Customers' relational models as determinants of customer engagement value

Abstract

Purpose – The authors apply Alan P. Fiske's relational models framework to customers' engagement with service firms – specifically, they propose that customers who hold different relational models for the service firm are likely to engage with the firm in dissimilar ways, thus generating different types of customer engagement value for the firm. Fiske's relational models framework is eminently suitable for studying customer-service firm engagement because it is widely adopted in the social sciences as a rigorously developed framework for conceptualizing social interactions. Design/methodology/approach – The article bridges Fiske's relational models framework and Kumar et al.'s customer engagement value framework, and conceptually demonstrates that customers employing different relational models for the service firm are likely to generate different types of customer engagement value for the firm. Findings – The article demonstrates conceptually that customers' relational models, schemata, and scripts influence how consumers engage with the firm and the type of customer engagement value accruing to the firm. Research limitations/implications – This research has implications for service firms' relationship strategies. First, service marketers can determine the desired customer engagement value(s) and then craft their customer relationship strategy so that it maximizes those engagement value(s). The article suggests relationship strategies that service firms may implement for encouraging customers to adopt different relational models. Originality/value – No research has bridged relational models theories and customer engagement value theories.

Antecedent consumer factors, consequential branding outcomes and measures of online consumer engagement: current research and future directions

“…Researchers have operationalized consumer engagement in many ways. Studies have focused on customer engagement specifying that there is an interaction between the customer and the brand involving a psychological process (Bowden, 2009; Kaltcheva et al , 2014; Sarkar and Sreejesh, 2014; Vivek et al , 2014). Research has extended the terminology investigating consumer engagement which considers interacting with consumers more broadly and on an individual level (Roberts and Alpert, 2010; van Doorn et al , 2010).…”

Customer engagement in CSR: a utility theory model with moderating variables

“…In the context of this study, mobilising CE behaviour may entail a member recruiting young football players to participate in a sport clinic facilitated by the sport club. Kaltcheva et al (2014) applied four relational models derived from Fiske (1991) to understand CE with service firms. More specifically they suggest that consumers' interactions with service firms may be because they: identify with the firms values and its brand users (communal sharing model); because they feel respected by the firm (equality matching model); attractive and competitive value proposition (market price model); or they objectify the firm as a provider of entertainment (asocial model).…”

Managing a non-profit hospitality platform conversion: The case of Couchsurfing.com

“…On August 24, 2011, Fenton sent a three page note to 1,000 key volunteers and an email (CS, 2011a) to the community announcing that CS had become a B-Corp, and had accepted investment capital. While the announcement saw Fenton receiving over 1,500 emails questioning whether the communal sharing relationships could be reconciled with what on the surface seemed a move towards a market pricing model (Lapowesky, 2012), the ambassadors default cognitive reaction was to show loyalty (Kaltcheva, Patino, Laric, Pitta, & Imparato, 2014). In the model, justifications are accepted when it is difficult to process information and weigh the credibility of claims (Gilbert, Krull, & Malone, 1z990;Tetlock, 2002).…”