GUÍA DIDÁCTICA

Clearly, the lack of a recognised and accepted definition among academics will continue to holdback Relationship Marketing’s development as an emerging management and marketing discipline (Parvatiyar & Sheth 2001). Although research into its role as a strategic tool to attract, maintain and enhance customer relationships has been deemed effective through several studies conducted over the last 25 years (Roberts, Varki & Brodie 2003, Gronroos 1994, Berry 1983), there are those in the academic community who doubt its validity. Ward and Dagger (2007) suggest that on closer examination the claims made in the literature as to the effectiveness and success may be exaggerated and that the true worth of the practice requires further academic research that would provide more conclusive evidence of its effectiveness. The debate regarding the practice centres on whether the rhetoric regarding the supposed leap forward in marketing effectiveness marries with actual outcomes where firms implement customer relationship marketing programs.

Relational Marketing theory has been driven by the development of models that seek to explain the key drivers in relationships that influence outcomes as well as the causal relations between such drivers and their outcomes. Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) argue that historically most marketing theorists were too narrowly focussed in their research of relationships often using a single predictor variable, that being customer satisfaction, rather than seek to develop a broader understanding of those variables that could predict success or failure in relationships. As much as the Nordic school academics led by Gronroos (2000, 1996, 1990) and Gummesson (2001, 1997) have afforded relationship marketing prominence, virtually stamping it as the panacea to understand marketing in the 21st century, it has not been accepted with the same fervor globally. Rather than be widely acknowledged as the new way forward, RM has not necessarily been dismissed but has been subject to derision in some quarters as an academic construct that is

72 | P a g e

unworkable in reality (Reinartz and Kumar 2000, Brown in Hennig-Thurau 2000, Fournier, Mick & Dobscha 1998, Palmer 1994).

As previously stated, the lack of consensus on what Relationship Marketing entails and how it can be used as a tool for business growth and development has stymied its success. As Fournier, Mick and Dobscha (1998 p. 150) argue, “Relationship Marketing as it is currently practiced has not brought us closer to our customers. Instead it has sent us further afield. Our misguided actions have sparked a consumer backlash that endangers the reputation of relationship marketing, calling into question the viability of the entire marketing discipline going forward”.

With many new academic constructs it is important to reflect on the theory or prior accepted knowledge that has preceded it. This recognises the legacy of that learning and creates an empirical foundation before striking out in a new direction. Rather than swap one potentially flawed concept for another in the case of the TM and RM, there should be room enough to accept that two or more concepts may well be able to work synergistically rather than in competition (Aijo 1996).

As the TM approach had been the dominant theory for several decades, the initial assumption was that the relationship perspective would replace it driven primarily as academics contributed to “the incredible growth of relational literature” (Egan & Harker 2005 p xxiii).

With the rush to embrace marketing’s ‘next big thing’ many firm’s efforts to engage with their customers have proven unsuccessful. This has occurred due to lack of understanding of the concept, improper application and poor measurement. Further confusion arises due to the blurring of the business and technological roles with many believing that a CRM program relates to an IT software solution rather than an overarching business process (McKenzie 2001).

With any relationship, especially one involving human behaviour, trust and intimacy have to be established before commitment is granted. Due to this lack of understanding Fournier, Dobscha & Mick (1998) recommended marketers “think about, and act on, what being a partner in a relationship really means”.

73 | P a g e

Rather than the wholesale acceptance of the relationship approach by academics and practitioners alike, the adoption of the RM model initially stumbled. In part this was due to the initial over eagerness from practitioners to rush early stages and secondly the new model’s suitability did not seem to work in all cases. Assessments of suitability and design of RM programs were needed prior to implementation, on a case by case basis. To demonstrate this, a firm may have a part of their business where a transactional approach is justified and another part that is based on relationships (Brodie & Burchill 1997, Aijo 1996). It is therefore possible that not every transaction in a buyer seller relationship requires a relationship to be forged and not every firm will be suitable for an RM approach.

Ward & Dagger (2005) have stated that without testing underlying assumptions inherent in much of the relationship marketing literature it has been too easy for claims of effectiveness to go relatively unchallenged. Their research investigated several variables that impact upon the strength of business relationships.

Firstly, they examined the strength of the relationship. This could be perceived by the customer, to increase with the length of time that a customer has been purchasing a consumer service product from a provider. Although Smith & Taylor (1998) found that the length of the relationship developed commitment between the parties it was not sufficient an examination to determine whether this translated into increased strength or loyalty. Ward and Dagger’s research found that in most cases relationship strength increased significantly with time. It is important to note, however, that this research was based on a business to consumer model and on services rather than product purchases. Nonetheless the outcome of the research indicated that where professional services were sought by the consumer, relationship strength was markedly higher over time than that in other categories. In a B2B environment where the significance of relationships in professional services is arguably more critical, the findings of Ward and Dagger signal a correlation. Without further research into the role of time on relationship strength within a business to business relationship it is hard to test this contention.

It is uncertain whether increasing the frequency of consumer and firm interaction increases the opportunity to strengthen relationships. Again, this contention tested in

74 | P a g e

research by Ward and Dagger (2005) was dependent upon the services purchased and not widely held in the business to consumer services study. This implied that other variables were involved. These variables could include the level of involvement in the purchase decision or that the type of product or service purchase may be more important that how many service encounters exist. Relationships within the context of a service provider and consumer can vary in strength. Ward, Frew and Caldow (1997) consider that the importance that a customer places upon a relationship with a service provider contributes to the strength of that relationship. In the literature there have been many claims backed by research into the efficacy of the relationship model (Grönroos 1994, Morgan & Hunt 1994, Berry 1983). As the relationship approach is still relatively new, further research is required to add empirical evidence that can substantiate the claims made by the early proponents of the model.