S-D logic-informed customer engagement: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM - Document (2024)

Authors: Linda D. Hollebeek, Rajendra K. Srivastava and Tom Chen

From: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science(Vol. 47, Issue 1)

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0494-5

Abstract:

Research addressing the micro-foundational theoretical entity of customerengagement (CE) has proliferated in recent years. In parallel, themacro-foundational theory of service-dominant (S-D) logic is thriving. Whilethe fit of CE/S-D logic has been recognized, insight into this theoreticalinterface remains tenuous, as explored in this paper. We develop anintegrative, S-D logic-informed framework of CE comprising three CEfoundational processes, which are required (for customer resourceintegration), or conducive (for customer knowledge sharing/learning) CEantecedents. While customer resource integration, in some form, extends tocoincide with CE, customer knowledge sharing/learning can also do so. We alsoidentify three CE benefits (customer individual/interpersonal operantresource development, cocreation) as CE consequences, which can also coincidewith CE. Deploying the framework, we revise Brodie et al.'s (Journal ofService Research, 14(3), 252-271, 2011 (See CR19)) fundamental propositionsof CE and apply these to customer relationship management. We conclude withtheoretical and managerial implications, followed by future research avenues.

Full Text:

Author(s): Linda D. Hollebeek ^{1 2}, Rajendra K. Srivastava ³, Tom Chen ⁴

Author Affiliations:

(Aff1) 0000 0004 0372 3343, grid.9654.e, Graduate School of Management,University of Auckland, , Auckland, New Zealand

(Aff2) grid.424606.2, Department of Strategy & Management/Center forService Innovation, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, , Bergen, Norway

(Aff3) 0000 0004 0496 9265, grid.462395.f, Indian School of Business, ,Gachibowli, 500032, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

(Aff4) 0000 0000 8831 109X, grid.266842.c, Newcastle Business School,University of Newcastle, , Corner King/Auckland Streets, 2300, Newcastle,NSW, Australia

Introduction

Reflecting contemporary, increasingly dynamic and interactive businessenvironments, the customer engagement (CE) concept has received considerablescholarly attention in the last five to seven years (Pansari and Kumar 2016).CE, which denotes "a psychological state that occurs by virtue ofinteractive customer experiences with a focal object (e.g., a brand) inservice relationships" (Brodie et al. 2011, p. 260), has been heraldedas a strategic imperative facilitating sales growth, superior competitiveadvantage, and profitability (Bijmolt et al. 2010). Engaged customers,typically, display greater brand loyalty and satisfaction (Jaakkola andAlexander 2014) and are more likely to contribute to new product development(Haumann et al. 2015), service innovation (Kumar et al. 2010), and viralmarketing activity by providing referrals for specific offerings to others(Chandler and Lusch 2015).

The growing importance of CE is illustrated by the concept's inclusionin the Marketing Science Institute's 2014-2016 and 2016-2018 Research Priorities (MSI 2014, 2016). Further, Special Issues addressing CE have appeared inleading journals, including the Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science (2017), Journal of Service Research (2010, 2011), and the Journal of Consumer Psychology (2009). Research to date has provided CE conceptualizations (Hollebeek etal. 2014), fundamental propositions of CE (Brodie et al. 2011), measurementinstruments applicable to particular CE contexts (Sprott et al. 2009),initial insight into CE antecedents, dynamics and consequences (Van Doorn etal. 2010), and the effect of CE on firm performance (Kumar and Pansari 2015).

Despite these contributions important research gaps remain, in particularwith respect to the conceptual association of CE vis-à-vis other theoreticalentities, including service-dominant (S-D) logic and its associated lexicon(Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008a, 2016), thus limiting our understanding of CEand its theoretical interconnections. CE and S-D logic share a theoreticalfocus on interactivity with or between stakeholders (e.g., customers,employees), thus reflecting a significant conceptual fit of theseperspectives, warranting their joint investigation. While the applicabilityof CE to S-D logic has been recognized (Brodie et al. 2011), little remainsknown regarding the particular ways in which these theoretical entitiesinterrelate (e.g., the link between CE and the S-D logic concepts ofcocreation, resource integration), which we explore in this paper.

The primary purpose of this paper is to develop an integrative framework ofCE and S-D logic, which serves as a theoretical foundation for the subsequentdevelopment of a set of revised, S-D logic-informed fundamental propositions(FPs) of CE. Our contributions are as follows. First, we develop anintegrative framework that unifies, consolidates, and harmonizes CE and S-Dlogic, which have existed as largely fragmented perspectives to date.MacInnis (2011, p. 138), in her classification of conceptual contributions inmarketing, denotes "integrating" as viewing "previouslydistinct pieces as similar, often in terms of a unified whole whose meaning is different from its constituent parts." By integratingCE with key S-D logic concepts (e.g., cocreation), our framework advances thedevelopment of theoretical parsimony and convergence of these perspectives(Yadav 2010; MacInnis 2011). We also delineate (i.e., "detail, chart,describe, or depict an entity and its relationship to other entities,"MacInnis 2011, p. 138) and 'differentiate' (i.e.,"discriminate, parse, or see pieces or dimensions that comprise awhole," p. 138) our key concepts.

Our second contribution lies in the development of a set of revised S-Dlogic-informed FPs of CE based on our framework. In their original FPs of CE,Brodie et al. (2011, p. 253) draw on four of Vargo and Lusch's (2008a)foundational premises of S-D logic, including Premise 6 ("The customeris always a cocreator of value"), Premise 8 ("A service-centeredview is inherently customer-oriented and relational"), Premise 9("All social and economic actors are resource integrators"), andPremise 10 ("Value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determinedby the beneficiary"). Except for Premise 8, Vargo and Lusch (2016)elevate these premises (subject to relevant revisions) to axiom status.Building on Brodie et al. (2011) we develop a set of revised, S-Dlogic-informed FPs of CE that reflects Vargo and Lusch's (2016) recentS-D logic developments, including a more explicit focus on networks andinstitutions. The revised FPs are a useful guide for future researchers andmanagers seeking to better understand CE and its theoretical associationswith S-D logic.

Third, our work contributes to marketing practice through the application ofour revised, S-D logic-informed FPs of CE to customer relationship management(CRM), which is centered on managing customer interactions and relationships.Reinartz et al. (2004, p. 295) define CRM as "the systematic andproactive management of [customer] relationships as they move from beginning(initiation) to end (termination), with execution across the variouscustomer-facing contact channels." CRM leverages customer information tomaximize customer lifetime value and customer equity (Malthouse et al. 2013,p. 270), and can be used to implement firms' relationship marketingobjectives (Ou et al. 2016; Kumar and Reinartz 2016) and to engage customers(Malthouse et al. 2013; Verma et al. 2016; Verhoef et al. 2010a). Theapplication of our revised, S-D logic-informed FPs of CE to CRM can thus aidmanagers to more effectively engage customers through enhanced customerinteractions, which over time, facilitate the development of superiorcustomer relationships and lifetime value.

The paper is structured as follows. We next review literature on CE and S-Dlogic, followed by the development of an integrative conceptual framework ofS-D logic-informed CE. Building on Brodie et al. (2011), we proceed todevelop five revised FPs of CE that explicitly incorporate key S-D logicconcepts; thus contributing to the theoretical consolidation of CE and S-Dlogic. We then discuss our framework and revised FPs, followed by an overviewof CRM implications arising from our analyses. The paper concludes with anoverview of key research limitations and an agenda for future research.

Customer engagement research

The engagement concept has received considerable academic, practitioner, andconsultancy-based interest in recent years (Haumann et al. 2015; Precourt2016). Scrutiny of the literature suggests the emergence of severalengagement concepts, including "customer engagement" (Pansari andKumar 2016; Verhoef et al. 2010b), "customer engagement behaviors"(Van Doorn et al. 2010), "consumer engagement" (Brodie et al.2013), "consumer brand engagement" (Hollebeek et al. 2014),"advertising engagement" (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010), and"brand engagement in self-concept" (Sprott et al. 2009). We adoptcustomer engagement (CE) with brands, which are a key responsibility of themarketing function (Doyle 2000). We view the brand, which Chandler and Lusch(2015, p. 3) identify as the most cited engagement object in the marketingliterature, as a physical (e.g., identifying) entity, and a customer-basedmental representation of focal offerings (Stern 2006, p. 216).

In their influential article, Brodie et al. (2011) develop a set of fivefundamental propositions (FPs) of CE. First, FP1 reads, "CE reflects apsychological state, which occurs by virtue of interactive customerexperiences with a focal object (e.g., a brand) in servicerelationships" (p. 260). The notion of interactivity between focal engagement subject(s) and object(s) runs as a common threadthrough most engagement conceptualizations (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014).While Brodie et al.'s (2011) interactive experience is widely adopted, this description can render theoretical confusion betweenCE and the conceptually related, but distinct brand experience concept (Homburg et al. 2015; Lemon and Verhoef 2016). Brakus et al. (2009,p. 53) define brand experience as "subjective, internal consumerresponses.. evoked by brand-related stimuli that are part of a brand'sdesign, identity, packaging, communications, and environments." Theyproceed (p. 53): "brand experience.. differs from motivational concepts,such as involvement" and CE; that is, in contrast to CE, "brandexperience does not presume a motivational state" (p. 54). We thus focuson the interactive nature of CE (vs. interactive experience) to more clearlydifferentiate these concepts. Taking an S-D logic-informed view, we viewinteraction as "mutual or reciprocal action or influence" thatfacilitates exchange (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 9).

Second and relatedly, we note a highly voluntary (Jennings and Stoker 2004;Mollen and Wilson 2010), motivational (Higgins 2006) nature of CE, whichremains more implicit in Brodie et al.'s conceptualization. Based onmotivational drivers (Van Doorn et al. 2010), customers choose to invest focal operant (i.e., knowledge, skills; Vargo and Lusch 2008a, p.6) and operand (e.g., equipment) resources in particular brand interactions(Hollebeek 2011a). Examples of customers' brand-related operantresources include cognitive (e.g., knowledge of a brand's legacy),emotional (e.g., brand imagery), behavioral (e.g., brand usage skills), andsocial (e.g., brand-based socializing skills) operant resources (Vargo andLusch 2008a, p. 6), thus reflecting CE's multidimensional nature (Brodieet al. 2011, p. 258). Operant resources are "the fundamental source ofcompetitive advantage" (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 8), and are alsopivotal for CE.

Third, Brodie et al.'s (2011, p. 259) second FP reads: "CE statesoccur within a dynamic, iterative process of service relationships thatcocreates value." Following these authors, we view CE and its associatedintensity and valence (e.g., positive/negative) at a particular time as astate, with a series of aggregated CE states accumulating to a broader CEprocess. Relatedly, Brodie et al.'s third FP reads: "CE plays acentral role within a nomological network of service relationships."Despite several conceptual (Van Doorn et al. 2010) and empirical (Malthouseet al. 2016) studies in this area, the nature of particular CE-basedtheoretical relationships remains nebulous, as well as debated (Leeflang2011; Hollebeek et al. 2014). Table 1 outlines extant research addressingfocal CE and related conceptualizations, their key antecedents andconsequences.

Customer engagement (CE)-based conceptual relationships in the broadernomological network

Cited sources (stated in brackets in last two columns) refer to existingresearch on related research issue(s).

Fourth, we agree with Brodie et al.'s FP4 (p. 258), which views CE as amultidimensional concept comprising cognitive, emotional, and behavioraldimensions that are subject to personal, object-related, and situationalfactors (Baldus et al. 2015). Some authors limit their focus to customer engagement behaviors (Table 1), thus rendering CE-based cognitions and emotions more implicit.We, however, adopt Brodie et al.'s (2013) multidimensional view, whichalso incorporates a social CE dimension (Vivek et al. 2014), and thus morefully reflects CE, particularly in networked or institutional settings (Vargoand Lusch 2016).

Fifth, we also agree with Brodie et al.'s (2011) CE context dependency(FP5), and note the existence of different CE characteristics, or at aminimum, varying importance levels of CE tenets across contexts (Bolton2011). CE research conducted across contexts, including social media(Hollebeek et al. 2014), brand communities (Brodie et al. 2013), tourism (Soet al. 2014), nursing homes (Verleye et al. 2014), public transportation(Jaakkola and Alexander 2014), and customer/employee interactions (Kumar andPansari 2015) suggests CE's high context-specificity. As a resultunique, or markedly different, CE dimensions have been suggested acrosscontexts (cf. Hollebeek et al. (2014) for an in-depth review). To illustrate,scales gauging brand engagement in self-concept (Sprott et al. 2009), onlineengagement (Calder et al. 2009), online brand community engagement (Baldus etal. 2015), and consumer engagement with brand-related social media content(Schivinski et al. 2016) each propose a unique set of engagement dimensions.Despite these differences, all of these scales model engagement as areflective construct. Our S-D logic-informed view of CE is aligned withHollebeek et al.'s (2014) definition (Table 1). Similar to theseauthors, we adopt an interaction-centric, positively valenced,multidimensional view of CE (Schamari and Schaefers 2015). Next, we explorethe conceptual association between CE and S-D logic.

The customer engagement/S-D logic interface

Macro- and micro-theoretical foundations

A theory is "a systematically related set of statements, including somelaw-like generalizations that are empirically testable" (Hunt 1983, p.10). Theory purports to "increase scientific understanding through asystematized structure capable of both explaining and predictingphenomena" (p. 10). Based on Rousseau's (1985, p. 6) contentionthat "theories must be built with explicit description of the levels towhich the generalization is appropriate," we adopt Coleman's (1994)interrelated levels of macro- and micro-foundational theory.

Theoretical macro- and micro-foundations are used relatively scarcely inmarketing to date (Korhonen-Sande 2010). Building on strategic management andorganizational theory, Storbacka et al. (2016) adopt the micro-foundationaltheoretical entity of engagement to advance understanding of themacro-foundational theory of S-D logic (Foss 2009). Theoreticalmicro-foundations are important to "unpack collective[macro-foundational theories] to understand how individual-level factorsimpact.., how the interaction of individuals leads to emergent [and]collective outcomes.. and how relations between macro-variables are mediatedby micro-actions and interactions" (Felin et al. 2015, p. 4), thusillustrating the relatedness of these theoretical levels (Langlois 2004, p.261) and the iterative nature of theorizing (Weick 1995).

Micro-foundational theory (e.g., engagement, micro-foundations ofcapabilities) provides "deeper theoretical explanation [and].. a bridgefor empirical investigation, thus anchoring more abstract macro-[foundationaltheories]" (Storbacka et al. 2016, p. 1). Micro-foundations thus are thetheoretical building blocks of macro-foundational theory that have narrowerconceptual applicability, rendering these closer to the realm of marketingpractice (Gavetti 2005). Macro-foundations, by contrast, are wide-rangingtheoretical entities characterized by high levels of aggregation andtheoretical abstraction, similar to Hunt's (1983) general theory. Whilemarketing, to date, has lacked a unifying perspective (Hunt 1990), S-D logicprovides a promising candidate for a macro-foundational theory in ourdiscipline (Lusch and Vargo 2006a). CE, in turn, is a particularmicro-foundational theoretical constituent of S-D logic (Storbacka et al.2016).

Macro- and micro-foundational theory are gaining recognition in the marketingliterature. To illustrate, Vargo (2011, p. 127) states: "To understandmarkets and value creation, one must constantly oscillate the focus amongmicro-.. and macro-perspectives," thus reflecting a particular form ofMacInnis' (2011) "integrating," which we examine through S-Dlogic-informed CE. Correspondingly, Van Doorn (2011, p. 280) posits that"interactivity between customers and a company [is] the core of theengagement construct. S-D logic is, therefore, a fruitful theoretical lens,because this approach stresses that all value creation is interactional andthe customer is always a cocreator of value" (Ramani and Kumar 2008). Wenext view S-D logic's axioms from a CE perspective.

S-D logic axioms: a customer engagement perspective

<sec>

Since its introduction by Vargo and Lusch (2004), S-D logic has been subjectto widespread adoption and conceptual refinement. While the original (2004)premises were refined in Vargo and Lusch (2008a), a recent consolidation seesthe elevation of four of the premises to axiom status, denoting their core importance for S-D logic (Vargo and Lusch 2016).These authors also develop FP11 (i.e., the fifth S-D logic axiom). We discussthe five axioms from a CE perspective below, whilst also considering Vargoand Lusch's (2016) other S-D logic premises at relevant pointsthroughout this paper.

Axiom 1: service as the fundamental basis of exchange

In S-D logic, service is defined as "the application of specializedcompetences (i.e., operant resources: knowledge, skills) through deeds,processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity, or the entityitself" (Vargo and Lusch 2008b, p. 26). In service systems, individualsconnected by "shared institutional arrangements" (e.g., rules,norms; Akaka and Vargo 2015, p. 456) integrate specific operant/operandresources in value-seeking or -optimizing processes (Lusch and Vargo 2006b).Axiom 1 exhibits conceptual fit with CE, which has been linked to resourceintegration in value creation processes (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014).Specifically, under S-D logic engaged customers investing elevated resourcelevels in particular interactions are providing service-either to themselvesor focal others-by integrating resources for value-creating purposes (Karpenet al. 2015; Brodie and Hollebeek 2011).

Axiom 2: multiple actor cocreation

Axiom 2 posits: "Value is cocreated by multiple actors, always includingthe beneficiary," which corresponds to the interactive nature of CE inservice systems (Baumöl et al. 2016). According to this axiom, thebeneficiary is always included in value cocreation, which corresponds to thecustomer's interactive, value-seeking or -optimizing intent in CE (Fanget al. 2008; Pervan and Bove 2011). Axiom 2 also reflects customers'increasingly (pro)active roles, in clear contrast to the traditional view ofcustomers as passive recipients of brand-related information (Sawhney et al.2005).

Axiom 3: social and economic actors as resource integrators

While remaining undefined in Vargo and Lusch (2004), resource integrationre-appeared in Lusch and Vargo (2006b, p. 283), and was subsequentlyformalized in S-D logic's ninth foundational premise (Vargo and Lusch2008a). Resource integration, which entails the assimilation of specificoperant and/or operand resources in particular interactions (Sweeney et al.2015; Lusch et al. 2007), motivates and constitutes exchange (Vargo and Lusch2008a, p. 9). The manner and scope with which resources are integrateddepends on individual factors (e.g., personality; Goff and Ackerman 1992),object factors (e.g., tie strength; Granovetter 1973), and situationalfactors (e.g., stress; Schaufeli et al. 2002).

Axiom 4: beneficiary-determined value

Axiom 4 posits: "Value is always uniquely and phenomenologicallydetermined by the beneficiary," which emphasizes the experiential,inherently subjective, and contextual nature of service system-basedcocreation that is also applicable to CE. This axiom also highlights thatwhile firms develop value propositions, it is the beneficiary (e.g.,customer), ultimately, who regulates the intensity of ensuing perceivedcocreation. The final evaluation of interactions thus resides in thecustomer's mind and therefore cannot be fully controlled by the firm orits representatives. Further, while perceived interaction-related value maybe significant and positive for one stakeholder (e.g., a customer) this maybe negative, neutral, or negligible for other service system actors (e.g.,frontline service staff required to pay lost revenue, out of their pocket, totheir employer; Bowden et al. 2015).

Axiom 5: cocreation, institutions, and institutional arrangements

Axiom 5 states: "Value cocreation is co-ordinated throughactor-generated institutions and institutional arrangements." Vargo andLusch (2016, p. 6) define institutions as "humanly devised rules, norms, and beliefs that enable and constrainaction, and make social life predictable and meaningful," and institutional arrangements as "interdependent assemblages of institutions" (p. 11). Axiom 5thus explicitly incorporates the notion of collective, networked actors andservice systems in S-D logic's conceptual domain (Koskela-Huotari andVargo 2016). Service systems are "value cocreation configurations ofpeople, technology, organizations and shared information" (e.g.,language, laws; Maglio and Spohrer 2008, p. 18). Similarly, serviceecosystems are "systems of resource-integrating actors connected byshared institutional logics and mutual value creation through serviceexchange" (Vargo and Akaka 2012, p. 207), and relational ecosystems are"webs of interconnections among relational entities that operate as asystem and influence customer decision-making behaviors" (Henderson andPalmatier 2010, p. 37). These concepts each reflect specific institutionalarrangements focused on interactivity, relationships and stakeholders'value-(co)creating intent, which are also core to CE and S-D logic (Vargo etal. 2015). Overall, our analyses suggest the relevance of adopting anintegrative, S-D logic-informed perspective of CE, which we further developnext, in our conceptual framework.

Conceptual framework

Customer engagement and the CE foundational processes

<sec>

Based on the theoretical ambiguity surrounding S-D logic-informed CE, wedevelop an integrative framework incorporating these theoretical entities,thus taking a step toward their conceptual consolidation. Extending Brodie etal. (2011) and Vargo and Lusch (2016) we define S-D logic-informed CE, whichis presented at the framework's nucleus, as (Table 2; Fig. 1):

[Displayed Quote]A customer's motivationally driven, volitionalinvestment of focal operant resources (including cognitive, emotional,behavioral, and social knowledge and skills), and operand resources (e.g.,equipment) into brand interactions in service systems.

Conceptual framework: Definitions and theoretical associations

Conceptual framework: Depicted in Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Integrative, S-D logic-informed framework of customer engagement (CE). Notes:(1) Lightly shaded (outer) areas: CE foundational processes of customerresource integration, knowledge sharing, and learning (CE antecedents thatmay extend to coincide with CE); (2) Non-shaded areas: CE benefits ofcustomer individual operant resource development, interpersonal operantresource development, and cocreation (CE consequences that can also coincidewith CE) [see PDF for image]

<sec>

In the remainder of this section, we discuss the CE foundational processes ofcustomer resource integration, knowledge sharing and learning (Fig. 1). InTable 2 we provide definitions of the concepts in our framework, reflectingMacInnis' (2011, p. 138) "explicating," including"delineating" and "summarizing" (cf. Definition column).We also discuss key theoretical links between these concepts, reflectingMacInnis' (2011) "relating," including"differentiating" and "integrating" (cf. TheoreticalAssociations column).

<sec>

The framework comprises three CE foundational processes, which are required(for customer resource integration), or conducive (for customer knowledgesharing/learning) CE antecedents (Table 2). Hence while customer resourceintegration is a necessary requirement for the development of CE (i.e., CE-enabling factor), customer knowledge sharing and learning are conducive for CE (i.e., CE-facilitating factors). Further, customer resource integration, in some form, extends tocoincide with CE, while customer knowledge sharing and learning can also do so. Increasing levels of the CE foundational processes generategreater CE. CE, in turn, spawns three types of CE benefits that act as CEconsequences (but which can also coincide with CE), as discussed in the section titled "Customerengagement benefits."

Customer resource integration

Customer resource integration denotes a customer's incorporation,assimilation, and application of focal operant and/or operand resources intothe processes of other actors in brand-related utility optimization processes(Table 2). For example, holiday makers ordering operand resources (e.g.,co*cktails) to optimize their perceived vacation utility, are integratingtheir personal (e.g., monetary) resources with the brand (Axiom 3). Customerresource integration is core for the development of CE, given: (1) specificcustomer resources are integrated with the brand by virtue of interactivity, thus rendering CE (Brodie et al. 2011), and (2) thevalue-creating intent of customer resource integration that is also common toCE (Peters et al. 2014). For example, an individual acquiring brochures(i.e., operand resource) and deploying their reading skills (i.e., operantresource) to facilitate the purchase of a car not only reflects resourceintegration but also entails cognitive, behavioral, etc. investments intoobject-related interactions-that is, CE (Hollebeek et al. 2014). We thusinclude customer resource integration as our first CE foundational process.This example also indicates that customer resource integration, in additionto acting as a CE antecedent, extends to coincide (i.e., occur concurrently) with CE (Table 2).

Customer resource integration implies that value is created in servicesystems, or constellations of networked actors accessing or acquiring scarceresources (Vargo and Lusch 2008a). Extrinsic operand resources are tradedbetween individuals in their networks, and become available when owned,controlled, or shared (Moeller 2008). Customer operant resources are theoutputs of prior customer motivation and capacity to integrate resources infocal object interactions. Hibbert et al.'s (2012), p. 248) resource integration effectiveness (i.e., resource deployment proficiency to create value) recognizes that allcustomers are not equal in unlocking value from their resource integrationactivities. Customer integration of operant resources is of particular importance, given their role as "thefundamental source of strategic benefit" (Vargo and Lusch 2016, p. 8).Customer resource integration also interacts with customer knowledge sharingand learning, which we address next.

Customer knowledge sharing

Customer knowledge sharing denotes a customer's communication ofspecific perceived brand knowledge (including information- orexperience-based knowledge) to other(s) in their network for the purpose ofcreating value for themselves, the recipient(s), or both (Table 2). Whensharing knowledge, customers seek to interactively create value; thusexplaining the importance of customer knowledge sharing for S-Dlogic-informed CE, and warranting its inclusion as our second CE foundationalprocess. While customer knowledge sharing is conducive to CE (Kumar et al.2010, p. 298), it is not required for CE per se (e.g., knowledge gained ininteractions with privately consumed (e.g., adult-themed) brands, whilstengaging, is less likely to be shared with others). In other contextscustomer knowledge sharing can also extend to coincide with CE.

Information and experiences, once processed, often develop into particularforms of perceived knowledge (Hult et al. 2004; Mena and Chabowski 2015). Wetherefore include information- and experience sharing in the ambit ofcustomer knowledge sharing. Of these, experience sharing has the greatest(but not sole) propensity to cover customers' highly subjectiveinterpretations of objects, activities, etc. (Chen et al. 2012). Parties withwhom customers tend to share their knowledge include other customers,friends, service employees, and the focal firm (Ho and Ganesan 2013; Sohi etal. 1996). Customer knowledge sharing contexts have included new productdevelopment (Fang et al. 2008; Hong et al. 2004), innovation (Cui and Wu2016), digital environments (e.g., social media; Naylor et al. 2012), andretailing (Kim and Phalak 2012).

While knowledge sharing remains implicit in Vargo and Lusch's (2016)premises of S-D logic, it has particular importance for Axiom 5, whichrecognizes the networked nature of interactions involving multipleinstitutionalized actors and institutional arrangements. Customer knowledgesharing is important to communicate and action particular institutions andinstitutional arrangements; thus providing service either to the self or others (Axiom 1). The wider knowledge is shared, themore influential it can become. Vargo and Lusch (2016, p. 11) state:"Institutions.. shared by actors, result in a network effect withincreasing returns.. The more actors share an institution, the greater thepotential coordination benefit to all actors."

Customer learning

Customer learning is an iterative process that involves a customer'sdevelopment of mental rules and guidelines for processing relevantbrand-related information, the acquisition of new brand knowledge or insight,and ensuing behavioral modification based on new brand knowledge or insightgained (Table 2). "Customers must acquire the necessary skills andknowledge [i.e., learn]" to be effective in brand interactions (Hibbertet al. 2012, p. 247), thus substantiating the role of customer learning asour third S-D logic-informed CE foundational process. Whilst acting as anantecedent conducive to CE, customer learning can also extend to coincidewith CE.

Customer learning is a volitional process comprising cognitive, emotional,and behavioral facets (Bolhuis 2003) that can be triggered by situationalrequirements, where customers find themselves motivated to learn (e.g., theonset of disease; Rager 2003). Thus, customer learning is oftenself-initiated, self-directed, and self-controlled (Tough 1971), reflecting aform of service provision to the self (Axiom 1). To stimulate customerlearning many firms (e.g., Home Depot, Nikon) have learning resourcesavailable (Honebein and Cammarano 2005), which may use traditional media(e.g., seminars, advertising; Xie et al. 2008), and/or new media (e.g.,online videos, blogs; Payne et al. 2008). Customer learning activitiesinclude customer socialization (Groth 2005), education (Eisingerich and Bell2008), training (Zaho et al. 2008), and post-purchase learning (Mittal andSawhney 2001), which may reflect differing levels of perceived taskcomplexity (Baker and Sinkula 1999). Accidental (unintended) customerlearning can also occur (Eneroth 2008).

As individuals become increasingly networked (Axiom 5), they must "learn how to be a vital and sustaining part of the value network" (Lusch etal. 2010, p. 21); thus generating increasing importance of adaptable, agilelearning capabilities and techniques (e.g., experiential learning) to sustainstrategic advantage (Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2015; Hult and Ferrell 1997).Customer learning can also stimulate CE over time (e.g., by reducing customertedium in interactions), particularly when perceived favorable learningoutcomes exist (e.g., service mastery; Rothschild and Gaidis 1981). Next, weaddress the CE benefits that stem from CE.

Customer engagement benefits

The CE benefits that emanate from CE (i.e., CE consequences) include customerindividual- and interpersonal operant resource development and cocreation,which are shown at the respective intersections of the CE foundationalprocesses (Fig. 1). While the scope of CE is limited to customers' intra-interaction dynamics (Hollebeek et al. 2014), some level of the CE benefitsis perceived not only after, but can also be perceived during, focal interactions (i.e., the CE benefits can also coincide with CE; Table 2). For positively valenced CE (Bowden et al.2015), higher CE leads to greater CE benefits.

Customer individual operant resource development

Customer individual operant resource development denotes a customer'sperceived modification (e.g., growth) in their own brand-related operantresources through brand interactions (Table 2). It is a key outcome of pastinteractions (and thus of CE) in service systems, warranting its inclusion asthe first S-D logic-informed CE benefit in our framework. The concept, whichacknowledges the dynamic nature of operant resources, may be self-assessed bycustomers at any time (Axiom 4).

In the framework, customer individual operant resource development isrepresented at the intersection of the CE foundational processes of customerresource integration and learning. By integrating resources, customers canacquire new knowledge and skills (i.e., develop their operant resources) andthus, learn (Lusch et al. 2010). Madhavaram and Hunt (2008, p. 71) identifythree operant resource types: (1) basic operant resources that are easilydeveloped (e.g., learning to drink tea), (2) composite operant resources thatare more difficult to develop (e.g., learning Zumba), and (3) interconnectedoperant resources that are most difficult to develop, but most capable ofgenerating sustainable advantage (e.g., MBA learning). For potential or newcustomers, resource integration and learning precede individual operantresource development: "At Apple stores.. prospective customers benefitfrom interactions [by] learning about the products and how to use them, andconnecting with value-in-use experiences before purchase" (Ramaswamy andOzcan 2015, p. 6).

Existing customers may require further development, refinement (e.g., forusing new products), or restoration (e.g., PADI scuba diving refreshercourses) of their brand-related operant resources. Personal factors (e.g.,disposition to learn), brand factors (e.g., brand image), and situationalfactors (e.g., resource availability) shape customers' individualoperant resource development in service systems. We next addresscustomers' interpersonal operant resource development.

Customer interpersonal operant resource development

Customer interpersonal operant resource development denotes a customer'sperceived modification (e.g., growth) in their own brand-related operantresources through acting as the initiator or recipient of brand-relatedknowledge sharing with others (Table 2). We include this concept, whichoccurs as a result of focal interactions (and thus, of CE), at theintersection of customer knowledge sharing and learning in our framework.Through its shared nature, interpersonal operant resource development rendersdirect relevance of Vargo and Lusch's (2016) second and fifth S-D logicaxioms. We illustrate the concept, which reflects customers' personaldetermination of value (Axiom 4), as follows (Ramaswamy and Ozcan 2015, p.6): "[At Apple stores, prospective customers] share their learning fromone customer to the next, and [also] learn [about other] customers' pastexperiences and their future intentions."

Customer interpersonal operant resource development can help turn perceivedutilitarian brands into more hedonic ones (Voss et al. 2003). For example,Nike's PHOTOiD app "enables [users] to take [photographed] momentsof [their] life and commemorate them.. by applying colors from the image to[their] favorite Nike Air Max shoe, and sharing [their] design throughFacebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest.. and.. Instagram" (Ramaswamy andOzcan 2015, p. 9). Drivers of customer interpersonal operant resourcedevelopment include individual factors (e.g., customer self-efficacy), brandfactors (e.g., utilitarian/hedonic brands), and situational factors (e.g.,mood), though in some cases it is not possible or permissible to shareone's operant resource development (e.g., sharing exam answers withfellow students during an exam).

Customer cocreation

Customer cocreation denotes a customer's perceived value arising frominteractive, joint, collaborative, or personalized brand-related activitiesfor or with stakeholders in service systems (Table 2), thus primarilyreflecting Vargo and Lusch's (2016) second and fifth S-D logic axioms.These authors also caution in their seventh premise of S-D logic (p. 8):"[Brands] cannot deliver value, but can participate in the creation andoffering of value propositions," implying that (cocreated) value isdetermined by the beneficiary (e.g., customer), rather than the firm. As anoutcome of interactions, and thus of CE, we include customer cocreation asthe third CE benefit in our framework. Like the other CE benefits, customercocreation can also coincide with CE.

There is some debate about the scope of customer cocreation (Vargo and Lusch2008a). For example, Grönroos (2011) and Grönroos and Voima (2013, p. 133)limit cocreation to face-to-face, or virtual, interactions (e.g., betweencustomers and a brand, other customers, etc.). Taking a broader view (whichwe share), Vargo and Lusch (2016) posit cocreation to occur in any type of interaction, which they define as "mutual or reciprocal actionor influence" (p. 9). Customer cocreation valence can also differ acrossinteractions, or from different actor perspectives. For example, customersspreading negative brand-related word-of-mouth may feel satisfied (i.e.,cocreation), while the firm in question is likely to perceive a codestructiveact (De Matos and Rossi 2008). Broadly, actors trade off (e.g., social,psychological) benefits of cocreation activities with the perceived cost(e.g., time; Hoyer et al. 2010; Ranjan and Read 2016; Vargo et al. 2008).

In Fig. 1 customer cocreation is represented at the intersection of customerresource integration and knowledge sharing, which are facilitated by the"joint activities for or with stakeholders" inherent in cocreation(Santos-Vijande et al. 2016). Ramaswamy and Ozcan (2015) recommend the use ofengagement platforms to facilitate not only customer cocreation, but alsocustomer resource integration and knowledge sharing (e.g., Nike'sPHOTOiD platform facilitates customer interactions, maps customerpreferences, and helps develop deeper, more meaningful customerrelationships; Breidbach et al. 2014). We next revise Brodie et al.'s(2011) FPs of CE.

Revised, S-D logic-informed FPs of customer engagement

Building on Brodie et al. (2011) and our framework (Fig. 1), we next developa set of revised, S-D logic-informed fundamental propositions (FPs) of CE.Three reasons underlie our revision of Brodie et al.'s FPs. First,despite the authors' identified link between CE and S-D logic, they donot explicitly integrate CE with particular S-D logic concepts in aconceptual framework, thus limiting insight into the nature of CE and focalS-D logic-based theoretical relationships. Second, the recent introduction ofVargo and Lusch's (2016) axioms and new S-D logic thinking is notaccounted for in Brodie et al.'s FPs of CE. Third, the additionalinsight gleaned into CE since publication of Brodie et al. (2011) is notreflected in the authors' FPs. Below, we revise Brodie et al.'s FPsof CE in line with our conceptual framework, thus contributing to thetheoretical consolidation of CE and S-D logic (MacInnis 2011; Yadav 2010).Table 3 provides an overview of Brodie et al.'s (2011) FPs of CE, ourS-D logic-informed, revised FPs of CE, and a theoreticalexplication/justification for the revised FPs.

Revised, S-D logic-informed fundamental propositions (FPs) of customerengagement (CE)

Revised FP1: CE as volitional resource investments in brandinteractions

Brodie et al. (2011, p. 260) denote CE as a "psychological state"(Hsieh and Chang 2016). While we acknowledge the inherently psychologicalnature of CE (Van Doorn 2011), we believe that from an S-D logic perspective,the notion of customers' "motivationally driven, volitionalinvestment of specific operant and operand resources" more accuratelydescribes CE (Table 3). That is, in many contexts, CE reflects anindividual's discretionary (vs. enforced) resource investment (Jennings and Stoker 2004), includingcognitive and other operant resources that may be combined with focal operandresources in service system-based interactions.

As stated in our literature review, we replace Brodie et al.'s (2011, p.260) view of CE as interactive experience with interactions in our first revised FP. The reason for this amendment is to reducepotential conceptual confounding between CE and (brand) experience, andpreserve their conceptual distinctiveness. Our first revised FP is: CE reflects a customer's motivationally driven, volitionalinvestment of specific operant and operand resources into brand interactionsin service systems.

Revised FP2: CE benefits

The CE benefits include customer individual- and interpersonal operantresource development, and cocreation. Customers' brand-related knowledgeand skill development, whether gained individually (i.e., individual operant resource development), or through knowledge sharing with others(i.e., interpersonal operant resource development), is an expected beneficial outcome of CE.Customer cocreation may carry positive, negative, or neutral valence; thuspermitting the emergence of codestruction (i.e., negative cocreation; Smith2013). Given most firms' intent for cocreation, we assign the similarlypositively valenced term of CE benefits in our framework. However, where CE is negative the term CEdetriments should be used (Table 2). The CE benefits tend to develop as a result ofmultiple brand interactions over time (reflecting their iterative nature),and induce the undertaking of further brand interactions, thus fosteringfuture CE (Hollebeek 2013). We revise FP2 as follows: The CEbenefits of customer individual- and interpersonal operant resourcedevelopment and cocreation result from CE within service systems.

Revised FP3: CE foundational processes

Brodie et al. (2011, p. 260) posit that CE "plays a central role in anomological network governing service relationships" (Bolton 2011).While we agree with these authors' generic rationale (e.g., Table 1:last two columns), a higher degree of specificity is needed to moreaccurately and uniquely denote CE in this FP. We achieve enhanced specificityby stipulating particular CE-based conceptual relationships in our revisedFP3: The CE foundational processes of customer resourceintegration, knowledge sharing and learning represent either necessary (i.e., for customer resource integration), or conducive (i.e., for customer knowledge sharing/learning) factors for thedevelopment of CE in service systems.

While the CE benefits were addressed in the revised FP2, our third revised FPsuggests the role of the CE foundational processes as key CE antecedents,which can also extend to coincide with CE (Table 2). The theoretical linkagesbetween CE and specific S-D logic concepts are therefore covered in ourrevised FPs 2 and 3 collectively.

Revised FP4: multidimensional CE

Brodie et al.'s (2011, p. 260) FP4 reads: "CE is a multidimensionalconcept subject to a context- and/or stakeholder-specific expression ofrelevant cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions." We amend ourfourth FP as follows: CE reflects a customer's investmentof focal cognitive, emotional, behavioral and social resources during, orrelated to, specific brand interactions in service systems (Table 3). We thus retain Brodie et al.'s notion of cognitive,emotional, and behavioral CE dimensions, and add a social dimension that hasparticular relevance in service system-based, collective, or institutional CEsettings (e.g., brand communities; Schau et al. 2009), thus exhibitingconceptual alignment with Vargo and Lusch's (2016) fifth S-D logicaxiom. Similarly, Baldus et al. (2015, p. 978) define online brand communityengagement as "the compelling, intrinsic motivations [i.e.,cognitive/emotional engagement] to continue interacting with an online brandcommunity [i.e., behavioral/social engagement]."

Revised FP5: context-specific CE

We revise our final FP as follows: CE is contingent on focalcontext-specific characteristics in service systems. Customer manifestations(including intensity, valence) of CE, the CE foundational processes and CEbenefits may thus vary across contextual contingencies (Table 3). Whilst retaining Brodie et al.'s CE context-dependence (Soet al. 2014), we also note that CE can have a negative (vs. positive)valence, which is largely overlooked in the literature to date (Juric et al.2016). When CE is negative, the CE benefit of customer cocreation will likelymanifest as codestruction (e.g., negative CE leading to inauspiciousperceptions of jointly created value; Anderson and Ostrom 2015). However,negative CE during interactions has the capacity to generate post-interaction cocreation (e.g., thinking favorably about a prize one wasawarded at a disliked past event).

Structural context characteristics affect service system-based CE. Forexample, in monopolistic markets FP1's volitional natureof CE is compromised, given customers' lack of choice. In these instances CEadjusts to reflect a reduced level of voluntarism, imposed bychoice-constraining contextual factors. Thus while most CE literature hasapplicability to free market contexts, distinct CE dynamics may applyelsewhere (e.g., in oligopolies). In sum, individuals exist within uniquecontexts made up of particular objective (e.g., factual) and subjective(e.g., perceptual) characteristics, including individual, spatial, temporal,relational, and other situational factors that may influence CE (Chandler andLusch 2015). Overall, the revised, S-D logic-informed FPs of CE help bridgethe conceptual chasm between S-D logic and CE, thus contributing to thedevelopment of theoretical parsimony and convergence of these perspectives.We next discuss key implications and future research avenues that stem fromthis research.

Discussion and implications

Theoretical implications

In line with our first stated contribution (cf. Introduction), our frameworkadvances insight into CE and S-D logic, which, despite having been recognizedfor their significant theoretical fit, have remained largely disparate in theliterature. Our conceptual framework (Fig. 1) reflects MacInnis' (2011,p. 138) conceptual goals of "integrating," "delineating,"and "differentiating," thus contributing to the theoreticaldevelopment of S-D logic-informed CE.

Building on Brodie et al. (2011), we also develop a set of revised, S-Dlogic-informed FPs of CE as our second contribution. Based on our analyses,we make the following observations regarding recent CE literature (e.g.,Table 1). First, the emergence of multiple, somewhat disparate, CEconceptualizations and measurement tools is starting to engenderfragmentation in CE research. While researchers are investigating related,often only subtly distinct engagement phenomena, we observe a tendency forthe development of isolated or myopic insight that has only limitedapplicability (e.g., to particular contexts; Calder et al. 2016a). Forexample, while reported findings address CE in online brand communities(Schau et al. 2009), social media (Hollebeek et al. 2014), and publictransportation (Jaakkola and Alexander 2014), the limited generalizability ofthese findings is concerning. We also observe a debate regarding the natureof particular CE antecedents and consequences in the nomological network.Consequently, CE research is rapidly becoming fragmented, which we expect toimpede, or at least decelerate, its theoretical advancement, should thistrend continue. Thus extant research, which has predominantly relied onpartial, fragmented conceptual underpinnings of CE, would have benefited fromhaving had a more integrative, macro-foundational theoretical perspective ofCE, as presented in this paper. Specifically, our framework and revised, S-Dlogic-informed FPs of CE, through their general theoretical nature (Brodie etal. 2011), help establish more generalizable insight into CE.

Following a successful five to seven-year stage of initiatingtheory development (Yadav 2010), CE research has arrived at a theory assessmentand enhancement stage, which requires "the development of theoretical enhancements toaddress mixed or ambiguous evidence, review and critique of focal theories,[and] the identification and addressing of gaps in extantconceptualizations" (p. 3). To further CE's theoreticaldevelopment, we establish an explicit conceptual link with themacrofoundational theory of S-D logic and its key concepts, thus addressingan extant gap in CE-based theorizing and providing an initial step toward theconsolidation of CE and S-D logic. By mapping the CE/S-D logic interface in aframework and revised, S-D logic-informed FPs of CE, this study contributesto the development of theoretical parsimony in CE/S-D logic research(MacInnis 2011) and increases our understanding of CE's theoreticalrelationships which, in turn, can aid the concept's further (empirical)investigation.

We must take stock and ensure the future development of a unified body of CEresearch that also has managerial relevance. Plausibly, CE's context-specific nature (Brodie et al. 2011, p. 260) is a key inhibiting factor for the advancementof theoretically consolidated CE research. Thus, to unlock CE's truepotential, researchers need to vigilantly guard their theoreticalcontributions vis-à-vis relevant (macro-foundational) literature. We urgemarketing scholars to speak as a unified engagement voice, and provide aninitial step in this direction through our integrative, S-D logic-informedframework, and revised FPs of CE. We next apply the revised FPs of CE to CRMto illustrate their practical applicability.

Managerial implications

Customer engagement and CRM

Different CRM perspectives exist that range from "CRM defined narrowlyand tactically" (e.g., implementing a technology solution) to "CRMdefined broadly and strategically" (i.e., CRM as a holistic approach tomanaging customer relationships to create shareholder value; Payne and Frow2005, p. 168). In line with Reinartz et al.'s (2004, p. 295) definitionof CRM (cf. Introduction), we adopt the latter, broader perspective(Palmatier et al. 2006, 2007, 2009; Hult 2015). Relatedly, Vargo andLusch's (2016) ninth premise of S-D logic reads: "Aservice-centered view is inherently beneficiary oriented and relational." Relationships, in turn, are based on interactions and thus, CE. CRMcan therefore be used to engage customers, with engaged customers typicallyproviding longer-lasting, stronger, more stable relationships, greatercustomer contributions and responsiveness, increased referrals, customeradvocacy and retention rates, and higher stock returns (Malthouse et al.2013; Kumar and Pansari 2015). Next, we describe the consultation of ourmanagerial panel.

Managerial panel consultation and application of revised FPs toCRM

To explore key CRM implications of S-D logic-informed CE in more detail, wedrew on the preceding analyses, supplemented with insight gained from 16marketing managers known to the main researcher (after initially approaching20 managers). Responses centered on managers' CE activities, strategies,and issues in their CRM practices, which we attained via email or by phone,based on participants' preference. The managers, who we identify as M1,M2, etc., worked across a range of industries and company sizes (cf.Appendix).

We analyzed the data by using open and axial coding (Strauss and Corbin1998), an iterative approach commonly used in marketing studies (Homburg etal. 2015, p. 6). First, during open coding we grouped similar respondentstatements. Second, during axial coding we searched for theoretical linksbetween specific respondent statements and the revised FPs of CE. We alsocontextualized responses with supplementary, recent consultancy-basedliterature on CE (e.g., by Deloitte, Forrester Research). We next derive keyCRM implications that we discuss below, with further detail (includingmanagerial quotes) provided in Table 4.

Revised, S-D logic-informed fundamental propositions (FPs) of customerengagement (CE): CRM applications

CRM Customer relationship management, M1, M2, etc. (in right-hand column):Manager ID (cf. Appendix)

Revised FP1: CE as volitional resource investments in brandinteractions

The key difference between Brodie et al.'s and our first FP of CE liesin our notion of CE as voluntary resource investments in brand interactions (Table 3). Thirteen managers indicated that engagedcustomers, typically, invest more resources in brand interactions than their less engaged counterparts. Forexample, M16 states: "Engaged customers are more active [e.g., in termsof making behavioral investments] in relation to our brand." Inaddition, nine managers observed differences in new/existing customers' resource investments (cf. Table 4: M9's quote - FP1).Managers are thus advised to help accelerate customers' perceivedtransition from new to existing customer (e.g., by providing in-depth customer support/resources,facilitating new/existing customer interactions, such as by assigningexisting-customer mentors to new customers). Existing customers may beoffered incentives, including VIP status or emotional benefits (e.g., airlineFrequent Flyer programs; Teixeira et al. 2012).

Revised FP2: CE benefits

By addressing the CE benefits as key CE consequences, our revised FP2 departs from Brodie et al.'ssecond FP (Table 3). For example, M2 states: "I want my clients to bepart of the [service] process.. to build sentimental value" (i.e.,reflecting cocreation), which can be used to erect a perceived switching cost and foster brandloyalty. Eight managers also noted that customers' brand-based operantresource development has CRM value (e.g., by helping firms decide when toreduce investments in customer education, generating cost savings; Table 4).To cultivate customers' individual operant resource development, we recommend using personalized contentmarketing (e.g., newsletters, Facebook Instant Articles), and (self-service)customer information repositories, particularly for complex offerings (e.g.,on-demand television). To stimulate customers' interpersonal operant resource development and cocreation, social media, blogs, onlinecommunities, and other interactive tools are suitable (Rapp et al. 2013).

Revised FP3: CE foundational processes

Our revised FP3 departs from Brodie et al.'s third FP by addressing the CE foundational benefits as key CE antecedents (Table 3). M5 states: "Customers' likelihoodto.. share what they know about the brand is key for CE" (reflecting customer knowledge sharing), which can be used to stimulate brand performance. For example, managerscan leverage customer knowledge sharing through regular tracking and analysisof customers' brand perceptions shared with the firm directly (e.g.,through market research), or on public platforms (e.g., social media; Hult etal. 2016). We also advocate the creation of online/offline customer brandknowledge sharing opportunities (e.g., "Share-A-co*ke" campaign).

Nine managers also noted the importance of customer resource integration forCRM, which can be fostered by encouraging customers to integrate their ownresources with the brand, thus generating cost savings (e.g., gyms providingshowers without shampoo invite customers to bring their own product; Table4). To nurture customer learning, firms are advised to offer highly relevantlearning resources and stimulate customer collaboration and contributions toproduct development (e.g., BMW's Customer Innovation Lab). To rewardcustomers, free products (e.g., surprise gifts), deals, joint ownershipoptions, or other (financial) incentives can be offered.

Revised FP4: multidimensional CE

In FP4, our key departure from Brodie et al. lies in our addition of a social CE dimension that is of increasing importance in networked, institutionaland service system contexts (Kozinets 2014). M4 states: "Engagedcustomers are more likely to post positive information about the brand onsocial media, which helps our business." We recommend the use of brand customization to engage customers in multiple ways (e.g., cognitively, socially, etc.;Table 4). For example, McDonald's used gamification in its "CreateYour Taste" campaign, with winning products featuring on social media tofoster social CE, thus complementing and leveraging customers' existing(e.g., behavioral) CE generated in creating their product solutions (Harwoodand Garry 2015). We also recommend the use of detailed customer profilingthat incorporates brand-related social CE.

Revised FP5: context-specific CE

The key difference between Brodie et al.'s and our final FP lies in ouraddition of CE's context-dependent valence (Table 3). M16 comments, in the auction business context: "We providerelevant content to create positive engagement," thus recognizing thatCE can turn negative for communications perceived as less relevant (Hollebeekand Chen 2014). In sum, CE's context-dependency creates a challenge forits optimal execution in CRM, thus requiring tailored, adaptable CEstrategies (Table 4). We recommend that managers undertake regularassessments of their CE activities to ensure their continued alignment andeffectiveness, and take prompt corrective action as needed. In today'srapidly evolving markets, organizational agility in responding to (orideally, pre-empting) CE-based changes and trends is key for competitivesuccess (Lusch et al. 2010). Managers also need to carefully trade off thecost/gain of particular CE/CRM investments (Steinhoff and Palmatier 2016).

Limitations and future research directions

Limitations of this research

Despite its contributions this research is also subject to severallimitations. First, while building on an extensive body of CE and S-D logicl*terature, our framework and revised FPs are yet to be subjected toempirical testing and validation (Yadav 2010), which is an interesting futureresearch avenue. For example, empirical study may reveal differing importancelevels of specific parts of the framework, or revised FPs of CE. Second,while S-D logic provides an ostensibly suitable macro-theoretical foundationfor CE, others may also exist (e.g., actor network theory) that maysubstitute, or complement, our discussion of S-D logic-informed CE.

Third, an underlying assumption of our framework is that customers arewilling and able to engage with brands. Our findings thus provide littleinsight for disengaged customers, who exhibit limited willingness to engage,or customers actively resisting to engage, with focal brands (Labrecque etal. 2016; Hibbard et al. 2001). Relatedly, our view is focused on positivelyvalenced CE, and only touches on negative CE manifestations (Juric et al.2016). Future studies may wish to more explicitly consider our framework fordisengaged customers, or negative CE. Fourth, our framework and revised FPswere developed with a primary focus on business-to-consumer contexts; hencetheir applicability to business-to-business, or other contexts is unknown(Homburg et al. 2013; DeLeon and Chatterjee 2016). Future research is thusneeded that tests, validates, and extends our conceptual findings, anddevelops generalizable CE-based insight. Next, we provide an overview ofavenues for future S-D logic-informed CE research that build on our frameworkand revised FPs of CE.

Avenues for further research

Similar to the approach taken for the managerial panel, our future researchsuggestions are based on the preceding analyses, supplemented with insightprovided by an international expert panel of 21 active academic CEresearchers. Following Brodie et al. (2011, p. 258), we requested 25 scholarsvia email to provide 5-10 CE research directions for the next five years,which we assessed from an S-D logic-informed perspective. The panel providedsubstantial written feedback by return email. We again used open and axialcoding to analyze the data, extending our axial coding stage to thedevelopment of core research themes from the expert panel data (Nag and Gioia2012). We further assessed, verified, and finalized the themes during aselective coding stage. We also developed core research themes from ourmanagerial panel data by using open, axial, and selective coding in aseparate analytical process (Homburg et al. 2015, p. 6). An independentresearcher helped by assessing the themes derived from both samples, yieldingthree core, intersecting research themes for S-D logic-informed CE that wediscuss below. The core themes may not only guide the categorization offuture research on S-D logic-informed CE, but also influence how this isconducted. Additional research avenues for our core themes, classified by therevised FPs of CE, are presented in Table 5.

Revised, S-D logic-informed fundamental propositions (FPs) of customerengagement (CE): A research agenda

Information stated in brackets (in middle column): (1) 'n=': Expertcount, i.e., No. academic panel participants raising focal research issue;(2) Cited sources: Refer to existing research on related research issue(s);In right-hand column: M1, M2, etc.: Manager ID (cf. Appendix).

Enhanced theoretical development and understanding of CE

<sec>

Twenty experts agreed regarding the need for further theoretical developmentof S-D logic-informed CE, coinciding with 13 of our managers who stated aneed to better understand CE. The following specific issues were raised.First, 15 experts identified a need to better understand CE vis-à-vis other,related (micro-foundational) theoretical entities, including key CE drivers(e.g., the CE foundational processes; revised FP3, 5), inhibitors (e.g.,service failure), and outcomes (e.g., the CE benefits; revised FP2, 5; Table5), or broader macro-foundational theory (e.g., social exchange theory). Forexample, how do the CE foundational processes drive volitional CE (revisedFPs 1, 3)? These issues, broadly, reflect Vargo and Lusch's (2016)second and third S-D logic axioms.

<sec>

Second and relatedly, 14 experts recommended further research into CE-basedcontextual similarities and differences (revised FP5). Studies identifying generalizable CE principles (e.g., through meta-analytic research) are particularlyvaluable for the development of more unified insight into S-D logic-informedCE. Third, 12 researchers raised the need to better understand the evolutionof the CE process or life cycle, which can be applied to each of the revisedFPs of CE. For example, insight into the role of CE's dimensions(revised FP4) over time can be attained through longitudinal research (Guo etal. 2015). Fourth, seven experts identified a need to better understand andmanage different CE valences, their relationships, and managerial actions toreverse negative CE into more positive forms (Juric et al. 2016).

Networked CE

Twelve managers and 14 scholars recommended further research into CE innetworked settings, including service systems and institutions, as reflectedin Vargo and Lusch's (2016) fifth S-D logic axiom and CE's service system-based nature (e.g., Table 5). A sample research question includes: How canemerging technological trends be used to foster resource integration, andthus CE, in networks (revised FP1, 4, 5)? Trends for investigation includesocial commerce (e.g., via Instagram), live-stream video (e.g.,Android/iOS's Meerkat), mobile marketing (e.g., mobile apps), wearables(e.g., Google Glass), and location-based marketing (e.g., Foursquare).

Four experts also raised the importance of leveraging big data to betterunderstand CE (Calder et al. 2016b), which can be applied to each of therevised FPs of CE. Six experts queried whether CE, indeed, is the optimalengagement concept for our discipline. Given the increasingly networkednature of service system actors (Chandler and Lusch 2015), may theconceptually broader "actor engagement" be suitable in particularcontexts? Summing up, one expert asked: "How can CE be used to improvecustomer relationships?" Research providing universal network-based CE dynamics is particularly valuable to foster more cohesiveCE research.

CE and marketing performance

Thirteen managers and 15 scholars raised the lack of insight into CE'scontribution to marketing performance as a key research issue. As the focusof the revised FPs is on customer- (vs. firm)-based dynamics, marketingperformance outcomes result from our revised FPs of CE (cf. also Kumar andPansari's (2015, p. 34) "engagement orientation"). Katsikeaset al. (2016, pp. 2, 5) classify marketing performance in two broadcategories: (1) operational performance (i.e., goal fulfilment in thefirm's value-chain activities), including customer mindset,product-market, customer behavior, and customer-level performance outcomes,and (2) organizational performance (i.e., economic outcomes resulting fromthe interplay among an organization's attributes, actions, andenvironment), comprising accounting and financial market performanceoutcomes.

To date, little is known about the operational and organizational performanceoutcomes of S-D logic-informed CE. While extant CE research has focused oncustomer mindset and customer behavior-based performance, generalizablefindings in these areas are lacking. In addition, scant research has focusedon customer-level (e.g., lifetime value) or product-market (e.g., marketshare) performance outcomes of CE (Katsikeas et al. 2016; Pansari and Kumar2016). Regarding organizational performance, CE's contribution toaccounting (e.g., return on assets), or financial market performance (e.g.,shareholder returns) remains even more nebulous, thus warranting furtherresearch, particularly that which identifies generalizable organizational performance implications of S-D logic-informed CE (Kumar andPansari 2015; Kumar 2013, 2015; Lee et al. 2015). We also encourage futureresearchers to consider CE's impact on different performance aspects,and possible trade-offs between different performance indicators, thusfacilitating more coherent, cumulative knowledge development on theperformance impact of S-D logic-informed CE.

Overall, we are thrilled about the scholarly and managerial interest in, andpotential contributions of, S-D logic-informed CE research to the disciplineof marketing, which we expect to advance the state of theoretical developmentnot only of CE, but also of our discipline more broadly (Hunt 1983).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Editor, Area Editor, and three anonymousreviewers for their invaluable feedback, which has helped to improve thispaper. The authors also express gratitude to Professor Steve Vargo forproviding invaluable comments during the development of this paper, and twoanonymous panels of 21 academic CE researchers and 16 marketing managers.Finally, the authors acknowledge the conference paper from which this paperwas developed: Chen, T. and Hollebeek, L.D. (2013). Engaged experience:Engagement, value change and co-creation experience. NaplesForum on Service, Ischia, June 18-21.

References

Akaka, MA, Vargo, SL: Extending the context of service: from encounters toecosystems. vol. 29, issue 6/7, pp. 453-462. Journal of Services Marketing(2015)

Anderson, L, Ostrom, AL: Transformative service research: advancing ourknowledge about service and well-being. vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 243-249.Journal of Service Research (2015)

Auh, S, Menguc, B, Spyropoulou, S, Wang, F: Service employee burnout andengagement: the moderating role of power distance orientation. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science (2016)

Baker, WE, Sinkula, JM: The synergistic effect on market orientation andlearning orientation on organizational performance. vol. 27, issue 4, pp.411-427. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (1999)

Baldus, BJ, Voorhees, C, Calantone, R: Online brand community engagement:Scale development and validation. vol. 68, issue 5, pp. 978-985. Journal ofBusiness Research (2015)

Banerjee, S, Prabhu, JC, Chandy, RK: Indirect learning: how emerging-marketfirms grow in developed markets. vol. 79, issue 1, pp. 10-28. Journal ofMarketing (2015)

Baumöl, U, Hollebeek, L, Jung, R: Dynamics of customer interaction on socialmedia platforms. vol. 26, issue 3, pp. 199-202. Electronic Markets (2016)

Beckers, SFM, Van Doorn, J, Verhoef, PC, Brodie, RJ, Hollebeek, LD, Conduit,J: Economic outcomes of customer engagement: Emerging findings, contemporarytheoretical perspectives, and future challenges, pp. 21-52. Customerengagement: Contemporary issues and challenges. Singapore. Routledge (2016)

Bijmolt, THA, Leeflang, PSH, Block, F, Eisenbeiss, M, Hardie, BGS, Lemmens,A, Saffert, P: Analytics for customer engagement. vol. 13, issue 3, pp.341-356. Journal of Service Research (2010)

Blasco-Arcas, L, Hernandez-Ortega, BI, Jimenez-Martinez, JJ: Engagementplatforms: The role of emotions to foster customer engagement and brand imagein interactive media. vol. 26, issue 5, pp. 1-34. Journal of Service Theoryand Practice (2016)

Bolhuis, S: Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed life-longlearning: a multidimensional perspective. vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 327-347.Learning and Instruction (2003)

Bolton, RN: Customer engagement: opportunities and challenges fororganizations. vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 272-274. Journal of Service Research(2011)

Boulding, W, Staelin, R, Ehret, M, Johnston, WJ: A customer relationshipmanagement roadmap: what is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go. vol.69, issue 4, pp. 155-166. Journal of Marketing (2005)

Bowden, J: The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework. vol.17, issue 1, pp. 63-74. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice (2009)

Bowden, J, Gabbott, M, Naumann, K: Service relationships and the customerdisengagement-engagement conundrum. vol. 31, issue 7-8, pp. 774-806. Journalof Marketing Management (2015)

Brakus, JJ, Schmitt, BH, Zarantello, L: Brand experience: What is it? How isit measured? Does it affect loyalty?. vol. 73, issue 3, pp. 52-68. Journal ofMarketing (2009)

Breidbach, CF, Brodie, RJ, Hollebeek, L: Beyond virtuality: from engagementplatforms to engagement ecosystems. vol. 24, issue 6, pp. 592-611. ManagingService Quality (2014)

Brodie, RJ, Hollebeek, LD: Advancing and consolidating knowledge aboutcustomer engagement. vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 283-284. Journal of ServiceResearch (2011)

Brodie, RJ, Hollebeek, LD, Juric, B, Ilic, A: Customer engagement: Conceptualdomain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. vol. 14,issue 3, pp. 252-271. Journal of Service Research (2011)

Brodie, RJ, Ilic, A, Juric, B, Hollebeek, L: Consumer engagement in a virtualbrand community: An exploratory analysis. vol. 66, issue 1, pp. 105-114.Journal of Business Research (2013)

Cabiddu, F, De Carlo, M, Piccoli, G: Social media affordances: Enablingcustomer engagement. vol. 48, issue September, pp. 175-192. Annals of TourismResearch (2014)

Calder, BJ, Malthouse, EC, Schaedel, U: An experimental study of therelationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. vol.23, issue 4, pp. 321-331. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2009)

Calder, BJ, Isaac, MS, Malthouse, EC: How to capture consumer experiences: Acontext-specific approach to measuring engagement - Predicting consumerbehavior across qualitatively different experiences. vol. 56, issue March,pp. 1-14. Journal of Advertising Research (2016)

Calder, BJ, Malthouse, EC, Maslowska, E: Commentary on the special issue:Brand marketing, big data and social innovation as future research directionsfor engagement. vol. 32, issue 5-6, pp. 579-585. Journal of MarketingManagement (2016)

Chandler, JD, Lusch, RF: Service systems: a broadened framework and researchagenda on value propositions, engagement, and service experience. vol. 18,issue 1, pp. 6-22. Journal of Service Research (2015)

Chang, W, Taylor, SA: The effectiveness of customer participation in newproduct development: a meta-analysis. vol. 80, issue 1, pp. 47-64. Journal ofMarketing (2016)

Chen, T, Drennan, J, Andrews, L: Experience sharing. vol. 28, issue 13-14,pp. 1535-1552. Journal of Marketing Management (2012)

Chung, T, Wedel, M, Rust, R: Adaptive personalization using social networks.vol. 44, issue 1, pp. 66-87. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science(2016)

Coleman, JS. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge (MASS). BelknapPress/Harvard University Press (1994)

Cui, AS, Wu, F: Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: Antecedents andimpact of customer involvement on new product performance. vol. 44, issue 4,pp. 516-538. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

De Matos, CA, Rossi, CAV: Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: Ameta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. vol. 36, issue 4, pp.578-596. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

De Vries, NJ, Carlson, J: Examining the drivers and brand performanceimplications of customer engagement with brands in the social mediaenvironment. vol. 21, issue August, pp. 495-515. Journal of Brand Management(2014)

DeLeon, AJ, Chatterjee, SC: B2B relationship calculus: Quantifying resourceeffects in service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (2016)

Dolan, R., Conduit, J., Fahy, J. & Goodman, S. (2016). Social mediaengagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 261-277.

Doyle, P. Value-based marketing: Marketing strategies for corporate growthand shareholder value. Chichester. Wiley (2000)

Eisingerich, A, Bell, S: Perceived service quality and customer trust: Doesenhancing customers' service knowledge matter?. vol. 10, issue 3, pp.256-268. Journal of Service Research (2008)

Eneroth, B: Knowledge, sentience and receptivity: a paradigm of lifelonglearning. vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 229-440. European Journal of Education (2008)

Etgar, M: A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. vol. 36,issue 1, pp. 97-108. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Fang, E, Palmatier, RW, Evans, KR: Influence of customer participation oncreating and sharing of new product value. vol. 36, issue 3, pp. 322-336.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Felin, T, Foss, NJ, Ployhart, RE: The microfoundations movement in strategyand organization theory. vol. 9, issue 1, pp. 575-632. Academy of ManagementAnnals (2015)

Fliess, S, Nadzeika, A, Nesper, J: Understanding patterns of customerengagement - How companies can gain a surplus from a social phenomenon. vol.6, issue 2, pp. 81-92. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness(2012)

Flint, DJ, Woodruff, RB: The initiators of changes in customers' desiredvalue: Results from a theory building study. vol. 30, issue 4, pp. 321-337.Industrial Marketing Management (2001)

Fombelle, PW, Bone, SA, Lemon, KN: Responding to the 98 %: Face-enhancingstrategies for dealing with rejected customer ideas. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science (2015)

Foss, NJ: Alternative research strategies in the knowledge movement: frommacro bias to micro-foundations and multi-level explanation. vol. 6, issue 1,pp. 16-28. European Management Review (2009)

Gavetti, G: Cognition and hierarchy: rethinking the microfoundations ofcapabilities' development. vol. 16, issue 6, pp. 599-617. OrganizationScience (2005)

Goff, M, Ackerman, PL: Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment oftypical intellectual engagement. vol. 84, issue 4, pp. 537-552. Journal ofEducational Psychology (1992)

Granovetter, MS: The strength of weak ties. vol. 78, issue 6, pp. 1360-1380.American Journal of Sociology (1973)

Groeger, L, Moroko, L, Hollebeek, LD: Capturing value from non-payingconsumers' engagement behaviours: field evidence and development of atheoretical model. vol. 24, issue 3-4, pp. 190-209. Journal of StrategicMarketing (2016)

Grönroos, C: Value co-creation in service logic: a critical analysis. vol.11, issue 3, pp. 279-301. Marketing Theory (2011)

Grönroos, C, Voima, P: Critical service logic: making sense of valuecreation and co-creation. vol. 41, issue 2, pp. 133-150. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science (2013)

Groth, M: Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors ininternet services deliveries. vol. 31, issue 1, pp. 7-27. Journal ofManagement (2005)

Gummesson, E, Mele, C: Marketing as value co-creation through networkinteraction and resource integration. vol. 4, issue 4, pp. 181-198. Journalof Business Market Management (2010)

Guo, L, Gruen, TW, Tang, C: Seeing relationships through the lens ofpsychological contracts: The structure of customer service relationships.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Hammedi, W, Kandampully, J, Zhang, TT, Bouquiaux, L: Online customerengagement. vol. 26, issue 5, pp. 777-806. Journal of Service Management(2015)

Harmeling, CM, Palmatier, RW, Houston, MB, Arnold, MJ, Samaha, SA:Transformational relationship events. vol. 79, issue 5, pp. 39-62. Journal ofMarketing (2015)

Harwood, T, Garry, T: An investigation into gamification as a customerengagement experience environment. vol. 29, issue 6/7, pp. 533-546. Journalof Services Marketing (2015)

Haumann, T, Güntürkün, P, Schons, LM, Wieseke, J: Engaging customers incoproduction processes: How value-enhancing and intensity-reducingcommunication strategies mitigate the negative effects of coproductionintensity. vol. 79, issue 6, pp. 17-33. Journal of Marketing (2015)

Heidenreich, S, Wittowski, K, Handrich, M, Falk, T: The dark side of customerco-creation: Exploring the consequences of failed co-created services. vol.43, issue 3, pp. 279-296. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2014)

Henderson, CM, Palmatier, RW, Wuyts, SHK, Dekimpe, MG, Gijsbrechts, E,Pieters, FGM: Understanding the relational ecosystem in a connected world,pp. 37-75. The connected customer: The changing nature of consumer andbusiness markets. New York. Routledge (2010)

Hibbard, JD, Kumar, N, Stern, LW: Examining the impact of destructive acts inmarketing channel relationships. vol. 38, issue 1, pp. 45-61. Journal ofMarketing Research (2001)

Hibbert, S, Winklhofer, H, Temerak, MS: Customers as resource integrators:Toward a model of customer learning. vol. 15, issue 3, pp. 247-261. Journalof Service Research (2012)

Higgins, ET: Value from hedonic experience and engagement. vol. 113, issueJul, pp. 439-460. Psychological Review (2006)

Higgins, ET, Scholer, AA: Engaging the consumer: The science and art of thevalue creation process. vol. 19, issue 2, pp. 100-114. Journal of ConsumerPsychology (2009)

Hillebrand, B, Driessen, PH, Koll, O: Stakeholder marketing: theoreticalfoundations and required capabilities. vol. 43, issue 4, pp. 411-428. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Ho, H, Ganesan, S: Does knowledge base compatibility help or hurt knowledgesharing between suppliers in competition? The role of customer participation.vol. 77, issue 6, pp. 91-107. Journal of Marketing (2013)

Hollebeek, LD: Exploring customer brand engagement: definitions and themes.vol. 19, issue 7, pp. 555-573. Journal of Strategic Marketing (2011)

Hollebeek, LD: Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyaltynexus. vol. 27, issue 7-8, pp. 785-807. Journal of Marketing Management(2011)

Hollebeek, LD: The customer engagement/value interface: an exploratoryinvestigation. vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 17-24. Australasian Marketing Journal(2013)

Hollebeek, LD, Chen, T: Exploring positively- versus negatively-valencedbrand engagement: A conceptual model. vol. 23, issue 1, pp. 62-74. Journal ofProduct and Brand Management (2014)

Hollebeek, LD, Glynn, MS, Brodie, RJ: Consumer brand engagement in socialmedia: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. vol. 28, issue 2,pp. 149-165. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2014)

Hollebeek, LD, Conduit, J, Soutar, G, Sweeney, J, Karpen, IO, Jarvis, W,Chen, T: Epilogue to the special issue and reflections on the future ofengagement research. vol. 32, issue 5-6, pp. 586-594. Journal of MarketingManagement (2016)

Homburg, C, Stierl, M, Bomemann, T: Corporate social responsibility inbusiness-to-business markets: How organizational customers account forsupplier corporate social responsibility engagement. vol. 11, issue November,pp. 54-72. Journal of Marketing (2013)

Homburg, C, Jozic, D, Kuehn, C: Customer experience management: Towardimplementing an evolving marketing concept. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science (2015)

Honebein, PC, Cammarano, RF. Creating do-it-yourself customers. Ohio. ThomsonHigher Education (2005)

Hong, P, Doll, WJ, Nahm, AY, Li, X: Knowledge sharing in integrated productdevelopment. vol. 7, issue 2, pp. 102-112. European Journal of InnovationManagement (2004)

Hoyer, WD, Chandy, R, Dorotic, M, Krafft, M, Singh, SS: Consumer cocreationin new product development. vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 283-296. Journal of ServiceResearch (2010)

Hsieh, SH, Chang, A: The psychological mechanism of brand co-creationengagement. vol. 33, pp. 13-26. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2016)

Hult, GTM: JAMS 2010-2015: literature themes and intellectual structure. vol.43, issue 6, pp. 663-669. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Hult, GTM, Ferrell, OC: Global organizational learning capacity inpurchasing: Construct and measurement. vol. 40, issue 2, pp. 97-111. Journalof Business Research (1997)

Hult, GTM, Ketchen, DJ, Slater, SF: Information processing, knowledgedevelopment, and strategic supply chain performance. vol. 47, issue 2, pp.241-253. Academy of Management Journal (2004)

Hult, GTM, Morgeson, FV, Morgan, NA, Mithas, S, Fornell, C: Do managers knowwhat their customers think and why?. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (2016)

Hunt, S: General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing. vol.47, issue 4, pp. 9-17. Journal of Marketing (1983)

Hunt, S: Truth in marketing theory and research. vol. 54, issue 3, pp. 1-15.Journal of Marketing (1990)

Jaakkola, E, Alexander, M: The role of customer engagement behavior in valueco-creation: A service system perspective. vol. 17, issue 3, pp. 247-261.Journal of Service Research (2014)

Jennings, MK, Stoker, L: Social trust and civic engagement across time andgenerations. vol. 39, issue 4, pp. 342-379. Acta Politica (2004)

Jun, Y, Detelina, M, Singh, J: Bottom-up learning in marketing frontlines:conceptualization, processes, and consequences. vol. 40, issue 6, pp.821-844. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2012)

Juric, B, Wilks, G, Smith, S, Brodie, RJ, Hollebeek, LD, Conduit, J: Negativecustomer brand engagement: an overview of conceptual and blog-based findings,pp. 272-286. Customer engagement: Contemporary issues and challenges.Singapore. Routledge (2016)

Karpen, IO, Bove, LL, Lukas, BA, Zyphur, MJ: Service-dominant orientation:measurement and impact on performance outcomes. vol. 91, issue 1, pp. 89-108.Journal of Retailing (2015)

Katsikeas, CS, Morgan, NA, Leonidou, LC, Hult, GTM: Assessing performanceoutcomes in marketing. vol. 80, issue March, pp. 1-20. Journal of Marketing(2016)

Kim, YA, Phalak, R: A trust prediction framework in rating-based experiencesharing social networks without a web of trust. vol. 191, issue 15 May, pp.128-145. Information Sciences (2012)

Korhonen-Sande, S: Micro-foundations of market orientation: influencingnon-marketing managers' customer information processing. vol. 39, issue4, pp. 661-671. Industrial Marketing Management (2010)

Koskela-Huotari, K, Vargo, SL: Institutions as resource context. vol. 26,issue 2, pp. 163-178. Journal of Service Theory and Practice (2016)

Kozinets, RV: Social brand engagement: A new idea. vol. 6, issue 2, pp. 8-15.GfK Marketing Intelligence Review (2014)

Kumar, V. Profitable customer engagement: concept, metrics, and strategies.New Delhi. Sage Publications (2013)

Kumar, V: Evolution of marketing as a discipline: what has happened and whatto look out for. vol. 79, issue 1, pp. 1-9. Journal of Marketing (2015)

Kumar, V, Pansari, A: Competitive advantage through engagement. Journal ofMarketing Research (2015)

Kumar, V, Reinartz, W: Creating enduring customer value. Journal of Marketing(2016)

Kumar, V, Aksoy, L, Donkers, B, Venkatesan, R, Wiesel, T, Tillmanns, S:Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer engagementvalue. vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 297-310. Journal of Service Research (2010)

Kumar, V, Zhang, X, Luo, A: Modeling customer opt-in and opt-out in apermission-based marketing context. vol. 51, issue 4, pp. 403-419. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2014)

Kumar, V, Choi, JWB, Greene, M: Synergistic effects of social media andtraditional marketing on brand sales: Capturing the time-varying effects.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Kumar, V, Dixit, A, Javalgi, R, Dass, M: Research framework, strategies, andapplications of intelligent agent technologies (IATs) in marketing. vol. 44,issue 1, pp. 24-45. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Labrecque, JS, Wood, W, Neal, DT, Harrington, N: Habit slips: When consumersunintentionally resist new products. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (2016)

Lakshmanan, A, Krishnan, HS: The aha! experience: Insight and discontinuouslearning in product usage. vol. 75, issue November, pp. 105-123. Journal ofMarketing (2011)

Langlois, RN, Koppl, R: Comment on "Group selection and methodologicalindividualism: Compatible and complementary" by Douglas Glen Whitman,pp. 261-265. Evolutionary psychology and economic theory (Advances inAustrian economics), 7. Oxford. Elsevier (2004)

Leckie, C, Nyadzayo, MW, Johnson, L: Antecedents of consumer brand engagementand brand loyalty. vol. 32, issue 5-6, pp. 558-578. Journal of MarketingManagement (2016)

Lee, JY, Kozlenkova, IV, Palmatier, RW: Structural marketing: Usingorganizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. vol. 43, issue 1,pp. 73-99. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Leeflang, P: Paving the way for distinguished marketing. vol. 28, issue 2,pp. 76-88. International Journal of Research in Marketing (2011)

Lemon, KN, Verhoef, PC: Understanding customer experience throughout thecustomer journey. Journal of Marketing (2016)

Libai, BR: The perils of focusing on highly engaged customers. vol. 14, issue3, pp. 275-276. Journal of Service Research (2011)

Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL: The service-dominant logic as afoundation for a general theory. The service-dominant logic of marketing:Dialog, debate and directions. London. ME Sharpe (2006)

Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL: Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections andrefinements. vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 281-288. Marketing Theory (2006)

Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL, O'Brien, M: Competing through service: insightsfrom service-dominant logic. vol. 83, issue 1, pp. 5-18. Journal of Retailing(2007)

Lusch, RF, Vargo, SL, Tanniru, M: Service, value-networks, and learning. vol.38, issue 1, pp. 19-31. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2010)

MacInnis, DJ: A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. vol. 75,issue July, pp. 136-154. Journal of Marketing (2011)

Madhavaram, S, Hunt, SD: The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy ofoperant resources: Developing masterful operant resources and implicationsfor marketing strategy. vol. 36, issue 1, pp. 67-82. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science (2008)

Maglio, PP, Spohrer, J: Fundamentals of service science. vol. 36, issue 1,pp. 18-20. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Malthouse, EC, Haenlein, M, Skiera, B, Wege, E, Zhang, M: Managing customerrelationships in the social media era: Introducing the social CRM house. vol.27, issue 4, pp. 270-280. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2013)

Malthouse, EC, Calder, BJ, Kim, SJ, Vandenbosch, M: Evidence that usergenerated content that produces engagement increases purchase behaviors. vol.32, issue 5-6, pp. 427-444. Journal of Marketing Management (2016)

Mena, J, Chabowski, B: The role of organizational learning in stakeholdermarketing. vol. 43, issue 4, pp. 429-452. Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (2015)

Mittal, V, Sawhney, MS: Learning and using electronic information productsand services: a field study. vol. 15, issue 1, pp. 2-12. Journal ofInteractive Marketing (2001)

Moeller, S: Customer integration: a key to an implementation perspective ofservice provision. vol. 11, issue 2, pp. 197-210. Journal of Service Research(2008)

Mollen, A, Wilson, H: Engagement, telepresence, and interactivity in onlineconsumer experience: reconciling scholastic and managerial perspectives. vol.63, issue 9-10, pp. 919-925. Journal of Business Research (2010)

Nag, R, Gioia, DA: From common to uncommon knowledge: Foundations offirm-specific use of knowledge as a resource. vol. 55, issue 2, pp. 421-457.Academy of Management Journal (2012)

Naidoo, V, Hollebeek, L: Higher education brand alliances: Investigatingconsumers' dual-degree purchase intentions. vol. 69, issue 8, pp.3113-3121. Journal of Business Research (2016)

Naylor, RW, Lamberton, CP, West, PM: Beyond the 'like' button: Theimpact of mere virtual presence on brand evaluations and purchase intentionsin social media settings. vol. 76, issue 6, pp. 105-120. Journal of Marketing(2012)

O'Brien, I, Jarvis, W, Soutar, GN: Integrating social issues andcustomer engagement to drive loyalty in a service organisation. vol. 29,issue 6/7, pp. 547-559. Journal of Services Marketing (2015)

Ou, YC, Verhoef, PC, Wiesel, T: The effects of customer equity drivers onloyalty across services industries and firms. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science (2016)

Palmatier, RW, Dant, RP, Grweal, D, Evans, K: Factors influencing theeffectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. vol. 70, issue 4,pp. 136-153. Journal of Marketing (2006)

Palmatier, RW, Scheer, LK, Steenkamp, JBEM: Customer loyalty to whom?Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. vol. 44, issue2, pp. 185-199. Journal of Marketing (2007)

Palmatier, RW, Jarvis, CB, Bechkoff, JR, Kardes, FR: The role of customergratitude in relationship marketing. vol. 73, issue 5, pp. 1-18. Journal ofMarketing (2009)

Pansari, A, Kumar, V: Customer engagement: The construct, antecedents, andconsequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Payne, A, Frow, P: A strategic framework for customer relationshipmanagement. vol. 69, issue 4, pp. 167-176. Journal of Marketing (2005)

Payne, AF, Storbacka, K, Frow, P: Managing the co-creation of value. vol. 36,issue 1, pp. 83-96. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Pervan, S, Bove, L: The engagement of customers beyond their expected roles.vol. 19, issue 7, pp. 551-554. Journal of Strategic Marketing (2011)

Peters, L, Löbler, H, Brodie, R, Breidbach, C, Hollebeek, L, Smith, S,Sorhammar, D, Varey, R: Theorizing about resource integration though S-Dlogic. vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 249-268. Marketing Theory (2014)

Phillips, BJ, McQuarrie, EF: Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising.vol. 37, issue 3, pp. 368-392. Journal of Consumer Research (2010)

Precourt, G: How is consumer engagement reshaping marketing?. vol. 56, issue1, pp. 2-3. Journal of Advertising Research (2016)

Rager, KB: The self-directed learning of women with breast cancer. vol. 53,issue 4, pp. 277-293. Adult Education Quarterly (2003)

Ramani, G, Kumar, V: Interaction orientation and firm performance. vol. 72,issue 1, pp. 27-45. Journal of Marketing (2008)

Ramaswamy, V, Ozcan, K: Brand value co-creation in a digitalized world: Anintegrative framework and research implications. vol. 33, issue 1, pp.93-106. International Journal of Research in Marketing (2015)

Ranjan, KR, Read, S: Value co-creation: Concept and measurement. vol. 44,issue 3, pp. 290-315. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Rapp, A, Beitelspacher, L, Grewal, D, Hughes, D: Understanding social mediaeffects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. vol. 45, issue 5,pp. 547-566. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2013)

Reinartz, W, Krafft, M, Hoyer, WD: The customer relationship managementprocess: Its measurement and impact on performance. vol. 41, issue 3, pp.293-305. Journal of Marketing Research (2004)

Roggeveen, AL, Tsiros, M, Grewal, D: Understanding the co-creation effect:When does collaborating with customers provide a lift to service recovery?.vol. 40, issue 6, pp. 771-790. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science(2012)

Rossmann, A, Ranjan, KR, Sugathan, P: Drivers of user engagement in eWOMcommunication. vol. 30, issue 5, pp. 1-35. Journal of Services Marketing(2016)

Rothschild, ML, Gaidis, WC: Behavioral learning theory: Its relevance tomarketing and promotions. vol. 45, issue 2, pp. 70-78. Journal of Marketing(1981)

Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: multileveland cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 7, pp. 1-37). Greenwich: Jai Press.

Santos-Vijande, M, Lopez-Sanchez, J, Rudd, J: Frontline employees'collaboration in industrial service innovation: Routes of cocreation'seffects on new service performance. vol. 44, issue 3, pp. 350-375. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Sawhney, M, Verona, G, Prandelli, E: Collaborating to create: The Internet asa platform for customer engagement in product innovation. vol. 19, issue 4,pp. 4-17. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2005)

Schamari, J, Schaefers, T: Leaving the home turf: how brands can use webcareon consumer-generated platforms to increase positive engagement. vol. 30,issue May, pp. 20-33. Journal of Interactive Marketing (2015)

Schau, HJ, Muñiz, AM, Arnould, EJ: How brand communities create value. vol.73, issue September, pp. 30-51. Journal of Marketing (2009)

Schaufeli, WB, Salanova, M, González-Romá, V, Bakker, AB: The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analyticapproach. vol. 3, issue 1, pp. 71-92. Journal of Happiness Studies (2002)

Schivinski, B, Christodoulides, G, Dabrowski, D: Measuring consumers'engagement with brand-related social-media content: Development andvalidation of a scale that identifies levels of social-media engagement withbrands. vol. 56, issue 1, pp. 64-80. Journal of Advertising Research (2016)

Sinkula, JM, Baker, WE, Noordewier, T: A framework for market-basedorganizational learning: Linking values, knowledge and behavior. vol. 25,issue 4, pp. 305-318. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (1997)

Skålén, P, Gummerus, J, von Koskull, C, Magnusson, PR: Exploring valuepropositions and service innovation: A service-dominant logic study. vol. 43,issue 2, pp. 137-158. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Sleep, S, Bharadwaj, S, Lam, SK: Walking the tightrope: The joint impact ofcustomer and within-firm boundary spanning activities on perceived customersatisfaction and team performance. vol. 43, issue 4, pp. 472-489. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Smith, A: The value co-destruction process: a customer resource perspective.vol. 47, issue 11-12, pp. 1889-1909. European Journal of Marketing (2013)

So, KKF, King, C, Sparks, B: Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scaledevelopment and validation. vol. 38, issue 3, pp. 304-329. Journal ofHospitality and Tourism Research (2014)

Sohi, RS, Smith, DC, Ford, NM: How does sharing a salesforce between multipledivisions affect salespeople?. vol. 24, issue 3, pp. 195-207. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science (1996)

Sprott, D, Czellar, S, Spangenberg, E: The importance of a general measure ofbrand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale.vol. 46, issue 1, pp. 92-104. Journal of Marketing Research (2009)

Steinhoff, L, Palmatier, RW: Understanding loyalty program effectiveness:Managing target and bystander effects. vol. 44, issue 1, pp. 88-107. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Stern, BB: What does brand mean? Historical-analysis method and construct definition. vol. 34, issue 2,pp. 216-223. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2006)

Storbacka, K, Brodie, RJ, Böhmann, T, Maglio, PP, Nenonen, S: Actorengagement as a microfoundation for value co-creation: Conceptual directionsfor further research on SDL. vol. 69, issue 8, pp. 3008-3017. Journal ofBusiness Research (2016)

Strauss, AL, Corbin, JM. Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks. Sage(1998)

Sweeney, JC, Danaher, TS, McColl-Kennedy, JR: Customer effort in valuecocreation activities: Improving quality of life and behavioral intentions ofhealth care customers. vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 318-335. Journal of ServiceResearch (2015)

Szöcs, I, Schlegelmilch, BB, Rusch, T, Shamma, HM: Linking cause assessment,corporate philanthropy, and corporate reputation. vol. 44, issue 3, pp.376-396. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Teixeira, T, Wedel, M, Pieters, R: Emotion-induced engagement in internetvideo advertisem*nts. vol. 49, issue 2, pp. 144-159. Journal of MarketingResearch (2012)

Thakur, R. (2016). Understanding customer engagement and loyalty: a case ofmobile devices for shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,32(September), 151-163.

Tough, A. The adult's learning projects. Toronto. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (1971)

Van Dijck, J: Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.vol. 31, issue 1, pp. 41-58. Media, Culture & Society (2009)

Van Doorn, J: Customer engagement: essence, dimensionality, and boundaries.vol. 14, issue 3, pp. 280-282. Journal of Service Research (2011)

Van Doorn, J, Lemon, KN, Mittal, V, Nass, S, Pick, D, Pirner, P, Verhoef, PC:Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and researchdirections. vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 253-266. Journal of Service Research (2010)

Vargo, SL: From micro to macro: stakeholders and institutions. vol. 31, issue2, pp. 125-128. Journal of Macromarketing (2011)

Vargo, SL, Akaka, MA: Value cocreation and service systems (re)formation: Aservice ecosystems view. vol. 4, issue 3, pp. 2017-2217. Service Science(2012)

Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. vol.68, issue 1, pp. 1-17. Journal of Marketing (2004)

Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF: Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. vol.36, issue 1, pp. 1-10. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF: Why service?. vol. 36, issue 1, pp. 25-38. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Vargo, SL, Lusch, RF: Institutions and axioms: An extension and update ofservice-dominant logic. vol. 44, issue 1, pp. 5-23. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science (2016)

Vargo, SL, Maglio, PP, Akaka, MA: On value and value co-creation: A servicesystems and service logic perspective. vol. 26, issue 3, pp. 145-152.European Management Journal (2008)

Vargo, SL, Wieland, H, Akaka, MA: Innovation through institutionalization: Aservice ecosystems perspective. vol. 44, issue January, pp. 63-72. IndustrialMarketing Management (2015)

Verhoef, P, Venkatesan, R, McAlister, L, Malthouse, EC, Krafft, M, Ganesan,S: CRM in data-rich multichannel retailing environments: A review and futureresearch directions. vol. 24, issue 2, pp. 121-137. Journal of InteractiveMarketing (2010)

Verhoef, PC, Reinartz, WJ, Krafft, M: Customer engagement as a newperspective in customer management. vol. 13, issue 3, pp. 247-252. Journal ofService Research (2010)

Verleye, K, Gemmel, P, Rangarajan, D: Managing engagement behaviors in anetwork of customers and stakeholders: Evidence from the nursing home sector.vol. 17, issue 1, pp. 68-84. Journal of Service Research (2014)

Verma, V, Sharma, D, Sheth, J: Does relationship marketing matter in onlineretailing? A meta-analytic approach. vol. 44, issue 2, pp. 206-217. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Viswanathan, V., Hollebeek, L.D., Malthouse, E., Maslowska, E., Kim, S.J.& Xie, W. (2016). The dynamics of consumer engagement with mobiletechnologies. Service Science, Forthcoming.

Vivek, SD, Beatty, S, Dalela, V, Morgan, R: A generalized multidimensionalscale for measuring customer engagement. vol. 22, issue 4, pp. 401-420.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice (2014)

Voss, KE, Spangenberg, ER, Grohmann, B: Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of consumer attitude. vol. 40, issue 3, pp. 310-320. Journal ofMarketing Research (2003)

Watson, G, Beck, J, Henderson, C, Palmatier, RW: Building, measuring, andprofiting from customer loyalty. vol. 43, issue 6, pp. 790-825. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Weerawardena, J, Mort, G, Salunke, S, Knight, G, Liesch, P: The role of themarket sub-system and the socio-technical sub-system in innovation and firmperformance: A dynamic capabilities approach. vol. 43, issue 2, pp. 221-239.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2015)

Weick, KE: What theory is not, theorizing is. vol. 40, issue 3, pp. 385-390.Administrative Science Quarterly (1995)

Wirtz, J, den Ambtman, A, Bloemer, J, Ramaseshan, H, van de Klundert, J,Canli, Z, Kandampully, J: Managing brands and customer engagement in onlinebrand communities. vol. 24, issue 3, pp. 223-244. Journal of ServiceManagement (2013)

Xie, C, Bagozzi, RP, Troye, SV: Trying to prosume: Toward a theory ofconsumers as co-creators of value. vol. 36, issue 1, pp. 109-122. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (2008)

Yadav, MS: The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledgedevelopment. vol. 74, issue 1, pp. 1-19. Journal of Marketing (2010)

Zaho, X, Mattila, AS, Tao, LSE: The role of post-training self-efficacy incustomers' use of self-service technologies. vol. 19, issue 4, pp.492-505. International Journal of Service Industry Management (2008)

Zanjani, SHA, Milne, GR, Miller, EG: Procrastinators' online experienceand purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2016)

Article notes: