Principles of Marketing Essay I
Shaun Webbs
CSUMarketingMyopiaArticleIII.pdf
The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 51-63 http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/146934713X13590250137781 ISSN1469-347X print / ISSN 1472-1384 online ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.
Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia1
Mark Durkin, Ulster Business School, UK*
In the marketing academy, and the marketing profession, we have collectively created a monster called ‘digital marketing’. In doing so we have introduced a business focus that is represented in our thinking and professional activity as something separate and discrete from marketing itself. We have created a new marketing myopia - one that is narrowly driven by technology and technological devices. Embarrassingly, we have been down such a blind alley before and yet again we return to the same territory - in the late 1990s we called it Internet Marketing and it then was re-christened Electronic Marketing before becoming Digital Marketing. There is one common aspect to all this misguided effort to be current and to signal that our subject discipline is relevant to today’s digital world - the focus moves away from substantive marketing, (as defined by our customers’ needs), to something myopic and ‘trappings-related’, (as defined by the technological innovation itself), and in the process marketing orientation is at risk of being lost. Through a conceptual modelling approach this article explores the implications of digital technology for the marketing discipline generally and customer relationships in particular and asks that marketing returns to its roots in order to better integrate digital solutions into the customer value proposition more effectively.
Keywords Digital marketing, Myopia, Social media, Preferences, Market orientation
*Correspondence details and a biography for the author are located at the end of the article.
the marketing review
1 This article is based on Mark Durkin’s professorial lecture entitled My customers are revolting: Putting the marketing into digital marketing, delivered at the University of Ulster’s Jordanstown Campus on 14th March 2012
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
52
Introduction
The advent of the internet revolution in the 1990s persuaded many commentators of the view that the internet offered the ultimate tool for effective relationship marketing (Rayport & Sviokla, 1995; Zineldin, 2000). There now appears to be a similar enthusiasm present with respect to the adoption of social media. The reasons are clear. Mass customisation is seen as eminently possible since firms can, potentially, exploit the capabilities afforded by digitisation and on-line networking to provide unique content of direct relevance to individual customers (Ansari & Mela, 2003; Kim, Lee & Lee, 2011; Pentina, Koh & Le, 2012). Digital marketing, combined with other traditional marketing practices, has emerged as an effective new way to do business (Brodie, Winklhofer, Coviello & Johnston, 2007; Kietzmann, Silvestre, McCarthy & Pitt, 2012) and the peer pressure for firms to adopt such new technologies is immense.
It would appear however, that given the speed of its development there are few meaningful insights to, and limited understanding of, the challenges surrounding social media adoption processes within companies of varying sizes and the need for a new research agenda in this area has recently been advocated (Kietzmann et al., 2012). There is a need therefore for a further exploration of the impact of such new technologies on businesses large and small as they seek to better manage key stakeholder relationships, in particular those with customers.
While issues of adoption are being increasingly examined at the level of both the larger and smaller enterprise there remains limited literature in the area of digital and social media marketing in various business contexts. Chaffey (2010) explores the possibilities for more effective digital marketing adoption within the larger organisation while Ching and Ellis (2004) examine the issue around effective SME adoption of e-commerce technology. Bell and Loane (2010) and Berthon, Leyland, Plangger and Shapiro (2012) focus on issues of SME technology adoption but confine their focus to internet- enabled internationalisation. Meadows-Klue (2009) highlights a need to examine the marketing implications of social media adoption for company- customer relationships within the context of the SME. Indeed, for many within the SME sector there appears a growing concern that they ‘must’ engage with social media or risk losing out on the new opportunities such media may bring (Drury, 2008; Ritson, 2010).
This paper considers the marketing management challenges which exist at the interface between traditional marketing and digital technology. Through a conceptual modelling approach, which focuses on the management challenges arising when customers and firms wish to interact with each other differently, proposals are made for how more effective and marketing-oriented adoption and utilisation of digital technologies within the marketing domain can be achieved.
The advent of social media
Fisher and Reuber (2011) suggest that there is no definitive typology of social media though Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, p. 61) seek to provide
The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1 D
e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
53Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
some clarification. They suggest that “social media is a group of internet- based applications that builds on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that allows the creation and exchange of User Generated Content”. More specifically they provide a classification scheme for categorising different social media applications, drawing on research from the fields of media research (social presence, media richness) and social processes (self-presentation, self-disclosure) which are, for them, the key elements of social media. A number of different social media platforms can be identified as a consequence; including for example, blogging/micro-blogging (e.g., Twitter), social networking (e.g., Facebook), social bookmarking (e.g., Digg, Delicious), collaborative projects (Wikipedia), video-sharing (e.g., YouTube), picture sharing (e.g., Flickr) professional networking (e.g., Linked- in) and virtual game worlds (World of War-craft). They point out that the degree to which participants using particular media can interact “face-to- face” albeit in a virtual environment and the level to which “self-disclosure” is accommodated within that media defines their relative position within their classifications. For them therefore Virtual Social Worlds, such as Second Life2, define a platform that is highest in terms of social presence and self- disclosure while collaborative projects such as Wikipedia define a platform that is lowest in both their classifications of social media.
The benefits to the individual of being connected through social media therefore have been recognised and emphasise the overcoming of distance and enablement of constant and convenient interaction, facilitating ever closer connectivity and personal engagement (Harris & Rae, 2009, 2010; Turkle, 2011). Despite voices of caution from all levels of society expressing apprehensions about the impact of such technologies and the behaviours they may engender (see Crowther, 2010; Freeman, 2009; Obama, 2010; Rushkoff, 2011; Turkle, 2011) what is also clear is that its appeal as a medium for customised communication and relationship enhancement continues to develop at a dramatic rate. With a 21% growth in social networking activity over the past six years in the UK over half of internet users now have a social networking presence (Mintel, 2010). The situation in the UK mirrors that of Spain and Italy with 52% and 55% of the population engaged in social networking respectively although adoption can vary more significantly depending on culture and context with France and Ireland showing lower levels of engagement (AMAS, 2010; Kramer, 2010).
Much has been written about the potential benefits for businesses from engagement with social media, particularly from a brand management perspective (see Barwise & Meehan, 2010; Gaines-Ross, 2010). However, Ritson (2010) argues that the practical value of social media for most marketers remains uncertain; citing the fact that for many established brands social media represents a relatively insignificant communications tool due to its limited penetration into the broader customer base. Within the SME context, where the research emphasis has been on the use of ‘personal’ contact networks for effective business development, studies into social media adoption and utilisation by such enterprises remains limited (Kietzmann et al., 2012). Limited research exists within the SME context in the area of social media adoption and the implications for brand engagement and trust, with
2 Second Life is a trademark of Linden Research, Inc.
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
54 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1
most studies examining mobile marketing and the adoption of Twitter as a business tool from a largely exploratory perspective (Jayawardhena, Kuckertz, Karjaluoto & Kautonen, 2009; Palka, Pousttchi & Wiedemann, 2009) and the impact of on-line engagement for off-line social relationships (Bulearca & Bulearca, 2010; Fisher & Reuber, 2011; Kramer, 2010; Simmons, Armstrong & Durkin, 2011).
However, given the phenomenal growth of social media in enabling constant and convenient interaction between individuals it is clear that it is set to become increasingly more important in the way that SME owners/ managers do business into the future with the evidence suggesting that such enterprises are actively considering how they might develop and utilise a social media presence (Bulearca & Bulearca, 2010; Harris & Rae, 2009, 2010). There is a growing recognition, particularly amongst the owners/managers of SMEs, that a business opportunity exists in effective social media adoption, to build and maintain issues of trust and commitment with key stakeholders in their network, such as customers, and to enhance and maintain quality in those networked relationships (Harris & Rae, 2009). Its potential to replicate dimensions of face-to-face interaction in a virtual environment and to accommodate higher levels of self-disclosure, as suggested by Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), has the potential to significantly complement existing personal contact networking activity.
Barwise and Meehan (2010) note that as a consequence of the rise of social media there has been a shift of power towards the consumer and that as new technological tools have empowered customers through user generated content their expectations have increased accordingly. This shift towards consumer empowerment has evolved from a realisation that the mass market has died and that rather than continuing to adopt interruption techniques marketers must move to a more personal and more permission- oriented engagement which allows for a positive reception in emerging on- line communities (Brown, Broderick & Lee, 2007; Godin, 1999). Meadows- Klue (2009, p. 245) highlights that “awareness messaging may still drive TV spend, but social media will play a critical part in driving purchase intent as well as delivering brand engagement in the digital networked society”.
While the realisation of a possible technology-driven paradigm shift for marketing appeared some years ago, Drury (2008, p. 275) acknowledges that “the rise of social media as an influential marketing channel has caught many in the industry off guard” despite the possibilities for customer customisation offered through new technology being highlighted as far back as the mid-1990s (Peppers & Rogers, 1995). Recent industry research indicates support for the view that at the level of marketing practice the value of technology-enabled marketing has now been recognised more fully - in a Marketing Week3 study conducted earlier this year the promotional channels deemed most important by today’s marketers were the web-site, search, social and email. Those perceived as least important were TV, radio and outdoor. This represents a fundamental shift over recent years. However, for all the enthusiasm displayed by practitioners in adopting digital and social
3 Marketing Perspectives (2012). Adapting to win with multi-channel marketing. Marketing Week White Papers. Available at http://www.sasknowledgecentre. com/
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
55Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
channels in business, the research suggests that firms are weak in how they deploy such new technology in a marketing-oriented way (Marketing Week, 2012). Recent high profile examples of large brands which have used social media marketing poorly include Mars with their celebrity endorsed Twitter campaign for Snickers that led to an investigation by the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) (Burrell, 2012). McDonalds, Qantas and Pepsi all experimented with Facebook and Twitter in ways that provoked major customer backlashes - backlashes conducted in public view online and which were all simply caused by a lack of sensitivity to the world of the customer (Barnett, 2011; Burrell, 2012; Ritson, 2011; Sherwin, 2012).
It is a paradox that new technological channels, such as those offered through social media, potentially empower the customer greatly but firms are deploying this technology in their marketing activity with limited competency and poor sensitivity to the needs of those customers - customers who can do their business reputational good and ill through a global public forum. In a way, it seems that the seduction with the technology and the associated devices has blinded companies to the real marketing-led opportunities and risks associated with the adoption and deployment of these new channels. This focus on ‘trappings over substance’ is worrying but redolent of challenges identified at the level of effective marketing practice in industrial markets over forty years ago (Ames, 1970).
Marketing issues
While one may debate the call by Kietzmann et al. (2012) for a new research agenda to be established in the area of digital marketing there is certainly a need for further exploration of the impact of new technologies on businesses large and small as they seek to better manage key stakeholder relationships, in particular those with customers. When considering this as essentially a marketing challenge it is instructive to explore the motivations for firms and their customers to interact with each other in various ways. These interactions can be represented either personally (i.e., in person, face-to-face) or remotely (i.e., facilitated by technology such as through the internet and/or mediated by social media). Figure 1 illustrates these interaction preferences and explores some of the marketing and management issues which arise.
From the literature, it is clear that new technological channels such as those offered via the internet and social media offer key benefits to firms in terms of both potential cost efficiencies and relationship management effectiveness. What appears less clear however is (i) the customer groups that firms may wish to target for both face-to-face and/or remote engagement, and (ii) how such targeting would result in the new less personalised channels being used by the customers deemed most appropriate for interaction and communication through that channel. This underpins the key areas of mismatch in the model outlined (i.e., quadrants 2 and 3). From the perspective of the customer it is established that customer buying power is potentially increased thanks to the remote medium of the internet and the information provided through peer networks on social media platforms. However, while it is evident that some customers will favour remote and non-face-to-face channels through which to communicate and/or conduct
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
56 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1
their business, others will prefer face-to-face platforms. Establishing where the balance lies, and for what customer segments, remains a fundamental marketing challenge.
Box 1: Firm Personal/Customer Personal This is a more traditional model where delivery and consumption of products are dominantly through personalised interactions (e.g., in person at a physical retail outlet or via personal selling channels). This model is in decline as the engagement preferences within business change and as technological delivery channels become more pervasive. However, the personal relationship will likely remain appropriate for customers who prefer dealing with a human being and where the net worth and relationship value of that customer can command that more personal attention. In this situation, the relative perceived advantages of remotely-enabled media are insufficient to warrant any behavioural change by the customer, nor is any change desired by the firm. There already exists compatibility in the relational norms already established and the perceived value of alternative technology-mediated channels such as social media is deemed to be low by both parties.
Box 2: Firm Remote/Customer Personal It is proposed that this may be where the customer desires a personal face-to-face relationship but the firm prefers the adoption of more remote channels for this customer. Explanations for this may include the customer being perceived of lower net worth and the firm attempting to migrate him or her to non-personal service/lower cost delivery platforms. This can
Figure 1 Interaction reference model
Firm interaction preference
Personal Remote
Personal 1 2
C u
st o
m e r
in te
ra ct
io n
p re
fe re
n ce
Remote 3 4
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
57Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
be a risky activity with potentially negative PR consequences. Alternatively however the customer may be lonely, or technophobic (see Mitchell, 1994) and have a preference for personalised delivery although the firm does not value such personal interactions with such clients. In this situation, the onus is on the firm to convey the relative advantage of new delivery platforms to the lower net worth customers. Issues of education through trialability and observability seem important here in order that the perceived complexity or inconvenience of the new channel can be overcome and value can be seen more clearly. Of course another problem may be that these lower net worth individuals do not possess the necessary equipment to enable internet access and are potentially laggards who have little propensity in using new technological channels or social media platforms whatever efforts are made to convince them otherwise. Another possibility for the firm’s preference in this quadrant is an emphasis within its marketing practice of more of a trappings-focus rather than a focus on the substantive issues of managing marketing - in other words the technology is being adopted because it is seen as the ‘current’ or up to date way of engaging with customers but little thought has been given by the company in assessing to what extent such new technology would add value to the client.
Box 3: Firm Personal/Customer Remote In this scenario the firm is keen to communicate and develop a personalised relationship with the customer but the customer feels interactions can be more effectively managed mainly through remote channels. This may possibly be the case where product needs are simple and can be easily managed at a distance and where the firm may perceive the customer segment in question as potentially high net worth and worthy of more personally driven relationship investment. The customers in this category have recognised and embraced new remote delivery mechanisms. They are likely innovators who are younger, more venturesome, enthusiastic, less brand loyal and are comfortable with change and advancing technologies. The firm is keen to get close to such individuals on a personal relationship basis and is therefore unlikely to have targeted these individuals for education on the benefits of remote channels. This supports the categorisation of this group as innovators. In support of this is the work of Parasuraman and Colby (2001) who would classify such consumer behaviour as being typified by Explorers. Explorers are curious and heavy users of technology; they are young, upscale and dominantly male who are true believers in technology and the benefits it can offer.
Box 4: Both Remote With this example, both firm and customer are happy to embrace remote channels. Questions of what the dynamics of these relationships are seem unclear and would be very context specific - and the extent to which all products (diversely differing in complexity) are appropriate for such delivery to the satisfaction of both parties also seems doubtful. As in box 3 customers here are comfortable with new technological delivery and are likely early adopters. The key difference here is that the firm too is happy for such individuals to interact remotely and through non-face-to-face channels such
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
58 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1
as social media fora. The firm may have educated this segment in the benefits of going on-line or it is possible that they made this decision autonomously.
Toward greater complexity
While Figure 1 represents a simple illustration of some of the issues which emerge for marketing managers when interaction preferences between the firms and the customer are matched or mismatched the key issue emerging is the need for marketers to be sensitive to the fact that such matches and mismatches occur and are important considerations in how they do business and think about customer relationships. Indeed, from Figure 1 we can consider the fact that it is unlikely that customers can be grouped discretely into any one quadrant given that customer needs will change and that products and service offerings will be interpreted differently as customers change in experiential knowledge, desires and search-buy behaviours over time. It is proposed therefore that a more dynamic representation of how customers might be classified is warranted and this is illustrated in Figure 2.
The continuum in Figure 2 illustrates the potential for customers to move between a preference for face-to-face personalised interactions (i.e., those facilitated through face-to-face interactions) and those that are remotely- enabled (i.e., those facilitated through non-face-to-face interactions such as internet/social media platforms). These issues of balance are expected to be a function of many things ranging from the customer’s own self-efficacy level to the level of perceived complexity in the purchase decision (Durkin, 2007). At times such decisions may result in a face-to-face dominant preference (perhaps for a more complex product purchase where personal assistance/ reassurance is required) while in other cases the customer may be content to engage remotely (perhaps in the case of a simple purchase decision where the purchase is routine and low involvement).
Figure 2 The dynamic customer
Personal interactions
Virtual interactions
Face-to-face engagement
Remote engagement
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
59Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
Understanding differences
It is proposed that differences between such preferences can be understood at the levels of context, content and competency. The firm context may be large or small - if small the firm’s behaviour will be organic, flexible and responsive with a bias towards personal contact networking and ‘learning by doing’ (Carson, Comrie, McGowan & Hill, 1995). In the larger enterprise the context may be bureaucratic, inflexible and slow to respond with a bias towards formal relationship building and learning by experience, formal training and compliance with established and tested rules (Butler & Durkin, 1995; Mintzberg, 1981). Adapting to the rapidly changing and relatively informal world of technological change and social media growth is more akin to the world of the small firm rather than that found in the larger less flexible counterpart. Context will also be manifest at the level of the market and industry within which the firm is operating. The industry norms (i.e., how business ‘is done’) and the specific contextual sensitivities at play in the market (e.g., with customers, competitors, channel collaborators) are all important considerations and issues which require appropriate ongoing management.
In terms of content, the smaller firm may find opportunity for their customer relationship through the on-line provision of added-value information relating to pricing, product descriptions, other customer feedback and product/service endorsements. The opportunity to enter a dialogue with a customer through social media may seem appealing and second nature to micro businesses that enjoy a high level of customer closeness as part of their normal way of doing business. However, there are risks associated with such engagement as damaging feedback from a dissatisfied customer can be difficult to contain and manage in the resource constrained smaller firm. In the larger enterprise there are also opportunities to engage with customers through social media. Customers can potentially play a role along with the business in the minimisation of relationship costs, helping the provider to enhance the potential for a more positive and enduring association through co-creation of value, (Bagozzi, 1995). The risks of managing negative feedback from dissatisfied customers is minimised in the larger firm given the larger resource base and more formalised marketing effort. More comprehensive and tailored content can potentially be delivered to customers by this enterprise.
The third area which is an important consideration for all firms engaging in social media as part of their marketing effort is that of competency. To what extent is there a competency within the large firm marketing team/ small firm team to manage both push and interactive communications through media such as Facebook and Twitter? In smaller enterprises knowing what to say and when through these new channels can be challenging and time-consuming as can the management of the resulting replies and ongoing customer dialogue. In larger firms, the creation of a digital marketing employee post can prove a disservice to the organisation as once again the perception that ‘digital is different’ is perpetuated and inculcated within the culture of the company. In so creating a digital position, digital marketing efforts become separated from ‘traditional marketing’ and this
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
60 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1
artificial separation can create disconnected customer communications, bring branding challenges and create issues around managing customer relationships effectively. However, Marketing Week (2012) research identifies that while marketers have an appreciation of the importance of such issues in general they currently lack the competencies and skills to manage this quickly changing environment and to respond accordingly.
Conclusion
Failure to assess the extent to which customers may wish to engage with companies through new technology platforms and social media leads to risks as well as opportunities to business and relationships for companies large and small. In many ways the present era of customer empowerment, for which social media is a catalyst and enabler, brings marketing back to its very roots with a focus on the delivery of authentic value propositions which meet and exceed customer expectations profitably. However, recent practice has seen business not focus sufficiently on customer need or the seeking of an integrated marketing solution. Instead we have seen firms classify traditional marketing efforts as less important and put all their energy into new channels.
A fundamental building-block for effective contemporary marketing practice is for firms to have an appreciation of new technological channels in the context of a general and pervasive marketing orientation but not to be seduced and distracted by them. Such a marketing orientation will have at its base an understanding of the customer and the most effective and efficient ways of engaging with customers in differing segments. Marketers, therefore, need to re-energise efforts to engage with the customer with authenticity and employ a more judicious use of new and old media together which will provide both a more informed and engaged customer, but as importantly, a channel for more effective communication with that customer. Through this approach marketers can learn from a process of value co-creation with all customers and through this sell more effectively over the life-time of those customer relationships.
It must be remembered that (digital) marketing isn’t about the technology or the company’s need to tell; it is all about the customer and their need to know. It is time to focus on the substance of marketing and leave the trappings behind.
References
AMAS (2010). The State of the Net. The State of the Net, e-business intelligence for Irish Managers, 19(Winter), www.amas.ie
Ames, C. (1970). Trappings Vs. Substance in Industrial Marketing. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 2-16.
Ansari, A., & Mela, C.F. (2003). E-Customisation. Journal of Marketing Research, XL(May), 131-145.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1995). Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 227-247.
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
61Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
Barnett, E. (2011, November 27). Companies must learn from Qantas Twitter gaffe and Trip Advisor blackmails. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph. co.uk/technology/social-media/8912701/Companies-must-learn-from-Qantas- Twitter-gaffe-and-TripAdvisor-blackmails.html
Barwise, P., & Meehan, S. (2010). The One Thing You Must Get Right When Building a Brand. Harvard Business Review, December, 80-84.
Bell, J., & Loane, S. (2010). ‘New-wave’ global firms: Web 2.0 and SME internationalisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3/4), 213-229.
Berthon, P.R., Leyland, P., Plangger, K., & Shapiro, D. (2012). Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Business Horizons, 55(3, May), 261-271.
Brodie, R.J., Winklhofer, H., Coviello, N.E., & Johnston, W.J. (2007). Is e-marketing coming of age? An examination of the penetration of e-marketing and firm performance. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(1), 2-14.
Brown, J., Broderick, A.J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualising the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20.
Bulearca, M., & Bulearca, S. (2010). Twitter: a viable marketing tool for SMEs? Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 2(4), 296-309.
Burrell, I. (2012, January 27). Rio, Katie and the Twitter Snickers adverts that left Mars feeling bitter. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent. co.uk/news/media/advertising/rio-katie-and-the-twitter-snickers-adverts-that- left-mars-feeling-bitter-6295398.html
Butler, P., & Durkin, M. (1995). Managing Expectations in the Small Firm-Bank Relationship. Irish Marketing Review, 8, 53-60.
Carson, D., Comrie, S., McGowan, P. & Hill, J. (1995). Marketing and Entrepreneurship in SMEs: An Innovative Approach. London: Prentice-Hall International.
Chaffey, D. (2010). Applying organisational capability models to assess the maturity of digital-marketing governance. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3/4), 187-196.
Ching, H.L., & Ellis, P. (2004). Marketing in Cyber-space: what factors drive e-commerce adoption. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3/4), 409-429.
Crowther, H. (2010). One Hundred Fears of Solitude. In Granta: The Magazine of New Writing, (111), New York, 99-117.
Drury, G. (2008). Social media: should marketers engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 274-278.
Durkin, M. (2007). On the role of bank staff in customer purchasing online. Marketing, Intelligence and Planning, 25(1), 82-97.
Fisher, E., & Reuber, A.R. (2011). Social interaction via new social media: (how) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behaviour. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 1-18.
Freeman, J. (2009). The Tyranny of Email. London: Scriber Publishing. Gaines-Ross, L. (2010). Reputation Warfare. Harvard Business Review, December, 70-
76. Godin, S. (1999). Permission Marketing. New York: Simon and Shuster. Harris, L., & Rae, A. (2009). Social Networks: the future of marketing for small
business. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(5), 24-31. Harris, L., & Rae, A. (2010). The Online connection: transforming marketing strategy
for small businesses. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(2), 4-12. Jayawardhena, C., Kuckertz, A., Karjaluoto, H. & Kautonen, T. (2009). Antecedents to
permission-based mobile marketing: an initial examination. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 473-499.
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
62 The Marketing Review, 2013, Vol. 13, No. 1
Kim, H.D., Lee, I., & Lee, C.K. (2011). Building Web 2.0 enterprises: A study of small and medium enterprises in the United States. International Small Business Journal, 29(4), 1-19. Published on-line 16th August 2011, retrieved 27th January 2012.
Kietzmann, J.H., Silvestre, B.S., McCarthy, I.P., & Pitt, L. (2012). Unpacking the social media phenomenon: towards a research agenda. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 109-119. Published on-line 14th March 2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/pa.1412/full
Kramer, L. (2010). How French innovators are putting the ‘social’ back into social networking. Harvard Business Review, October, 121-124.
Marketing Week (2012). Marketing Perspectives 2012: Adapting to win with multi- channel marketing. Marketing Week White Papers. Retrieved from http://www. sasknowledgecentre.com/
Meadows-Klue, D. (2009). Falling in Love 2.0: Relationship marketing for the Facebook generation. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 245-250.
Mintel (2010). Changing Face of the Web - a Ten Year Review. London: Mintel International Group. Retrieved from http://oxygen.mintel.com/display/479805/
Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organisation Design: Fashion or Fit. Harvard Business Review, January/February, 103-116.
Mitchell, S. (1994). Technophiles and technophobes. American Demographics, 16(2, February), 36-42.
Obama, B., (2010, May 10). Barack Obama criticises iPod and Xbox era. Speech at graduation at Hampton University, Virginia, reported in The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7702359/ Barack-Obama-criticises-iPod-and-Xbox-era.html
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D.G. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth - a grounded theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 172-185.
Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C.L. (2001). Techno-ready Marketing. London: The Free Press.
Pentina, I., Koh, A.C., & Le, T.T. (2012). Adoption of social networks marketing by SMEs: exploring the role of social influences and experience in technology acceptance. International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising, 7(1), 65-82.
Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1995). A new marketing paradigm: Share of Customer, Not Market Share. Planning Review, 23(4), 278-281.
Rayport, J.F., & Sviokla, J.J. (1995). Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec.
Ritson, M. (2010, September 2). Social media is for people not brands. Marketing Week, 54, http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/social-media-is-for-people-not- brands/3017669.article
Ritson, M. (2011, April 7). When it comes to social media Coke is it. Marketing Week, 1-4, http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/when-it-comes-to-social-media-coke-is- it/3025201.article
Rushkoff, D. (2011). Program Or Be Programmed - Ten Commands For a Digital Age. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press.
Sherwin, A. (2012, January 25). Not lovin’ it: McDonalds eats humble pie after Twitter backlash. The Independent, p. 8. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/ life-style/food-and-drink/news/not-lovin-it-mcdonalds-eats-humble-pie-after- twitter-backlash-6294116.html
Simmons, G., Armstrong, G.A., & Durkin, M.G. (2011). An exploration of small business Website optimization: Enablers, influencers and an assessment approach. International Small Business Journal, 29(5, October), 534-561.
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
63Durkin Tweet me cruel: Perspectives on battling digital marketing myopia
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together : Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.
Zineldin, M. (2000). Beyond Relationship Marketing: Technologicalship Marketing. Marketing, Intelligence and Planning, 18(1), 9-23.
About the Author and Correspondence
Mark Durkin is Professor of Marketing in the Ulster Business School. Formerly Bank of Ireland’s Group Marketing Communications Manager (NI) he joined University of Ulster in 1996 as Lecturer in Marketing. He has conducted his research and presented to academic and practitioner audiences in Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, USA, UK and Ireland in the area of bank-customer relationships and he is currently focused on exploring social media and the growing domain of digital marketing with a view to improving marketing- oriented adoption of such technologies by business.
Professor Mark Durkin, Ulster Business School, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Belfast, BT37 0QB.
D e liv
e re
d b
y P
u b lis
h in
g T
e ch
n o lo
g y
to : C
h ri st
in e F
e ss
e n d e
n IP
: 1 4 0 .2
3 4 .2
5 5 .9
O n : T
h u , 1 5 A
u g 2
0 1 3 1
8 :0
9 :0
8
© of Marketing Review is the property of Westburn Publishers Ltd or its licensors and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without first obtaining the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual, non-commercial use only. This article has been reproduced by EBSCO under license from Westburn Publishers Ltd.
