
Extensive industrial experience,including a number of years as
Marketing Director of Canada Dry.Chairman of six companies. Author of
37 books. Current interests centrearound the use of IT in advanced
marketing processes.Bruce Clarkson Sears (Canada)
National CRMManager
e-interview07-07-04
Peter Mouncey Cranfield UniversityIndependentConsultant
e-interview09-07-0413-07-04
Director of research at the IDM, avisiting fellow at Cranfield Universityand a consultant on market research
and CRM.ProfessorRichardWebber
University College ofLondon
Visiting ProfessorIndependentConsultant
Private House(London)12-07-04
(60 minutes)
Formerly Managing Director ofExperian’s Micromarketing division.
Generally recognised as the originatorof UK geodemographic systems.
John Egan Middlesex UniversityPrincipal Lecturer of
Marketing
MiddlesexUniversity13-07-04
(90 minutes)
Twenty-four years’ experience workingin the retail marketing sector withcompanies such as Bloomingdales
(New York), Harrods (UK).JonathanLatham
Sainsbury’sSenior Manager
Head of RelationshipManagement
Sainsbury’s HQ(London)15-07-04
(45 minutes)
.
ProfessorKeith Fletcher
University of EastAnglia
Professor ofMarketing
Private House(Norwich)19-07-04
(90 minutes)
Research interests include consumerbehaviour, database marketing and
the development of CRM.
ProfessorMerlin Stone
University of theWest of England
University of SurreyIBM
Consultant
IBM(London)22-07-04
(2 hours inc.lunch!)
IBM Professor of RelationshipMarketing. Business Research Leader
with IBM’s Business ConsultingServices. Director of four companies.
Author of 11 books, 40 Journal ArticlesAlan
MitchellBusiness Writer Telephone
Interview08-07-04
(50 minutes)
Author of ‘Right Side Up’ and co-author of ‘The New Bottom Line:Bridging the Value Gaps that are
Undermining your Business’ProfessorChristineEnnew
NottinghamUniversity
Professor ofMarketing
NottinghamUniversity26-07-04
(70 minutes)
Director of DeHaan Tourism andTravel Research Institute
Editorial Board: ‘The Journal ofRelationship Marketing’.
MatthewButton
Lexus (GB) LtdCRM & Database
Marketing Manager
Lexus (GB)(Epsom)12-08-04
(45 minutes)
Table 1. The Interlocutors
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
40
3.8 Evaluation of Research Design
While a limitation of the research is the small sample size, the interview
approach has provided valuable insight into the fuzzy and ambiguous domain of
(relationship) marketing. The author considers the methodology was appropriate
and the sample contained an appropriate balance of academic and professional
perspectives. The author suggests: adopting a “member checking” (Lincoln and
Guba 1985 cited Daymon and Holloway 2002, p.95) strategy has enhanced the
internal validity of the research; providing a “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) of
the study’s participants and the primary data collection events has enhanced the
overall quality of the research; and the reliability of the research has been
enhanced by the application of a “consistent” (Denscombe 1998, p.240) set of
questions during the primary data collection events. The author notes: the
eleven discrete primary data events satisfied the minimum requirement; the
average duration of the face-to-face interviews exceeded the minimum
requirement; the majority of the face-to-face interviews were recorded (the
single exception being Malcolm McDonald: author forgot to tape!); and the semi-
structured questionnaire was a useful stimulus during data collection. Finally, the
author feels obliged to present an extract from Gummesson’s (2002b, p.325)
publication ‘Practical Value of Adequate Marketing Management Theory’ which
has significantly influenced the author’s methodological approach:
“Vedic philosophy treats knowledge as a blend of three interacting elements: the process of knowing(methodology), the knower (the researcher) and the known (the result). All three are needed inknowledge generation...My interest in theory has gradually brought me closer to qualitative methodsand the philosophy of science philosophies as expressed in hermeneutics, phenomenology and thehumanities, and away from quantification and positivism of traditional sciences. This transition is causedby the limitations experienced in quantitative research and the complacent, taken-for-granted attitude ofmarketing academics that statistical studies are the key to truth, the superior approach, and the cure-all.From my experience both as a producer of surveys, a buyer of market research, and a user of marketingdata, I have seen it deliver only in special cases. By giving preference to a highly deductive, survey-based approach, researchers contract chronic myopia. Opportunities of getting closer to the ‘real reality’and thus securing validity are pushed aside by a fascination for intricacies or research techniques,mistaking the outcome for a valid image. In saying this, I do not disqualify quantitative research assuch, only claim that it is over-used and over-rated as a tool in decision-making and the implementationof business. An ingenious concept, category or theory gives much more guidance than surveydistributions, standard deviations, staples and random samples. Together with experience, tacitknowledge and intuition, theory gives a structure and a framework, a context”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
41
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1 Relationship Marketing > Relevance Marketing
This study is concerned with the validity of relationship marketing as presented
in the academic literature. During the primary data collection phase of the study,
an Independent Consultant questioned the validity of the ‘relationship marketing’
definitions presented in chapter 2:
“Doesn’t it strike you as curious that these definitions of relationship marketingare in fact non-definitions, since they define relationship marketing as the
attempt to do something with, or for, or in the context of a relationship, andmake no attempt to define what they mean by a relationship?”
The author tentatively suggests that this insightful comment supports the
relevance marketing definitions and perspectives presented in Figure 6. A medley
of perspectives relating to the validity of relationship marketing and relevance
marketing is presented in Figure 8. These findings indicate that Humby’s (2004)
Customer Relevance Management (CRM) approach and this study’s criticism of
the relationship marketing domain may have a degree of validity within the B2C
marketing environment.
The study’s primary aim is to provide a critical understanding of the development
and future of relationship marketing as an academic and professional domain
within the B2C marketing environment. A Senior Marketing Manager commented:
“My sense is that the term (relationship marketing) is less relevant than a clearexplanation or description of the scope of the idea. Typically there is not a
pragmatic, business related description of what we’re trying to do and how we’regoing about it. The best definition of the activities (independent of the
technologies) that I’ve come across is Dr Robert Shaw’s definition of CRM:
‘An interactive process for achieving the optimum balance between corporateinvestments and the satisfaction of customers needs to generate the maximum
profit’ ”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
42
The author tentatively suggests that this definition supports the study’s
presupposition presented in chapter 2 that the function of B2C marketing is to
offer relevant propositions to relevant customers (i.e. profitable customers) and
to provide relevant solutions to customers’ problems (needs). Arguably, this CRM
definition sits comfortably within the domain of relevance marketing:
“Customer Relevance Management (CRM) is an interactive process for achievingthe optimum balance between corporate investments and the satisfaction of
customers needs to generate the maximum profit”
Fig.8 Relationship Marketing and Relevance Marketing Perspectives
“Customers want good, professional service that reflects the information held about themand respects their integrity as intelligent people! They want integration between channels.
No, people don’t want real relationships with all the organisations they trade with. Mostorganisations still struggle to get to first base in meeting the needs and expectations of their
customers and the thought that this is a ‘relationship’ is a joke”
(Independent Consultant)
“The problem with CRM has been this tremendous lack of clarity regarding its scope. Isuggest that CRM is evolving to Customer Management (leave out the relationship word).This will force harder work regarding the development of the value proposition, how the
organisation will deliver it, and what the customer experience will be. This is tough to do butthose who do it will differentiate themselves in the market”
(Senior Marketing Manager)
“Customers want the freedom to determine whom they want a relationship with and whatthe nature of the relationship should be. Humby’s reference to Relevance Management is
very close to part of Shaw’s definition of CRM” *
(Senior Marketing Manager)
“Take Gronroos's relationship marketing definition and just think about it for a moment.Remove the word 'relationship' and it still stands as a definition of marketing. Where, pray,
did the need come from to add extra words?”
(Academic)
“I think there is a lot of disillusionment about ‘relationships’ in marketing and given that CRMactually isn’t about relationships in that kind of personal, marriage-type metaphor then
arguably relevance is quite an interesting perspective”
(Academic)
“Customer Relevance Management seems very sensible”
(Independent Consultant)
* See section 4.5 for Shaw’s (1999) CRM Checklist
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
43
4.2 Data Gathering > Data Analysis > Value Delivery
There was a general consensus that relationship marketing strategies (commonly
referred to as CRM strategies) can add significant value to a commercial
organisation’s brand equity (value proposition) in today’s highly competitive, B2C
marketing environment. This finding supports Mintel’s (2002) previously cited
research. Moreover, there was a common view that “segmentation is the key to
marketing” and CRM strategies can help marketers identify their ‘profitable’
customers. These findings support the presupposition presented in chapter 2 that
relationship (relevance) marketing implies the development of long-term
relationships (accounts) with key parties (profitable customers within this
context) in order to better understand how to develop and deliver propositions
tailored to the needs of the specific market segments identified. A Senior
Marketing Manager commented:
“We tip all of our prospects into a segmentation model and we then decide whichsegments are worth nurturing and which segments are not”
A common view was that successful CRM requires rich and relevant consumer
data. Moreover, there was a general consensus that (ICT-enabled) loyalty
programmes can offer commercial organisations valuable real-time data. These
findings support Buttle’s (2004, p.34) previously cited CRM perspective that
successful CRM strategies are “grounded on high quality data and enabled by
IT”. A Senior Marketing Manager commented:
“Data is the essential element of a CRM strategy. It is the key to buildingprofitable dialogue and creating value for both the customer and for us”
These findings support Clark et al’s (2002) conceptualisation of the CRM space as
presented in Figure 6. Moreover, the CRM strategies of Sainsbury’s, Lexus (GB)
and Sears (Canada) seem to fit: Clark et al’s (2002) value framework as
presented in Figure 5; and Humby’s (2004) Customer Relevance Management
framework (Appendix 2) which advocates segmenting customers by their
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
44
behaviour (data) and then developing marketing strategies for only those “multi-
dimensional behavioural segments” (customers) who will find them relevant.
4.3 Win-Win-Win > Many-to-Many
The study’s presupposition that the philosophy of relationship (relevance)
marketing is to create and sustain a ‘win-win’ scenario over the long-term
(Figure 3) was endorsed by all participants. However, Sainsbury’s relationship
marketing philosophy is to create and sustain a ‘win-win-win’ scenario:
“We have relationships with suppliers and with customers and the idealcampaign will have a win for the supplier, a win for Sainsbury’s and a win for the
customer. So, we work on a win-win-win scenario”
The author suggests that this marketing approach is supported by the
organisation’s broader, paradigmatic view of Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) i.e. Sainsbury’s relationship marketing approach goes beyond the
customer-supplier dyad to include commercial organisations within the supply
chain. This finding tentatively supports Gummesson’s (2004a, p.1) previously
cited worldview of relationship marketing i.e. “marketing does not live in one-to-
one relationships but in many-to-many networks”. Furthermore, an Independent
Consultant reflected upon the appropriateness of Gummesson’s (2002) many-to-
many (network) philosophy in today’s multi-channel marketing environment:
“Networks are relevant in a multi-channel environment where a consistent viewof the customer is an organisation’s aim”
However, Gummesson’s (2004a, p.1) many-to-many marketing concept was not
recognised as being a useful perspective by all participants. A Senior Marketing
Manager commented:
“This is getting way too complex when the subject is really back to influencingconsumer behaviour for commercial gain”
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
45
4.4 One-to-One Marketing > Multi-Channel Integration
In chapter 2, the author suggested relationship marketing respects and values
markets segmented at the level of the individual. The majority of the study’s
interlocutors agreed with this presupposition. However, there was a view that the
one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) relationship marketing concept has been
‘over-sold’ by academics and CRM software vendors. In summary, there was a
general consensus that one-to-one (Peppers and Rogers, 1993) relationship
(relevance) marketing is theoretically possible but not a common reality in
today’s B2C marketing environment. An Independent Consultant commented:
“The capability to communicate one-to-one should be expanding all the time withICT developments – if only organisations would take data/information/knowledge
management more seriously and learn to integrate and co-ordinate channels”
4.5 CRM Checklist
A Senior Marketing Manager commented:
“I have found Shaw’s CRM checklist very useful in assessing what we’re doing(and what needs to be done) in terms of customer management”
The participant kindly summarised Shaw’s (1999) CRM checklist:
Fig.9 CRM Framework (Shaw 1999 cited by a Senior Marketing Manager)
• Measuring inputs across all functions including marketing, salesand service costs and outputs in terms of customer revenue, profitand value
• Acquiring and continuously updating knowledge about customer needs,motivation and behaviour over the lifetime of the relationship
• Applying customer knowledge to continuously improve performancethrough a process of learning from successes and failures
• Integrating the activities of marketing, sales and service to achievea common goal
• The implementation of appropriate systems to support customerknowledge acquisition, sharing and the measurement of effectiveness
• Constantly flexing the balance between marketing, sales and service inputsagainst changing customer needs to maximize profits
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
46
The Senior Marketing Manager noted that Humby’s (2004) Customer Relevance
Management (CRM) measurement framework (Figure 7) and Shaw’s (1999) CRM
checklist (Figure 9) share common ground. The author suggests that the only
significant difference between the frameworks is the terminology employed.
4.6 Prospect Relationship (Relevance) Management
Lexus’s (GB) CRM and database marketing strategy is based upon the concept of
Prospect Relationship Management (PRM). The components of this framework
are presented in Figure 10.
Fig.10 Prospect Relationship Management (PRM) (Lexus)
During the interview, the author suggested the term ‘Prospect Relevance
Management’. Lexus’s CRM and Database Manager commented that Prospect
Relevance Management is a valid perspective considering Lexus’s CRM strategy
involves “employing consumer insight to create relevant offers based on
spending patterns and established behaviour”. The author notes: the synonymity
of the terms relationship marketing and CRM is highlighted by the organisational
responsibilities of Sainsbury’s Senior Relationship Marketing Manager and Lexus’s
CRM and Database Manager. In practice, these roles share a lot of common
ground (e.g. the development of customer acquisition programmes and the
management of customer retention programmes).
“Prospect Relationship Management is about acquiring and nurturing prospects(across multiple channels) and making sure the customers stay happy”
(Button 12/08/04)
• PRM (Prospect Relationship Management) not CRM; successfully nurturinga prospect to become your customer
• Understand the tone with which to speak to your customer from theinsight gleaned from your data
• Employing consumer insight to create relevant offers based onspending patterns and established behaviour
• Examining different segmentation models to guarantee you’re aiming for the right target
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
47
4.7 Empowered Consumers
There was a general consensus that a significant percentage of today’s
consumers are “far more savvy” (Academic) than in the past. A Senior Marketing
Manager commented:
“I sense there will be a shift of power from the organisation to its customers,which goes back to Shaw’s (1999) second and third points”
As previously noted, there was a common view that loyalty programmes can be
effective mechanisms for acquiring real-time “knowledge”. However, there was
some debate as to whether loyalty marketing is the correct terminology for this
commercial activity. An Academic commented:
“I view loyalty programmes as commercial stalking”
4.8 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM)
The findings presented in Figure 11 challenge the validity of Technologicalship
Marketing (Zineldin, 2000), electronic Customer Relationship Marketing (e-CRM)
(McIntyre, 2003; Luck and Lancaster, 2003) and e-loyalty (Reichheld et al,
2000). An Academic commented that the term e-RM is increasingly being used
within the relationship marketing academic literature but they are
“uncomfortable” with its use primarily because:
“Relationship marketing is a continuous process and I don’t see the necessity ofdefining the means by which you build a relationship. I don’t think you need to
make a distinction between e-RM, postal RM or telephone RM”
• Acquiring and continuously updating knowledge about customer needs,motivation and behaviour over the lifetime of the relationship
• Applying customer knowledge to continuously improve performancethrough a process of learning from successes and failures
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
48
Fig. 11 electronic Relationship Marketing (e-RM) Perspectives
4.9 The Marketing of the Marketing
A common view amongst the participants was that many of today’s marketing
buzzwords are driven by the necessity to sell “new, exciting things”. For
example, a participant suggested that the CRM component of a recent MBA
programme was the direct marketing module “in disguise” but was branded as a
CRM module to “encourage traffic”. Another participant commented that
although the conceptual foundations of e-CRM are to be found in relationship
marketing, courses are consciously differentiated to encourage maximum
enrolment. The author tentatively suggests a buzz phrase for this empirical
finding: ‘The Marketing of the Marketing’. The study’s literature review raised the
specific question: how many of today’s relationship marketing academicians are
guilty of teleologism in their research and subsequent publications? The study
failed to explore this contentious issue in any great depth. However, a participant
did pass comment on a peer “[Author X] was given a lot of money to investigate
CRM”. The author tentatively suggests that further research may wish to quantify
the level of commercial bias within the academic marketing literature.
“The value of any e-marketing definition is probably past its sell-by date”
(Academic)
“e-marketing is a transient phenomena”
(Independent Consultant)
“I’ve always thought e-CRM was exactly the same as CRM and was just anotherconsultancy gimmick”
(Academic)
“e-anything is a bit of a turn off these days”
(Senior Marketing Manager)
“I don’t believe e-anything”
(Academic)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
49
5. Conclusion
This investigation was concerned with the validity of relationship marketing as
presented in the academic literature within today’s dynamic and complex, B2C
marketing environment. In summary, the author tentatively suggests that the
gap between the theoretical development and professional practice of
relationship marketing (Customer Relationship Management) is not significant.
For example, the findings indicate that Gronroos’s (1994) popular definition is
purposeful but removing the fuzzy and ambiguous ‘relationship’ terminology may
enhance the definition’s validity within a B2C context. However, the author
acknowledges this is a subjective issue. The author hopes this discussion will
encourage further debate and would like to take this opportunity to thank all
participants for their valuable time and contributions to this exploratory study.
With regard to any bias presented in chapter 4, the author does of course take
full responsibility. The investigation focused on the B2C marketing environment
and did not seek to explore the validity, generality and practical applicability of
relationship marketing and relevance marketing in a B2B marketing context. The
author hopes future research may include an exploratory study concerned with
the validity of relevance marketing within the UK’s B2B marketing environment.
Sheth & Parvatiyar (2002, p.5) comment:
“For a paradigm to be adopted as a discipline it must adequately summariseknowledge of related entities, laws, and mechanisms in the form of time- and
context-free generalisations”
The concept of relevance marketing may satisfy these criteria but is it really the
new, improved relationship marketing or just another marketing buzzword? The
last word goes to Malcolm Macdonald:
“Whilst I agree with your thesis - where, pray, did the need come from to addextra words to ‘marketing’?”
That is a good question.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
50
6. References
Ballatyne, D., (2000) Internal relationship marketing: a strategy for knowledgerenewal. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18 (6), p.274-287.
Ballantyne, D., Christopher, M. & Payne, A., (2003) Relationship marketing:looking back, looking forward. Marketing Theory, 3 (1), p.159-166.
Barnes, J.G, (1997) Closeness, strength and satisfaction: examining the nature ofrelationships between providers of financial services and their retail customers.Psychology and Marketing, 14 (8), p.765-790.
Brodie, R.J., Coviello, N.E., Brookes, R.W. & Little, V., (1997) Towards aParadigm Shift in Marketing? An examination of Current Marketing Practices.Journal of Marketing Management, 13, p.383-406.
Bruhn, M., (2003) Relationship Marketing: Management of CustomerRelationships. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Buttle, F., (1996) Relationship Marketing Theory and Practice. London:Routledge.
Buttle, F., (2004) Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and Tools.Oxford, England: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann
Chablo, E., (1999) The importance of marketing data intelligence in deliveringsuccessful CRM. London, England: Smart Focus
Chaffey, D., Mayer, R., Johnston, K. & Ellis-Chadwick, F., (2003) InternetMarketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice. 2ND ed. Harlow, England:Pearson Education Limited.
Chen, I.J. & Popovich, K., (2003) Understanding customer relationshipmanagement (CRM): People, process and technology. Business ProcessManagement, 9 (5), p.672-688.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. & Ballantyne, D., (1991) Relationship Marketing:Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together. Oxford, England:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Christopher, M., Payne, A., Gronroos, C. & Gummesson, E., (2004) Introduction:Workshop on Relationship Marketing, 27-28 January 2004 EIASM, Brussels.Available from http://www.eiasm.de [Accessed 30 April 2004]
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
51
Clark, M., McDonald, M. & Smith, B., (2002) Achieving Excellence in CustomerRelationship Management. Bedford, England: Cranfield University.
Coad, T., (2004) The rise of real-time. Interactive Marketing, 5 (4), p.320-328
Coviello, N., Brodie, R.J. & Munro, H., (1996) Understanding ContemporaryMarketing: Development of a Classification System. Journal of MarketingManagement, 13
Daskou, S. & Mangina, E.E., (2003) Artificial Intelligence in Managing MarketingRelationships: The Use of Intelligence Agents. Journal of Relationship Marketing,2 (1/2), p.85-103
Daymon, C. & Holloway, I. (2002) Qualitative Research Methods in PublicRelations and Marketing Communications. London: Routledge.
Denscombe, M., (1998) The good research guide: for small scale social researchprojects. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Egan, J., (2001a) Relationship Marketing: Exploring Relational Strategies inMarketing. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
Egan, J., (2001b) Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? MarketingIntelligence & Planning, 19 (6/7), p.375-385
Enver, K., (2004) CRM: relationships or management? Admap, February 2004.Available from: http://www.warc.com [Accessed 25 June 2004]
Falk, H. & Schmidt, A., (1997) The impact of new media on the communicationprocess. Using the internet as a marketing communication tool. In: The GlobalFuture, July 1997, Lisbon. ESOMAR, Amsterdam.
Geertz, C., (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books,
Gilbert, D., (2003) Retail Marketing Management. 2nd ed. Harlow, England:Prentice Hall.
Gronroos, C., (1994) From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards aparadigm shift in marketing. Management Decisions, 32 (2), p.4-20.
Gummesson, E., (1994) Broadening and specifying relationship marketing. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 2 (1), p.31-43
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
52
Gummesson, E., (2000) Qualitative Methods in Management Research. 2nd ed.London: Sage Publications Ltd
Gummesson, E., (2002a) Relationship marketing and a new economy: it’s timefor de-programming. The Journal of Services Marketing, 16 (7), p.585-589.
Gummesson, E., (2002b) Practical value of adequate marketing managementtheory. European Journal of Marketing, 36 (3), p.325-351.
Gummesson, E., (2002c) Total Relationship Marketing. 2nd ed. Oxford, England:Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gummesson, E., (2003) Relationship marketing: it all happens here and now!Marketing Theory, 3 (1), p.167-169.
Gummesson, E., (2004a) From One-to-One to Many-to-Many Marketing. Thesis.Stockholm University School of Business, Sweden. (Presented in Appendix 1).
Gummesson, E., (2004b) Many-to-Many Marketing. Malmö: Liber
Gunter, B. (2000) Media Research Methods: Measuring Audiences, Reactions andImpact. London: Sage.
Harker, M.J., (1999) Relationship marketing defined? An examination of currentrelationship marketing definitions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17 (1),p.13-18
Hibbard, J. & Iacobucci, D., (1998) Towards an encompassing theory ofrelationships in business and consumer marketing: an empirical generalisationwith implications for future research. In: J Sheth & A Menon eds. New Frontiersin Relationship Marketing Theory and Practice. Atlanta: Emory University.
Hoffman, D.L. & Novak, T.P., (1996) Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60 (July),p.50-68.
Humby, C., Hunt, T. & Phillips, T., (2003) Scoring points: how Tesco is winningcustomer loyalty. London: Kogan Page.
Humby, C., (2004) R is for Relevance: An Antidote to CRM Hype, 18 March 2004.Available from: http://www.theidm.com [Accessed 30 April 2004] (Appendix 2)
Interactive Advertising Bureau UK (2004) Digital trends: The future is now.Available from http://www.theIDM.com [Accessed 25 June 2004]
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
53
Interactive Marketing (2004a; 2004b; 2004c) Available from:http://www.theIDM.com [Accessed 25 June 2004]
Journal of Relationship Marketing (2002a; 2002b; 2002c; 2003a; 2003b)Available from: http://www.haworthpress.com [Accessed 25 June 2004]
Kenyon, J. & Vakola, M., (2003) Customer relationship management: A viablestrategy for the retail industry? International Journal of Organisation Theory andBehaviour, 6 (3), p.329-336
Kotler, P., Jain, D.C. & Maesincee, S., (2002) Marketing moves: A New Approachto Profits, Growth, and Renewal. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.
Kotler, P., (2003) Marketing Management. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.
Lindgreen, A. & Pels, J., (2002) Buyer-Seller Exchange Situations: Four EmpiricalCases. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1 (3/4), p.69-93.
Luck, D. & Lancaster, G., (2003) E-CRM: Customer relationship marketing in thehotel industry. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18 (3), p.213-232.
McCarthy, E.J., (1960) Basic Marketing: A Managerial Approach. Homewood, IL:Richard D.Irwin
McDonald, M., (2000) On the right track. Marketing Business, April 2000, p.28-31
McDonald, M., (2003) Marketing died in the last decade. Interactive Marketing, 5(2), p.144-159
McIntyre, J., (2003) Building Consumer Relationships Electronically. Journal ofRelationship Marketing, 2 (3/4), p.15- 26
McKenzie, C.J., Wright, S., Ball, D.F. & Baron, P.J., (2002) Commentary: Thepublications of marketing faculty - who are we really talking to? EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 36 (11/12), p.1196-1209
Mintel Reports (2002) Marketing to Tomorrow’s Consumer – UK – April 2002Available from: http://reports.mintel.com [Accessed 30 April 2004]
Mitchell, A., (2000) In one-to-one marketing, which 'one' comes first? InteractiveMarketing, 1 (4), p.354-367.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
54
Morgan, R.M. & Hunt, S.D., (1994) Relationship Marketing in the Era of NetworkCompetition. Marketing Management, 3 (1), p.19-28
Mouncey, P., Fletcher, K., Smith, D., Brown, J. & Streatfield, E. (2002)Interactive marketing: The new marketing - Or more of the same? InteractiveMarketing, 4 (2), p.119-134.
O’Malley, L. & Tynan, C., (2000) Relationship marketing in consumer markets –Rhetoric or Reality? European Journal of Marketing, 34 (7), p.797-813.
Palmer, A.J., (1996) Relationship marketing: a universal paradigm ormanagement fad? The Learning Organisation, 3 (3), p.18-25.
Palmer, A.J., (2002) The Evolution of an Idea: An Environmental Explanation ofRelationship Marketing. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1 (1), p.79-94
Payne, A., Christopher, M., Clark, M. & Peck, H., (2002) Relationship Marketingfor Competitive Advantage: Winning and keeping customers. 2nd ed. Oxford,England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Peppers, D. & Rogers. M., (1993) The One to One Future: Building RelationshipsOne Customer at a Time. New York: Doubleday.
Peters, L.D. & Fletcher, K.P., (2004) A Market-Based Approach to UnderstandingCommunication and Teamworking: A Multi-Disciplinary Literature Review.Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2004 (2). Available from:http://www.amsreview.org/articles/peters02-2004.pdf [Accessed 25 June 2004]
Petrof, J.V., (1997) Relationship marketing: the wheel reinvented. BusinessHorizons, 40 (6), p.26-31.
Powell, S., (2004) Winning Customer Loyalty. Management First. Available from:http://www.managementfirst.com/marketing/interviews/humby.php [Accessed25 June 2004]
Pressey, A. & Matthews, B., (2000) Barriers to relationship marketing inconsumer retailing. Journal of Services Marketing, 14 (3), p.272-286.
Reichheld, F.F., (1996) The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth,Profits and Lasting Value. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publications.
Reichheld, F.F., Markey, R.G. & Hopton, C., (2000) E-customer loyalty – applyingthe traditional rules of business for online success. European Business Journal,12 (4), p.173-p.180.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
55
Samli, A.C. & Bahn, K., (1992) The Market Phenomenon: An Alternative Theoryand Some Metatheoretical Research Considerations. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 20 (2), p,143-153
Shaw, R., (1999) Measuring and Valuing Customer Relationships. London:Business Intelligence Ltd
Sheth, J.N, (2002) The future of relationship marketing. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 16 (7), p.590-592.
Sheth, J.N. & Parvatiyar, A., (2002) Evolving Relationship Marketing into aDiscipline. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 1 (1), p.3-16
Sheth, J.N. & Sisodia, R.S., (1999) Revisiting marketing’s lawlike generalisations.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 17 (1), p.71-87.
Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A., & Fahey, L., (1999) Marketing, businessprocesses, and shareholder value: An organizationally embedded view ofmarketing activities and the discipline of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63,p.168-180
Stone, M., Bearman, D., Butscher, S.A., Gilbert, D., Crick, P. & Moffett, T., (2003)The effect of retail customer loyalty schemes – Detailed measurement ortransforming marketing? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis forMarketing, 12 (3), p.305-318.
Tapp, A., (2003) Linking business schools and practice in direct marketing: Arewe missing an opportunity? Journal of Database Marketing & Customer StrategyManagement, 11 (2), p.107-114
The Future Foundation (2003) Complicated Lives: A Presentation for the IDMWest, 26 November 2003. Available from: http://www.theidm.com[Accessed 30 April 2002]
The Grocer (2004) The Grocer Cup for Outstanding Business Achievement, TheGrocer, September 4 2004, p.15.
Urban, G.L., (2004) The Emerging Era of Customer Advocacy. MIT SloanManagement Review, 45 (2), p.77- 82.
Webber, R., (2004) Five easy steps to customer segmentation. Data Strategy,October 2004, p.16
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
56
Zikmund, W.G., McLeod, R. & Gilbert, F., (2003) Customer RelationshipManagement: Integrating Marketing Strategy and Information Technology.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Zineldin, M., (2000) Beyond relationship marketing: technologicalship marketing.Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 18 (1), p.9-23.
Zinkham, G.M., (2002) Relationship Marketing: Theory and Implementation.Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5, p.83-89.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
57
Appendix 1: Many-to-Many Marketing (Gummesson, 2004a)
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
58
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
59
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
60
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
61
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
62
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
63
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
64
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
65
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
66
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
67
Appendix 2: Customer Relevance Management (CRM) (Humby, 2004)
\
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
68
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
69
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
70
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
71
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
72
1
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
73
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
74
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
75
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
76
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
77
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
78
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
79
Appendix 3: Semi-Structured Questionnaire
• Do consumers want relationships?
• Are the 2000s the era of the digitally, networked consumer?
• How valid is many-to-many marketing?
• Is Customer Relevance Management more likely to deliver measurable
benefits than CRM?
• How valid is the term e-RM?
• How valid are the definitions in the literature?
• Does academia suffer from theory anorexia?
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
80
Appendix 4: Multi Channel Direct Marketing 2004
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
81
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
82
Appendix 5:
Interview with Jonathan Latham
Head of Relationship Management - Sainsbury’s
Sainsbury’s HQ / 33 Holborn / London EC1N 2HT15th July 2004
Jeremy: Your title is Relationship Marketing Manager for Sainsbury’s.
Jonathan: Yes, I’m what they (Sainsbury’s) call a Senior Manager and I’m
Head of Relationship Marketing.
Jeremy: Could I ask what that entails?
Jonathan: That entails looking after Sainsbury’s (excluding Sainsbury’s Bank
which is a separate area) below the line activities. Which if you
break that down: is using coupons to try and attract more visitors
to the store and to try and get them to buy more when they’re in
the store; its looking after club programmes, such as the Drinks
Club and the Little Ones Club, and trying to bring new members
into those clubs and then marketing to those members; its about
looking after acquisition programmes and retention programmes to
Sainsbury’s To You, which is our online division; and it’s about
building relationships over the longer term with the customers
through magazines and through various types of programmes
which are about creating a dialogue with the customer.
Jeremy: My interpretation of relationship marketing is that it has to be
interactive and win-win. Based on the strategies you’ve just
described, would you say they fall within that camp?
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
83
Jonathan: Yes, but you have to apply another win in there which is the win-
win-win. We have relationships with suppliers and with customers
and the ideal campaign will have a win for the supplier, a win for
Sainsbury’s and a win for the customer. So, we work on a win-win-
win scenario. Do they all fit the criteria? They do, but over different
timescales. So, if I’m building a dialogue and an interaction with a
customer and I’m looking to improve retention rates, then I’ll be
looking at promotions staggered over a period of time. However, if
I’m looking at a promotion which is just about one visit and the
next time the customer goes in I want to increase the amount of
spend that they have, then it will be a shorter term view that I’ll
take in terms of whatever value that I want from that particular
campaign.
Jeremy: Would your role then encompass monitoring CRM systems?
Jonathan: It’s the application of them rather than the systems themselves. It’s
a public fact that we use Teradata within the organisation and
we’re probably one of the leading companies (certainly in Europe).
The system we use is a benchmark for Teradata in other countries.
But my role is the point at which the data goes onto the database
rather than the database itself. So, my role is very much ‘Right,
I’ve got all this information about our customers and I’ve got
various hypotheses of how we can develop value from it’ and then
we use direct marketing to try and work out whether those are
right or not.
Jeremy: It’s interesting that you mention the word value. Would it then be
value-value-value?
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
84
Jonathan: It’s added-value rather than value because you already have
customers going into your store (for the sake of argument) but the
objective is to increase the value they get when they’re in the
store. So you are already getting an element of value from them,
so you’re trying to add value beyond what you would have got
anyway, if you had done nothing.
Jeremy: That it is a really nice background, thank you. Do your activities
cover the digital communication channels?
Jonathan: We do e-mail. We do relatively few bits of SMS - very small
amounts. And we are starting to get much more into search
engines and banner advertising but it’s not a great part of what we
do.
Jeremy: Do CRM strategies deliver measurable benefits?
Jonathan: You have the Tescos and Sainsbury’s of this world who have
embraced CRM technologies in a big way. But you have to have a
balance between how much you in invest in developing loyalty
(your CRM spend) and maintaining a price level that keeps you
competitive in the marketplace.
Jeremy: Do we have relationships with supermarkets?
Jonathan: Customers do have relationships with supermarkets. They have
their favourite supermarket. Quite often location is the driver
behind that but you will get customers who will drive past Tesco to
go to Sainsbury’s because they’ve always shopped at Sainsbury’s
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
85
and they feel they are a Sainsbury’s shopper (and vice versa). If
you look at your customer base, the 20/80 pareto rule for most
organisations does actually work. There is a percentage of your
customers who are really, really loyal to you and they will create
the biggest sales for you. And those guys you better have a
relationship with otherwise you’re going to be stuffed! There are
certainly the other types of customers who are more promiscuous
(and they are probably getting more and more these days) who will
flit from offer to offer (from company to company). The
relationship then tends to be much more on a price level rather
than on an in-depth, emotional bond level. And there are some
customers who you will never have a relationship with. They don’t
like shopping and don’t like supermarkets. So, if you look at your
customer base and look at the UK population, I think relationship
marketing does exist but you’ve got to segment your market down
to the ones you can have a relationship with.
Jeremy: How valid is e-RM?
Jonathan: I don’t think you can have a relationship with an individual on the
basis of one distribution channel. So I would say e-CRM does not
exist. CRM exists.
Jeremy: Are the 2000s the era of the digitally, networked consumer?
Jonathan: I hate putting labels on customers. But what I would say is that the
customers’ ability to embrace new technology is increasing and the
balance of power is much more in their favour than it has been
over the last 20 years.
Relevance Marketing: The New, Improved Relationship Marketing?
86
Jeremy: Is CRM flawed by definition and is Customer Relevance
Management better?
Jonathan: Clive is right in the sense that both Tescos and Sainsbury’s are able
to make much more relevant offers to customers because we have
up-to-date information in terms of buying patterns and
transactions. Data is the essential element of a CRM strategy. It is
the key to building profitable dialogue and creating value for both
the customer and for us. However, it is the interpretation of the
data rather than the data itself that is critical. We have a team of
analysts. Technology is certainly an enabler. It allows us to know
more about our customers from lots of different touch-points and
therefore we can build up a stronger knowledge of what our
customers are after. I wouldn’t get to wound up about the
definition of CRM. It’s more the application of CRM. The problem
with the word relationship is that people apply the norms of having
a social relationship into the communication relationship or the
brand relationship. And obviously your relationship with your
girlfriend is going to be very different from your relationship with
Sainsbury’s supermarket. CRM in the old days used to be called
direct marketing, then it became one-to-one marketing and now it’s
CRM. I actually think it all comes back to brand. In the 70s and 80s
we called it brand marketing. I don’t really see the point of all these
labels. Putting labels on it narrows your thinking.