Multichannel managementgets “social”

Ilaria Dalla PozzaIPAG Business School, Paris, France

AbstractPurpose – This paper aims to investigate customers’ motivations and the decision-making processwhen choosing a channel in a “social” multichannel environment that includes social media channels,and the complementary and competitive effects compared to traditional channels within themultichannel strategy of a major European telecoms provider. A conceptual framework of multichannelcustomer behaviour in a “social” multichannel environment is proposed.Design/methodology/approach – The study adopts an exploratory approach through 74semi-structured interviews with customers of a major European telecoms provider who have also usedsocial media channels to contact the company (customer-initiated contact, CIC).Findings – Users of distinct social media channels are driven by different motivations. For instance,the social motivation for using social media is evident for Facebook users, while Twitter users aremainly driven by utilitarian considerations. Although users of different social media channels representdistinct segments in terms of behaviours and motivations, complementary effects among channels (newand traditional) are generally detected in the sense that a better customer experience is driven by thepresence of multiple channels.Research limitations/implications – Data collection was performed for only one company in oneindustry and should be extended to other industries, although our results were confirmed bydiscussions with social media managers of other companies.Practical implications – The research offers suggestions to develop multichannel strategies in a“social” multichannel environment.Originality/value – This study advances knowledge in the multichannel management field byinvestigating why and how customers utilize channels in a multichannel environment that includessocial media channels. The authors develop a conceptual framework of multichannel customerbehaviour for CIC in a “social” multichannel environment.

Keywords Multichannel management, Social media channels, Conceptual framework, Telecoms

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionNowadays customers can deal with a single organization through different channels,such as bricks-and-mortar retail stores, salespersons, mail-order catalogues, e-mails,telephone calls, online websites (Kumar and Venkatesan, 2005; Dholakia et al., 2005;Verhoef et al., 2010) and, more recently, Twitter and Facebook to look for informationabout products or services, make purchases, complain, ask for help and return products.

Continuously providing customers with new channels by which to stay in touch withproviders and make a purchase is not only a way of staying ahead of the competition andbuilding a competitive advantage, but also a means of providing superior customer

The author acknowledges the telecoms provider Orange and Erwan Le Quentrec for their supportin the research.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM48,7/8

1274

Received 15 October 2012Revised 16 May 2013Accepted 22 September 2013

European Journal of MarketingVol. 48 No. 7/8, 2014pp. 1274-1295© Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/EJM-10-2012-0598

value, increasing customer satisfaction and strengthening loyalty (Kumar andVenkatesan, 2005; Berman and Thelen, 2004; Rangaswamy and Van Bruggen, 2005;Wallace et al., 2004). However, companies face new challenges in multiple channelintegration, as they have to keep pace with the rapidly changing technologicalenvironment and incorporate in their strategy tools of this continuously evolvingscenario. For instance, the Internet has dramatically changed the way companies sell toand communicate with their customers; furthermore, old business models have beenquestioned and new business models have arisen. Old players have been forced tointegrate the new Internet channel into the existing business model, therebyrevolutionizing the ways in which they operate, sell and interact with customers, andthus adding more complexity to multichannel management.

The recent rise of social media has established new ways in which firms can connectand exchange information with their customers. Various platforms are available, suchas Facebook and Twitter. Facebook, which started in 2004 as a Harvard socialnetworking website, is now a global phenomenon, connecting almost one billion usersworldwide. Twitter, which has recently reached the 500 million users mark, is amicroblogging site allowing the real-time exchange of messages limited to 140characters. Companies have started the race to exploit these platforms by integratingthem with the existing information channels (call centres, shops, etc.) in an effort tobetter communicate with customers. Facebook “fan pages” and corporate Twitteraccounts are now proliferating for corporate communications and the promotion ofmarketing offers. Facebook and Twitter can be also used for customer service. Forinstance, some companies, from telecoms operators like Comcast, Orange and BT tobanks like BNP Paribas and airline companies like American Airlines, have Twitteraccounts specifically to deal with customer requests, product support, productinformation and complaints, while other companies are trying to offer better customerservice through Facebook.

Although the use of social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook on the partof companies is flourishing, current research in a “social” multichannel environment israther scarce.

Several authors advocate the need for more research in multichannel settings tobetter understand how consumers choose and use the channels available to them andexploit their complementarities (Dholakia et al., 2010; Neslin et al., 2006). Channels canbe used for purchase or for communication (Dholakia et al., 2010) and we can distinguishbetween information and distribution channels.

While existing research on multichannel management often does not distinguishbetween channels of distribution and channels of information (Dholakia et al., 2010), ourresearch specifically focuses on information channels. Information-channel research hasbeen traditionally neglected by researchers (Dholakia et al., 2010). Information channelsare useful not only for communicating about products or services, but also for deliveringtechnical and product support, and more and more, thanks to the rise of social media, forconnecting customers to one another (Dholakia et al., 2010).

According to the above premises, our research aims to advance our knowledge in themarketing fields by:

• investigating customer motivations and the decision-making process whenchoosing a channel to address the company (customer-initiated contact, CIC) in asocial multichannel environment;

1275

Multichannelmanagement

• investigating complementary and competitive effects among new social mediaand traditional channels; and

• defining a conceptual framework of multichannel customer behaviour for CIC inpresence of social and traditional channels.

Compared to more traditional information channels, such as call centres and shops, socialmedia channels allow consumer-to-consumer communications (Kozinets et al., 2010;Dholakia et al., 2010) and collaborations. Combined with ubiquitous online access, socialmedia offer constant connectivity with the company and other customers, providingconsumers with tremendous clout with which to affect the company’s reputation.

Based on these distinct characteristics of social media channels, we discuss relevantliterature in multichannel marketing and highlight the incremental contribution of ourresearch regarding the motivation of channel choice, channel choice patterns, the effectsamong channels (synergies and competitive effects) and customer segmentation. We revisitcurrent literature on multichannel management to include the new characteristics representedby social media channels to understand what social media add to the complexity of theexisting multichannel literature. On the basis of our results, we develop a conceptualframework of multichannel customer behaviour for CIC in the presence of multipleinformation channels that include social media.

The main theoretical contribution of our research is the study, through interviews, of whyand how customers select information channels in a “social” multichannel environment.

Recalling Dholakia et al. (2010), “consumer behaviour in a multichannel andmultimedia environment is an important yet under-researched domain”. Several authorscall for more research aimed to investigate how and why consumers use the multiplechannels available to them, exploit their potentialities and strengths and build theirchannel choice pattern, i.e. the sequence of channels used; the necessity of addingnew channels to the study is also highlighted (Kumar and Venkatesan, 2005; Neslinet al., 2006; Rangaswamy and van Bruggen, 2005; Dholakia et al., 2010). While currentresearch has mainly investigated customer multichannel behaviour during the purchasephase, our paper adds insights into how and why customers select information channelsto look for information or to solve a problem with the inclusion of social media channels.In fact, when addressing the company, the customer has a wide range of alternativechannels available (such as call centres, physical shops, e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

Next, our paper intends to add to the literature on complementary and competitiveeffects among channels. Literature on the interaction among channels offers divergentresults. Our research conducted in a “social” multichannel context finds that a bettercustomer experience is driven by the presence of multiple channels. Even if companiesface challenges in integrating new channels, the addition of new channels such asTwitter and Facebook represents more customer value. Customers derive satisfactionand loyalty from the freedom to use the different channels (Neslin and Shankar, 2009),building a relationship that “can be experienced in a more individualistic oridiosyncratic way by the consumer” (Calder and Malthouse, 2005, p. 359).

Further, this research adds to the abundant literature on the drivers of channel choiceby highlighting the relevance of social motivators, neglected by current literature. Ascompanies integrate social media in their multichannel strategy, new antecedents ofchannel choice emerge, such as the social motivation or the need to connect with othercustomers.

EJM48,7/8

1276

Finally, this research adds to the multichannel literature on segmentation and profiling ofcustomers based on their channel preferences. Analyses and comparisons of interviews withsocial media users make us to conclude that users of different social media channelsrepresent distinct segments to be addressed differently. While today companies are puttingeffort into gaining more and more fans and followers, better care should be devoted to theunderstanding of the customer’s profile using each social media channel.

We conduct our research for a major European telecoms provider who has developedplatforms for communicating with customers and providing customer service via socialmedia channels such as Twitter and Facebook (Le Quentrec, 2012). The decision to selecta telecoms provider was due to several reasons:

• Telecoms providers are known to have implemented multiple-channel integrationto connect with their customer base; by integrating call centres, physical shops,e-mails and social media, they represent a benchmark for other industries.

• Telecoms providers are at the cutting edge of the implementation of customerservice strategies using social media.

• Their rich databases allow an in-depth study of customer multichannel behaviour.

Our research is structured as follows. First of all, we review the main literature onmultichannel management and multichannel customer behaviour. On the basis of theliterature review, we formulate our research questions by extending the critical issuesand gaps discussed in the multichannel literature to a “social” multichannelenvironment. Second, we present our methodology based on semi-structured interviewswith customers of a major European telecoms provider who have used social mediachannels to address the company. Third, we describe the results and then introduce theconceptual framework, research limitations of our study and future research directions.

2. Multichannel management and customer multichannel behaviour: aliterature reviewThe study is deeply rooted in the multichannel management literature. The recentliterature on multichannel management and customer multichannel behaviourdiscusses issues and gaps into four main domains:

(1) antecedents of channel choice and channel migration;(2) channel choice patterns;(3) complementary and competitive effects among channels; and(4) customer segmentation.

We build on the above four domains of research and extend them to a “social”multichannel environment by formulating our research questions, as shown in Table I.

2.1 Antecedents of channel choicePrevious literature has investigated the antecedents of channel choice (Kumar andVenkatesan, 2005; Valentini et al., 2011). Several studies have investigated channelchoice during the purchase phase. For instance, in their study of a major US retailer,Thomas and Sullivan (2005) identify marketing communication expenditures, numberof marketing communications, prior channel choice and distance from the retailer ascritical drivers of channel choice for the purchase phase. Mathwick et al. (2001)

1277

Multichannelmanagement

investigate how intrinsic and extrinsic values such as aesthetics, playfulness, serviceexcellence and customer return on investment influence the Internet and catalogueshopping choice.

Baker et al. (2002) stress the importance of perceived quality and price in channelchoice, where perceived price includes not only objective price but also perceivedsacrifice (time, effort, search, etc.). Yu et al. (2011) extend Zeithaml’s perceivedprice-quality-value model to consumers’ shopping and information search channelchoices of Internet, store and catalogue.

Among the other drivers of channel choice, we find geodemographic characteristics(Inman et al., 2004), past communication from the supplier, customer motivation,category of product to be purchased (Schoenbachler and Gordon, 2002), channelsatisfaction (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003), consumer habits, personal and channelcharacteristics, task characteristics (Pieterson and Dijk, 2007), channel knowledge andshopping orientation (Lee and Kim, 2010), perceived channel utilities and demographics(Li et al., 2006), occasional convenient shopping and planned purposive shopping(Pellegrini, 2003) and perceived risk (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003; Schoenbachler andGordon, 2002).

Although current research has investigated drivers of channel choice, no researchhas been conducted so far in a “social” multichannel environment. Are traditionalantecedents of channel choice still holding true, or do new drivers explain the adoptionof social media channels on the part of customers?

2.2 Channel choice patternsCustomers choose channels in the multiple phases of their purchasing decision process(Konus et al., 2008). As the literature on consumer behaviour states, customers progressfrom the pre-purchase phase, when they are involved in making up their mind on thepreferred brand to purchase, to the purchase phase, when they actually buy the product(Schiffman and Kanuk, 2007). In the following stage, they can contact the company’scustomer services to make a complaint, obtain product support or organize a return.

Throughout this process, customers interact with the company through differentchannels. Generally, customers do not choose the same channel during the entirepurchasing process (Venkatesan et al., 2007). Channel choices are diversified frompre-purchase for information search, through to purchase and then to post-purchase(Mathwick et al., 2001; Noble et al., 2005; Verhoef et al., 2007). The whole set of channelschosen represent the “channel choice pattern”.

Table I.The research questions

Stream of research Research questions

Channel choice Why do customers use social media channels to contact the company?Channel choice patterns Where a social media channel has been used, was this channel used

first or were others used earlier in the customer relationship? If thelatter, which ones have been used?

Complementary/competitiveeffects among channels

Is the social media channel replacing or completing the other channelsof the customer relationship? Why?

Customer segmentation Do users of different social media channels represent differentsegments?

EJM48,7/8

1278

Although it is possible to identify some preferred patterns in the literature, there is stillroom for variety. For instance, according to recent research, one of the most popularforms of multichannel shopping is to use the Internet for information searches about theproduct or service, and then the in-store channel for the actual purchase (Verhoef et al.,2007; Yu et al., 2011). However, according to Mathwick et al. (2001), Noble et al. (2005)and Verhoef et al. (2007), there are also some other possible channel usage patterns, suchas searching in a catalogue and then purchasing online, or searching in a store and thenpurchasing online.

We adapt the channel choice pattern stream of research to our study. When choosingan information channel to contact the company, which channel do customers prefer touse first? Are social media channels the first option, or are they used after otherunsatisfying channels have been tried? What is the channel choice pattern followed?While current literature has mainly investigated the channel choice pattern during theinformation search and purchase phases, our research is the first one to investigate thesequence of channels chosen to solve a problem or to look for information in a CIC.

2.3 Complementary and competitive effects among channelsThe investigation of complementary and competitive effects among channels is criticalfor companies whose customers can choose from different channel formats that belongto the same firm (Montoya-Weiss et al., 2003; Noble et al., 2005).

Complementary effects mean that the presence of multiple channels createsadditional value for the customer, and ultimately for the company. Competitive effectsmay result in channel switching, customer value destruction or replacement effects infavour of a new channel, with subsequent abandonment of the more traditional channel.

Literature on the interaction among channels offers divergent results. For instance,some authors identify the existence of synergistic effects among channels (Kumar andVenkatesan, 2005) and point out the need for developing models that reflect channelsynergies and interactions. In this vein, Jagpal (1981) was the first to empirically identifysynergies between radio and print advertising for a commercial bank, while Reinartzet al. (2005) find that in a business-to-business context, there is a positive interactionamong channels when a firm uses face-to-face and e-mail communication, and alsotelephone and e-mail channels in combination. Montoya-Weiss et al. (2003) point out thecomplementary and competitive effects among channels: the addition of the Internetchannel contributes to an increase in the overall customer satisfaction level; however,satisfaction with the existing channels represents a barrier to new channel adoption.

However, Prins and Verhoef (2007) find that there is a negative interaction effect onthe service adoption of mass communication, such as radio and television, and telephonecommunication. In a multichannel relational communication setting, Godfrey et al.(2011) find that interaction effects among channels are negative: the ideal level ofcommunication through one channel decreases as communication volume increases inother channels. Montoya-Weiss et al. (2003), meanwhile, identify cross-channel tensionsas well as synergies.

Our research intends to extend work in this area and advance the marketingknowledge by examining complementary and competitive effects among informationchannels in a social multichannel environment. Do social media channels such asTwitter and Facebook replace or complete the existing information channels for CIC?Are there any synergistic effects?

1279

Multichannelmanagement

2.4 Customer segmentationIn the literature on multichannel management, several papers have focused onsegmentation issues (Thomas and Sullivan, 2005; Konus et al., 2008), in the sense thatstrategies are developed according to the channels used by the different customersegments. For instance, Thomas and Sullivan (2005), Kumar (2010) and Kumar andVenkatesan (2005) point out that multichannel buyers are more profitable.

On the basis of the above premises, our research intends to extend knowledge in thisdomain by investigating how customers using social media channels to contact thecompany can represent distinct segments, and how they can be characterized. This mayhave significant managerial relevance, as companies may start treating users ofdifferent social media platforms in different ways.

3. Methodology and sampleGiven that little empirical research has yet analysed why and how customers chooseinformation channels in a “social” multichannel environment to contact companies,exploratory research was necessary (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

The study was conducted for a major European telecoms provider. The company hasspecifically developed social media channels to interact with customers. More precisely,the company has developed a Twitter account to provide customer support andcompany information. In addition, the company has developed on its Facebook fan page,an application that can be used for customer support and product information, called“Need for Help”.

Because of their flexibility, we found interviews to be the most suitable datacollection method for our research and to answer our research questions moreappropriately. The questionnaire was designed in such a way as to reproduce theresearch questions and to collect the information needed. The in-depth, semi-structuredinterviews were conducted with customers who have used social media to contact thetelecoms provider in question. For this approach, a set of open-ended questionscombined with some closed questions provided structure, allowing for flexibility in thequestioning and answering (Hessler, 1992). Open-ended questions are useful inexploratory research (Malhotra, 2010, p. 343) because they allow respondents to freelyexpress their point of view. As unstructured questions are not suitable for self- orcomputer-administered questionnaires posted, for instance, on websites or sent bye-mail (Malhotra, 2010), we chose to administer the interviews via telephone. Wepreferred this form of administration to the face-to-face interview because of thegeographical distribution of respondents across the national territory.

To define the sample, the company provided the names of customers who haverecently used its Twitter account or Facebook “Need for Help” application. This firstdatabase was then matched with internal databases to identify the customers’ phonenumbers. We obtained a list of phone numbers for the Twitter account and for theFacebook “Need for Help” application. These customers were contacted to explainthe research and to schedule a telephone interview at a time convenient to them. Weobtained 50 completed phone interviews for the Twitter users and 24 completed phoneinterviews for the Facebook application. In both situations, the saturation criterion wasreached (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Tables II and III show the sample’s characteristicsfor Twitter and Facebook users, respectively.

EJM48,7/8

1280

Table II.Sample characteristics of

Twitter users

ID Occupation Age

T1 CEO 53T2 CEO 40T3 CEO 30T4 Computer specialist 44T5 Computer specialist 31T6 Employee 23T7 Employee 49T8 Employee 21T9 Employee 30T10 Employee 29T11 Employee 24T12 Entrepreneur 32T13 Entrepreneur 45T14 Middle/senior management 36T15 Middle/senior management 37T16 Middle/senior management 37T17 Middle/senior management 34T18 Middle/senior management 30T19 Middle/senior management 23T20 Middle/senior management 45T21 Middle/senior management 48T22 Middle/senior management 28T23 Middle/senior management 37T24 Middle/senior management 39T25 Middle/senior management 26T26 Middle/senior management 41T27 Middle/senior management 33T28 Middle/senior management 40T29 Middle/senior management 26T30 Middle/senior management 29T31 Middle/senior management 40T32 Photographer 35T33 Photographer 45T34 Photographer 35T35 Public officer 50T36 Student 20T37 Student 20T38 Student 19T39 Student 20T40 Student 24T41 Student 22T42 Student 20T43 Student 25T44 Student 22T45 Student 20T46 Unemployed 20T47 Unemployed 30T48 Unemployed 30T49 Unknown 23T50 Unknown 30

1281

Multichannelmanagement

The results were obtained via analysis of verbatim transcripts of the taped interviews.In line with the recommendations of Miles and Huberman (1994), the data wereexamined and analysed for recurring themes and concepts across the different cases.

Content analysis was performed by two separate coders, in accordance with theprinciples of the literature (Kassarjian, 1977). We defined codes and carried out constantcomparisons. The coded data were then regrouped into higher-order concepts.

4. Analysis of interviewsThis section discusses the research questions (Table I):

• the situations in which social media channels were used and motivations for usingsocial media to address the company (CIC);

• channel choice patterns in the aforementioned situation; and• competitive or complementary effects among social media and other traditional

information channels.

While answer to these questions comes directly from the analysis of verbatim ofinterviews, the answer to the research question “Do users of different social mediachannels represent different segments?” derives from a summary and elaboration of thefindings and will be reported in the discussion section. Based on these elaborations, thediscussion section also presents a conceptual framework of multichannel customerbehaviour for CIC in presence of multiple information channels.

Table III.Sample characteristics ofFacebook users

ID Occupation Age

F1 Computer specialist 34F2 Employee 50F3 Employee 53F4 Employee 30F5 Employee 33F6 Employee 27F7 Employee 50F8 Employee 24F9 Employee 33F10 Entrepreneur 48F11 Graphic designer 29F12 Middle/senior management 35F13 Middle/senior management 34F14 Middle/senior management 40F15 Public officer 26F16 Public officer 21F17 Public officer 56F18 Retired 62F19 Retired 60F20 Student 18F21 Unemployed 19F22 Unemployed 35F23 Worker 58F24 Worker 33

EJM48,7/8

1282

4.1 Situations of usage and motivations for using social media channelsto address the companyRegarding the situation (complaint, information search, customer feedback, etc.) inwhich social media channels such as Twitter and Facebook were used, we did not detectsignificant differences among social media channels and traditional customer supportchannels.

In fact, the majority of social media users claim to use the provider’s Twitter accountor Facebook application to solve a problem with a product or service. Among theproblems, customers cited Internet connection, technical problems with mobile phonesand iPads and doubts on the provider’s loyalty programme. In this regard, the provider’sTwitter account and the Facebook application clearly appear as after-sales supportchannels, competing directly with other more traditional customer support channelssuch as the call centres and physical stores. Only in a smaller number of cases, socialmedia channels are used to ask for information about the provider’s products andservices.

4.2 Motivations for using social media channels such as Twitter or FacebookWe analysed motivations for using social media channels to contact the provider in a“social” multichannel environment to see whether they differ from more traditionalmotivations highlighted by the literature and if new motivations emerge. In most cases,we could identify more than one motivation per respondent. Generally speaking, we seethe emergence of “social motivations” for social media channels usage, as users claim tohave turned to social media channels to connect with other customers, to share theirproblem or to give a special visibility to their problem on the net. Often, the social mediachannel is seen as an alternative to other dissatisfying information channels. However,we detect differences in motivations with respect to the social media channel used.

Regarding Twitter, as Table IV shows, users greatly appreciate the rapidity and easeof use of Twitter, as well as the possibility of directly entering into contact with thecompany. As one user stated: “Twitter is easy to use and puts you into direct contactwith the company, giving you the impression of having a privileged relationship”. Forthese users, efficiency and time are major values in their relationship with the provider.

For some customers, Twitter becomes an alternative to other dissatisfying channelsin the customer – provider relationship. For instance: “I contacted the call centre andthen I looked on the web site, but I found contradictory answers to my problem. So this

Table IV.Twitter, motivations for

usage

Motivation Frequency (%)

Quick and easy to use 37 40Alternative to dissatisfying channels 20 22Respondent is a Twitter expert 19 20Twitter is free 5 5Message is publicly visible 4 4Simple, non-urgent problem 2 2Social motivation 2 2To have a personalized service 2 2To talk with skilled employees 2 2Total 93 100

1283

Multichannelmanagement

is why I tried Twitter”. Similarly: “I had a bad experience with the call centre and so Idecided to try with Twitter”; “I used Twitter because I didn’t have the time to call the callcentre and wait a long time”; “the stores are normally too crowded and I didn’t want towait for a long time before having a possible (wrong) answer”.

Generally, Twitter users are Twitter experts and describe themselves as skilled insocial media practices, thus setting themselves apart from other customers. They tend touse Twitter daily in their personal or professional life, as can be seen from the followingstatements: “I use Twitter all the time, it is easier to use”; “I am a regular user of Twitter,it is effective”; “I use Twitter for my work every day and it is a habit for me”.

A smaller number of customers recall the visibility offered by the Twitter channel,which is seen as an incentive for the company to respond more rapidly to requests andproblems. However, this advantage offered by the social media channel does not appearto be as predominant a reason for use.

In the majority of situations, the customer decides to use Twitter because theyalready have knowledge about it, and not because it has been suggested by others, suchas friends or colleagues. In this sense, the Twitter user is autonomous in their decisionsand shows a good knowledge of the company.

When we analyse the motivations for using Facebook “Need for Help” as a contactchannel, we discover that users turn to Facebook primarily on the basis of adissatisfaction with other channels, and claim to have tried other channels to solve theirproblem before Facebook, but with no results (Table V). For instance:

I wanted to find an alternative way of talking to the provider without waiting for more than 10minutes [on] the phone. I already tried the email but with no results. I was also looking for asolution with some visibility where all the other customers could see my request.

Similarly: “I live far from [the provider’s physical] stores, and when I go there I alwayshave to wait too long”; “I wanted to avoid the wait on the phone”.

Facebook is often recommended by friends, colleagues or even another member of thefamily and it is used to connect with other customers for help (social motivation). Insome cases, and differently from Twitter, it is not even the person having the problemwho turns to Facebook for help, but a relative willing to help them. For instance: “I […]heard about this application from some colleagues who expressed a good opinion aboutit. I wanted to help my daughter to solve her problems with the provider”; “my wife dideverything for me to solve my problem and she found out about Facebook”. The socialmotivation in Facebook is more evident, as Facebook is suggested by friends andcolleagues, and is even used on the respondent’s behalf by relatives.

Table V.Facebook, motivations forusage

Motivation Frequency (%)

Alternative to dissatisfying channels 15 35Social motivation 11 26Quick 10 23Message is publicly visible 4 9User is “addicted” to Facebook 2 5Previous positive experience with Facebook 1 2Total 43 100

EJM48,7/8

1284

4.3 Channel choice patternsThe analysis of the channel choice pattern allows the understanding of the role of socialmedia channels in the overall multichannel offer provided by the provider. The channelchoice pattern expresses at which point in time the use of the social media channel intervenesin relation to the other more traditional channels used to look for information or ask forcustomer support. The channel choice pattern sheds light on the customer multichannelbehaviour when several information channels are available. While current literature hasmainly analysed the channel choice pattern during the purchasing process with particularattention to the information search and purchase phases, our research is the first one toextend this concept to a CIC when social and traditional channels are available. Only anoverall perspective of the sequence of all the channels used for the specific situation underconsideration allows the understanding of the role played by traditional and new channels inthe multichannel customer behaviour.

To this end, we accurately captured and coded from the interviewees’ conversations, thechannel choice patterns of customers in the specific situation for which the social mediachannel was used. This provided insights into the sequence of channels that were used tosolve the problem or to look for information. Similarly to customers’ motivations, wedetected significant differences among users of different social media channels, even if, on ageneral basis, customers turn to social media channels because of dissatisfaction with moretraditional channels.

Regarding the Twitter channel, as can be seen from Table VI, the majority of Twitterusers appear to have turned directly to Twitter to interact with the company (27 of 50 users).This confirms that the use of Twitter is a routine part of their daily lives. In addition, some ofthese customers have had some bad experiences in the past with more traditional channels,and prefer to avoid them when new problems with the company occur. For these customers,being effective and fast is essential, as they have learnt from past experiences which channelcan best and most easily solve their problems in each situation.

On the other side, the majority of Facebook users turn to Facebook after other channelshave been tried and no satisfactory solution has been found (Table VII). While only 6 of 24customers claim to have used Facebook as a first port of call by which to contact thecompany, all the other users have shown different channel choice patterns for the specificsituation under investigation. What clearly emerges from the conversations with thesecustomers is that they “feel lost” when they are facing problems and will try every possibilityto overcome an unsatisfactory and quite stressful situation.

Table VI.Channel choice pattern for

Twitter users

Channels used No. of respondents

Twitter directly 27Call centre � Twitter 7Call centre � physical shop � Twitter 5Website � Twitter 3E-mail � Twitter 3Call centre � website � Twitter 2Physical shop � Twitter 1Call centre � physical shop � website � Twitter 1Website � e-mail � Twitter 1Total 50

1285

Multichannelmanagement

Sometimes, the suggestion or help of others becomes necessary, as Facebook users do notdisplay a great deal of autonomy, thus accentuating the social dimension of Facebook.

To sum up, users of different social media channels display different behaviour withrespect to the sequence of channels used to solve the problem or to look for information.While Twitter users turn directly to Twitter in the situation under study, Facebook usersdiscover the social media channel after other channels have been tried and no solution found.

The data collected allowed us to understand whether customers found a solution totheir problem or found the required information at the end of their channel pattern thatculminated with the use of the social media channel (Tables VI and VII). Moreover, weasked for their overall level of satisfaction.

In the majority of situations, Twitter has been found to be useful to solve the problem andfind the requested information. Only 7 of 50 customers stated that Twitter was not enoughto find an answer to their request. These seven customers tried additional channels to find ananswer, and in some cases, they switched provider. The overall satisfaction level for theTwitter application for the 50 users, on a scale from 1 to 10, is 7.4.

Regarding Facebook, 15 of 24 customers found a solution to their problem or foundthe information required via the Facebook application, while the others went on tryingother channels or switched provider. The average level of satisfaction for the Facebook“Need for Help” application, on a scale from 1 to 10, is 6.1.

4.4 Complementary and competitive effects between social mediaand traditional channelsThe literature on competitive and complementary effects among channels offersdivergent results. While some authors call for the presence of competitive effects, otherauthors stress the presence of complementary effects; the issue is far from being solved.As companies introduce new channels in their multichannel offer, understandingwhether customer value is created or destroyed becomes a critical issue. One of the maingoals of our research was to understand whether competitive or synergistic effects existamong social media and other more traditional channels. In other words, our researchaims to understand whether social media channels can replace traditional channels ofcustomer relationships in CICs.

Table VII.Channel choice pattern forFacebook users

Channels used No. of respondents

Facebook directly 6Call centre � Facebook 3Website � forum � Facebook 3Physical shop � Facebook 2Call centre � website � forum � e-mail � Facebook 2Forum � Facebook 1Physical shop � website � e-mail � Facebook 1Website � Facebook 1Website � Twitter � Facebook 1Call centre � website � Facebook 1Call centre � website � forum � Facebook 1Call centre � physical shop � website � e-mail � Facebook 1Call centre � physical shop � website � Facebook 1Total 24

EJM48,7/8

1286

Generally speaking, users of social media channels engage in multichannelbehaviour with the provider and they know and have used the other informationchannels available. In their description of their relationship with the provider over thepast six months, users claim to have regularly used other channels. We coded theiranswers and define a coefficient indicating the number of channels used in the past sixmonths, excluding Facebook and Twitter (Tables VIII and IX).

The majority of Twitter users have used at least one other channel in the past sixmonths to contact the provider. Among the most cited channels are the call centre, thestore, the website and the forum. Two customers only have used both Twitter andFacebook to contact the telecoms provider.

Compared to Twitter users, Facebook users are characterized by a higher amount ofuse of each channel (a higher number of calls to the call centre and visits to the website).As one Facebook user stated: “I think I have called the call centre about 60 times in thepast few months for several reasons” and “I regularly go to [physical] store”.

Regarding Twitters users, 47 of 50 customers stated that Twitter completes the otherchannels. In analysing the verbatim transcripts of the interviews using content analysis,we identified some major reasons for this: first of all, Twitter customers have greatexpertise of the company, its products and services, and have an in-depth knowledge of thechannels of the customer relationship. Second, their channel choice is driven by utilitarianconsiderations. Depending on the situation and the kind of problem, these users seem torationally choose the most effective channel through which to solve their problem and findthe required information, while spending the least time and money doing this. This meansthat although Twitter can be used efficiently for a technical problem that must be solvedwhen the customer is abroad (“when I travel I use Twitter”), for instance, for a “complexproblem there is still the need to talk to a customer service[s] representative”.

Their need for a multichannel provider stems from a need for efficiency: the multitude ofchannels better serves customers’ needs, in the sense that the customers have becomeeducated enough, through prior experience with the company, to make their channel choice

Table VIII.Multichannel customer

behaviour of Twitterusers in the previous six

months

Number of channels used in the pastsix months (not inc. Twitter) No. of respondents

0 101 92 153 114 2

Table IX.Multichannel customerbehaviour of Facebook

users in the previous sixmonths

Number of channels used in the pastsix months (not inc. Facebook) No. of respondents

0 11 22 63 74 55 3

1287

Multichannelmanagement

each time under a logic of efficiency. They master better their problem, and they know howto communicate it better. As a consequence, they can find a solution in an easier way.

On the other side, the majority of Facebook users have tried other channels beforearriving at Facebook, but often still do not find a solution. Facebook users do not use highlytechnical language, and often have difficulties in terms of expressing their problem to theprovider. In the majority of cases, they do not master technology well. For the majority ofFacebook users, Facebook complements the other channels of the customer relationship. Forthese users, having a multiple channel provider is a necessity, because this is a way in whichto reassure them. In case of a problem, whenever they do not find a solution, it is reassuringto know that they can try something else. For instance: “Facebook completes the otherchannels. We need to know that we can use the call centre any time, it is a way to reassureus”; and “You never know what it might happen. The call centre should be there, but alsoFacebook [just] in case”. “I like to visit the shop sometimes”.

To sum up, social media users do not claim the existence of replacement effects oftraditional channels in favour of social channels. However, we identify different reasonsfor users of different social media channels.

5. Discussion: a conceptual framework for customer multichannelbehaviour in a social multichannel environmentOur research aims to understand multichannel customer behaviour in a complexmultichannel environment, when social media channels are present. Several authors callfor more research into the why and how customers use the multiple channels available tothem, and exploit their potentialities and strengths (Kumar and Venkatesan, 2005;Neslin et al., 2006; Rangaswamy and van Bruggen, 2005; Dholakia et al., 2010). Ourresearch intends to fill this gap out by investigating how and why customers choosechannels to contact the company in a social multichannel environment, when multipleinformation channels are available.

By investigating customers’ motivations (why) for using social media channels ratherthan more traditional channels, we study whether channel choice drivers highlighted bycurrent literature still hold true or if new motivations emerge in a social multichannelenvironment.

We investigate the “how” of the multichannel customer behaviour by defining thechannel choice pattern, i.e. the full sequence of traditional and new social media channelsused to solve the specific problem under consideration.

We conducted our study with customers of a major European telecoms provider whohave also used social media channels, such as Twitter or Facebook, to contact the company.

Based on the findings of our study, we develop a conceptual framework formultichannel customer behaviour of CIC in the presence of multiple informationchannels (Figure 1). We also derive some propositions that could be used as a basis forfuture research. In an information channel context, the customer uses channels to find asolution to a problem or, less often, to find information.

While current research has extensively focused on single channel choice andselection, our research highlights the need to focus attention on the entire channelpattern followed by customers, i.e. the entire sequence of channels used to find a solutionin a specific situation under investigation. In this context, companies should considerthe combination of channels used to satisfy clients, to maximize customer value and toprovide a superior customer experience. When multiple channels are available, different

EJM48,7/8

1288

paths can be freely built by customers, giving rise to different levels of customersatisfaction and affecting customer attitudes and behaviour towards the company. In amultichannel environment that is becoming more and more complex, customers usevarious channels in combination, which gives rise to the need for the company tounderstand the entire path customers follow for a given situation (such as forinformation searching or customer problem-solving). This is a necessary premise onwhich to develop a multichannel contact strategy for clients (Jaume Gené, 2007).

Concretely, each channel choice pattern is characterized by its length, i.e. the numberof channels customers interact with when trying to find a solution or answer to theirquestion in the specific situation under investigation. As Figure 1 shows, multichannelcustomer behaviour is thus represented by the channel choice pattern and its length. Infact, as demonstrated by our study, customers experience alternative channels in thepresence of service failures or dissatisfying company responsiveness and servicequality, thereby extending the length of their channel choice pattern. The channelpattern, as sets of interactions between the customer and the company, determines themultichannel customer experience, which can have a significant impact on downstreamvariables such as customer satisfaction and loyalty (Puccinelli et al., 2009; Kumar et al.,2013). We thus posit the centrality of the channel choice pattern in terms of sequence ofchannels used to understand customer multichannel behaviour, as follows:

P1. Customer multichannel behaviour is expressed in terms of the channel choicepattern, i.e. the sequence of channels chosen and used by the customer in aspecific situation under consideration. The channel choice pattern and itscharacterizing length are central to understanding customer multichannelbehaviour in a complex multichannel environment.

Figure 1.Conceptual framework for

customer multichannelbehaviour in a social

multichannel environment

1289

Multichannelmanagement

Based on the results of our study (Tables IV and V), and by identifying higher-ordercategories, we theorize that in a complex and “social” multichannel environment, thechannel choice pattern, and consequently its resulting length, are determined by fourmain customer factors: channel knowledge (i.e. the customer’s ability to use a particularchannel) (Jaume Gené, 2007), product and service knowledge (Capraro et al., 2003) (asmore knowledgeable customers can more easily and rapidly solve their problems, thusreducing the channel pattern length), the perceived channel utility (Li et al., 2006) (i.e. thecustomers’ perceptions about the cost and benefits of a given channel) and socialmotivation. We also assume that past customer multichannel behaviour and experiencecan influence future channel interactions.

Compared to traditional literature on channel choice, a new typology of motivationemerges: a social one. For instance, Facebook users decide to turn to Facebook becauseof suggestions from friends and colleagues. In addition, they have a need to connect withother customers for help and to gain visibility.

We include situational and customer moderators as well. More precisely, on thecustomer side, we posit that the effects of the customer determinants on multichannelbehaviour are moderated by customers’ goals for their multichannel behaviour, inaccordance with goal theory (Lemke et al., 2011).

These goals represent the value customers seek from their interactions with thesupplier through different channels. Lemke et al. (2011) identify four types ofvalue-in-use that the customer may seek: utilitarian, cost/sacrifice, relational andhedonic. The value-in-use represents the actual usefulness, the benefits and the derivedvalue for the beneficiary from his/her multichannel behaviour (Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

Customers usually purchase products and use the company’s channels on the basis oftheir expectations of the products and channel’s performances with respect to meetingtheir goals (Chitturi et al., 2008). Puccinelli et al. (2009) state that customers achieve somegoals by purchasing and using a particular product or service, such as an informationchannel. Goals influence how consumers perceive the company’s channels, theirmultichannel behaviour and the value sought (Puccinelli et al., 2009).

Utilitarian and hedonic value-in-use are defined here according to Chitturi et al.(2008). Customers seeking utilitarian value-in-use are concerned with the practical,functional and instrumental benefits that a channel may provide. Utilitarian benefitsfulfil needs and necessities, whereas hedonic benefits fulfil luxuries and wants.Customers looking for hedonic value-in-use are concerned with the experiential,aesthetic and enjoyment-related benefits (Chitturi et al., 2008). The cost/sacrificevalue-in-use refers to an evaluation of the perceived benefits versus the perceived costsof using a specific channel (Chitturi et al., 2008).

Relational value-in-use refers to the existence of benefits derived from the presence ofa relationship (Barnes, 1994). Customers recognize their dependency on the provider,and they effectively depend on the resources of others to survive (Vargo and Lusch,2004). Value is jointly co-created through repeated interactions with the company(Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

More precisely, relational value-in-use is derived from the information sharing thatoccurs within the relationship (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). These relation-orientedcustomers count on their supplier to obtain useful information for decision-making(Vargo and Lusch, 2004).

EJM48,7/8

1290

Interactions and combinations between the customer determinants and customergoals give rise to different multichannel customer behaviour.

For example, Twitter users typically represent customers seeking utilitarian andcost/sacrifice value-in-use. Twitter users are so knowledgeable about the company thatthey exploit channel potentialities to fit their needs in any specific situation. Theirchannel choice is determined mainly by utilitarian considerations, i.e. the perceivedprice of each channel in terms of time and effort required (Baker et al., 2002). In anysituation, they can choose the most efficient channel according to its perceived utility.Being more knowledgeable about the channels’ potentialities, Twitter users know whenand in which situations a specific channel can best and most easily help them. Thus,they turn to Twitter directly when it is suitable, thereby saving time and money andderiving the greatest utility. They greatly appreciate the rapidity and practicality of theTwitter channel, and experience shorter channel choice patterns.

Facebook users, on the other hand, represent a category of customers who conceivetheir multichannel behaviour in a more relational and hedonic way. These customershave a weaker knowledge of the provider’s products and services, and reveal moredifficulties in solving problems and finding information. They are less autonomous and theydepend on others. They have a need to interact, to exchange, to continuously nurture theirrelationship and to co-create the knowledge they have not independently developed. Theseinteractions are perceived as a necessity, a way to reassure them and a way to nurture theirtrust and confidence in the provider and relationship with the company.

Facebook users are characterized by a higher amount of use of each channel (a highernumber of calls to the call centre and visits to the website). As one Facebook user stated: “Ithink I have called the call centre about 60 times in the past few months for several reasons”.

Continuous mutual exchanges are the basis for the relationship to exist, and this isalso true in relation to the hedonic perspective: as some Facebook users stated, “I like tovisit the shop ”.

Under a stronger relational orientation, customers with a weaker channel andproduct knowledge build relational value through the information exchanged for betterdecision-making. The relation is supposed to give them the knowledge they lack. Wesummarize this discussion in the following proposition:

P2. The goals and value customers seek from their interactions with the supplierthrough different channels moderate the relationship between customer factors(channel knowledge, perceived channel utility, product and service knowledge,social motivations and past multichannel behaviour) and customer multichannelbehaviour, which is expressed in terms of channel choice pattern and length ofchannel pattern.

When the company does not satisfy customers, they turn to others – friends or fellowcustomers – for help. In other words, social connections replace and act as a substitutefor customer – company interactions that do not end in the co-creation of the requiredknowledge. As the knowledge of the company and its channels increases, moreutilitarian and less social reasons for using the channels emerge. The social motivationis stronger in the presence of a lower level of knowledge of the company and its channels.We thus expect that:

P3. Relational-oriented customers have a stronger tendency to turn to others for helpin the case of dissatisfying encounters with the company.

1291

Multichannelmanagement

By summarizing the major findings of our study in terms of motivations and thedecision-making process, and competitive and complementary effects, it clearlyemerges that users of different social media channels represent distinct segments thatmust be addressed differently.

This is important information for companies wishing to develop social mediastrategies in the web 2.0 era: different types of social media attract and representdifferent customer segments, and thus companies should develop differentcommunication strategies to better serve customers’ needs. We thus suggest that:

P4. Users of different social media channels have distinct characteristics, such astheir orientation and goals for their multichannel behaviour, which should beaddressed differently by the company’s multichannel strategy.

Our research also adds to the controversial literature on complementary andcompetitive effects among channels.

Exploring complementary and replacement effects among new social media andtraditional channels will provide companies with suggestions to exploit the strengthsand reduce the weaknesses of each channel.

Both segments stress the necessity of having a multichannel provider. In no way cansocial media replace traditional channels, but the reasons for this differ for users ofdifferent social media, consistent with the value they seek in their multichannelbehaviour. Facebook users sometimes feel lost in their problems, and it is reassuring forthem to know that there is an alternative route to try.

They often rely on others for help, and having multiple channels available is a way toreassure them. In some cases they use the call centre, and often consult with others. Theydisplay the need to socially share their problems.

On the other side, Twitter users need multiple channels. They are more independentin their choices and their use of a multichannel provider stems from a need to be fast andefficient, and to save time and money. They derive satisfaction and loyalty from thefreedom to use the different channels (Neslin and Shankar, 2009), building a relationshipthat “can be experienced in a more individualistic or idiosyncratic way by the consumer”(Calder and Malthouse, 2005, p. 359).

6. Research limitationsThis study presents some research limitations that could be addressed in future studies.First of all, we analysed only one industry and one company. Even though our results cannotbe generalized, however, it is worth noting that preliminary discussions with social mediamanagers of other companies, including another telecoms operator and a major bank, seemto confirm the feeling that users of different social media channels correspond to differentuniverses that should be addressed in a significantly different manner.

7. Future research directionsAs companies have to manage an increasing number of channels, it is critical for them tounderstand the profiles of their customers using the different channels for a better allocationof resources. Too often it seems that companies start the social media race with the intentionof building a critical mass of followers or fans, without paying too much attention to the realneeds and profiles of customers using the different channels. Our study represents a first

EJM48,7/8

1292

step to overcoming this, as we clearly point out that different social media channels cancorrespond to different customers’ profiles with different needs to address.

A topic that has been largely investigated in the multichannel literature is the relationshipbetween multichannel shopping behaviour and profitability (Kumar, 2010; Kumar andReinartz, 2005). The literature clearly states that multichannel buyers can bring more profits;however, these studies have never taken into account information channels or social mediachannels, and they have limited their analysis mainly to physical stores, the Internet,catalogues and call centres. These considerations should be extended to include additionalchannels. For instance, do users of different social media channels display the same level ofprofitability? Preliminary evidence of the study indicates that users of different social mediachannels greatly differ in terms of their profile, level of education, knowledge of thecompany, channel choice pattern, expectations and motivations.

ReferencesBaker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, Dhruv, G. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The influence of multiple

store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 120-141.

Barnes, J.G. (1994), “Close to the customer: but is it really a relationship?”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 561-570.

Berman, B. and Thelen, S. (2004), “A guide to developing and managing a well-integratedmultichannel retail strategy”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 147-156.

Calder, B.J. and Malthouse, E.C. (2005), “Managing media and advertising change with integratedmarketing”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 356-361.

Capraro, A.J., Broniarczyk, S. and Srivastava, R.K. (2003), “Factors influencing the likelihood ofcustomer defection: the role of consumer knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 164-175.

Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R. and Mahajan, V. (2008), “Delight by design: the role of hedonicversus utilitarian benefits”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 48-63.

Dholakia, R.R., Zhao, M. and Dholakia, N. (2005), “Multichannel retailing: a case study of earlyexperiences”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 63-74.

Dholakia, U.M., Kahn, B.E., Reeves, R., Rindfleisch, A., Stewart, D. and Taylor, E. (2010),“Consumer behavior in a multichannel, multimedia retailing environment”, Journal ofInteractive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 86-95.

Godfrey, A., Seiders, K. and Voss, G.B. (2011), “Enough is enough! the fine line in executingmultichannel relational communication”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 94-109.

Hessler, R.M. (1992), Social Research Methods, West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN.

Inman, J.J., Shankar, V. and Ferraro, R. (2004), “The roles of channel-category associationsand geodemographics in channel patronage”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 51-71.

Jagpal, H. (1981), “Measuring joint advertising effects in multiproduct firms”, Journal ofAdvertising Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 65-69.

Jaume Gené, A. (2007), “Interaction channel choice in a multichannel environment, an empiricalstudy”, The International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 490-506.

Kassarjian, H.H. (1977), “Content analysis in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 8-18.

1293

Multichannelmanagement

Konus, U., Verhoef, P.C. and Neslin, S.A. (2008), “Multichannel shopper segments and theircovariates”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 4, pp. 398-413.

Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010), “Networked narratives:understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-89.

Kumar, V. (2010), “A customer lifetime value-based approach to marketing in themultichannel, multimedia retail environment”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 71-85.

Kumar, V. and Reinartz, W. (2005), Customer Relationship Management: A Databased Approach,John Wiley, Chichester.

Kumar, V. and Venkatesan, R. (2005), “Who are multichannel shoppers and how do they perform?correlates of multichannel shopping behavior”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 44-61.

Kumar, V., Dalla Pozza, I. and Ganesh, J. (2013), “Revisiting the satisfaction – loyalty relationship:empirical generalizations and directions for future research”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89No. 3, pp. 246-262.

Le Quentrec, E. (2012), “L’émergence de Facebook et twitter comme canaux de contact: quelsprofils de clients, quels motifs d’usage?”, Usages and Valeur, No. 46, pp. 11-13.

Lee, H. and Kim, J. (2010), “Investigating dimensionality of multichannel retailer’s cross-channelintegration practices and effectiveness: shopping orientation and loyalty intention”, Journalof Marketing Channels, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 281-312.

Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer experience quality: an exploration inbusiness and consumer contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869.

Li, H., Kuo, C. and Russell, M.G. (2006), “The impact of perceived channel utilities, shoppingorientations, and demographics on the consumer’s online buying behaviour”, Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 2-25.

Malhotra, N.K. (2010), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ.

Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. and Rigdon, E. (2001), “Experiential value: conceptualization,measurement, and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environment”, Journalof Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 39-56.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage publications, London.Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Voss, G.B. and Grewal, D. (2003), “Determinants of online channel use and

overall satisfaction with a relational, multichannel service provider”, Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 448-458.

Neslin, S. and Shankar, V. (2009), “Key issues in multichannel customer management: currentknowledge and future directions”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 70-81.

Neslin, S.A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M.L., Thomas, J.S. and Verhoef, P.C.(2006), “Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management”, Journal ofService Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 95-113.

Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.A. and Weinberger, M.G. (2005), “Consumer derived utilitarian value andchannel utilization in a multichannel retail context”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58No. 12, pp. 1643-1651.

Pellegrini, L. (2003), “Multichannel retailing: relationships, integration, and electronictransformation”, in Doukidis, G.J. and Vrechopoulos, A.P. (Eds), Consumer DrivenElectronic Transformation, Springer, Berlin, pp. 73-90.

EJM48,7/8

1294

Pieterson, W. and Dijk, J.V. (2007), “Channel choice determinants: an exploration of the factors thatdetermine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts”, ACM InternationalConference Proceeding Series, Vol. 228, pp. 173-182.

Prins, R. and Verhoef, P.C. (2007), “Marketing communication drivers of adoption timing of a newe-service among existing customers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 169-183.

Puccinelli, N.M., Goodstein, R.C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P. and Stewart, D. (2009),“Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying process”,Journal of Retailing, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 15-30.

Rangaswamy, A. and Van Bruggen, G.H. (2005), “Opportunities and challenges in multichannelmarketing: an introduction to the special issue”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19No. 2, pp. 5-11.

Reinartz, W., Thomas, J.S. and Kumar, V. (2005), “Balancing acquisition and retention resources tomaximize customer profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 63-79.

Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2007), Consumer Behavior, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upple SaddleRiver, NJ.

Schoenbachler, D.D. and Gordon, G.L. (2002), “Multichannel shopping: understanding what driveschannel choice”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 42-53.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA.

Thomas, J.S. and Sullivan, U.Y. (2005), “Managing marketing communications with multichannelcustomers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 239-251.

Valentini, S., Montaguti, E. and Neslin, S.A. (2011), “Decision process evolution in customerchannel choice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 72-86.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Venkatesan, R., Kumar, V. and Ravishenker, N. (2007), “Multichannel shopping: causes andconsequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 114-132.

Verhoef, P., Neslin, S.A. and Vrooman, B. (2007), “Multichannel customer management:understanding the research shopper phenomenon”, International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 129-148.

Verhoef, P.C., Venkatesan, R., McAlister, L., Malthouse, E.C., Krafft, M. and Ganesan, S. (2010),“CRM in datarich multichannel retailing environments: a review and future researchdirections”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 121-137.

Wallace, D.W., Giese, J.L. and Johnson, J.L. (2004), “Customer retailer loyalty in the context ofmultiple channel strategies”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 249-263.

Yu, U., Niehm, L.S. and Russell, D.W. (2011), “Exploring perceived channel price, quality, andvalue as antecedents of channel choice and usage in multichannel shopping”, Journal ofMarketing Channels, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 79-102.

About the authorIlaria Dalla Pozza is currently Professor of Marketing at IPAG Business School in Paris. Herresearch focuses mainly on customer relationship management, multichannel management andsocial media. Ilaria Dalla Pozza can be contacted at: ilaria.dallapozza@ipag.fr

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

1295

Multichannelmanagement