Abstract

     While the strategic use of social media (SM) for enhancing firm performance has attracted much attention, little is known about it through the lens of business-to-business (B2B) small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Building on the market-driven view and the dynamic capabilities view of competitive strategy, we examine SM use in a framework of market-sensing and customer-linking capabilities that influence firm performance. Our research model posits that market orientation stimulates SM use to enhance market-sensing capability thereby facilitating two customer-linking capabilities, namely customer relationship management and brand management, which collectively contribute to greater marketing performance and financial performance. Our research model is empirically tested using a survey of 143 UK B2B SMEs. The findings broadly support our theorization in which the strategic use of SM, an essential part of market-sensing capability, enhances customer-linking capabilities. Interestingly, although SM use influences brand management capability, its suggested influences on both customer relationship management capability and marketing performance occur only through the mediation of brand management capability. Both customer-linking capabilities positively influence marketing performance and in turn financial performance. Our findings provide novel conceptual and empirical advancement of how market-centric B2B SMEs strategically use SM to enhance their market-sensing and in turn customer-linking capabilities, and hence firm performance.

Introduction

     With the increased digitalization of marketing activities, marketing professionals are increasingly adopting social media (SM) as a strategic tool to effectively engage with customers and broader stakeholders (e.g. Chaker, Nowlin, Pivonka, Itani, and Agnihotri, 2022; Pardo, Pagani, and Savinien, 2022); develop new products (Du, Yalcinkaya, and Bstieler, 2016); increase brand awareness (Deng, Wang, Rod, and Ji, 2021); co-create value (Itani, Krush, Agnihotri, and Trainor, 2020); and improve firm performance (Cheng, Liu, Qi, and Wan, 2021). More and more researchers suggest that firms must have an SM presence since the strategic use of SM is increasingly seen to enhance firm competitiveness (e.g. Cartwright, Liu, and Raddats, 2021; Tiwary, Kumar, Sarraf, Kumar, and Rana, 2021).

     The likely gains from SM technologies are particularly evident in business markets where customers are more informed and less dependent on interactions with salespeople (Ancillai, Terho, Cardinali, and Pascucci, 2019). For example, leading large firms such as Adobe, IBM, and Maersk Line are increasingly using digital channels and SM to facilitate effective dialogue with customers (Ancillai et al., 2019). The growing evidence suggests that SM can be strategically used to facilitate an effective dialogue with customers (Kovac, 2016), create brand awareness, or differentiate the focal brand from the competition (e.g. Deng et al., 2021; Swani, Brown, and Mudambi, 2020), provide customer care, and/or improve firm performance, among others (e.g. Salo, 2017; Tiwary et al., 2021).

Conclusion

     Overall, our study examined the much-advocated and under-investigated strategic use of SM for enhanced B2B marketing strategy. We opted to focus on the B2B SME context where it argued that due to the resource-constrained operating environment experienced by SMEs, the use of SM platforms will be particularly beneficial due to easiness of implementation, low-cost accessibility, and cost-efficiency. We promised our inquiry on the dynamic capabilities view and Day’s (1994) seminal framework of capabilities in market-driven firms and theorized that the strategic use of SM provides a meaningful link between market orientation and CLC. Overall, our research model captures how the strategic use of SM strengthens MSC to effectively seize market opportunities through (re)developing two key CLC that drive enhanced marketing performance and in turn financial performance. Overall, the strategic use of SM remains a fertile ground for further inquiry in B2B marketing strategy context.

Brands are intangible assets that represent value and provide firms an opportunity to extract higher rents and prices from customers (Keller and Lehmann 2006). It is not surprising that firms strive to build strong brands. Much of the literature on brands and brand management is discussed from the consumer perspective (Baumgarth and Schmidt 2010; Santos-Vijande et al. 2013). Only recently have researchers started paying attention to brand management from an organizational perspective (Baumgarth and Schmidt 2010; Merz et al. 2009; Santos-Vijande et al. 2013). The literature in brand management from an organizational perspective focuses on the brand orientation (Urde 2016; Urde et al. 2013), strategic brand management (Keller 1993; Keller and Lehmann 2006), and internal branding (Burmann and Zeplin 2005; de Chernatony 2001; King and Grace 2008; Piehler et al. 2016; Punjaisri and Wilson 2007, 2011). While these three components are seen as the cornerstones for improving brand performance, the links among them have not been established. Specifically, the role of employees, and the organization’s effort to align their employees and brands with each other, i.e., internal branding in the organization’s brand management strategy, has not been fully investigated (Sirianni et al. 2013; Tavassoli et al. 2014). The importance of understanding the role of internal branding in facilitating brand performance is anchored in the notion that employees represent resources whose skills and knowledge can be harnessed to provide a sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Punjaisri and Wilson 2011). Employees are also considered as brand ambassadors and internal stakeholders, whose actions are pivotal for the execution of brand strategies. The role of internal stakeholders contributing to a brand’s success is also consistent with the literature on brand identity. The development of a strong brand identity is dependent on the motivation and willingness of the internal stakeholders to execute the brand vision (Burmann and Zeplin 2005; de Chernatony and Riley 1999; Harris and de Chernatony 2001; Simo˜es et al. 2005). There have been calls for organizations to have a brand-oriented mindset and to manage brands from a strategic perspective (Keller 1993; Urde et al. 2013). But these efforts can only succeed when the employees in the organization are working toward the strategic brand goals set by the organizations. Therein, lies the problem. Marketing employees’ turnover, especially for Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) and brand managers, is extremely high (Bennett 2011; Ellett 2016). This poses a problem for the execution of strategic brand management objectives in two ways.

Branding has increasingly permeated the public sector and become a consideration for organisations within a diversity of its subsectors, including universities (Dholakia and Acciardo 2014), health care (Sataøen and Wæraas 2015), libraries (Hood and Henderson 2005) and municipalities (Wæraas et al. 2015). Further, signs of greater corporatisation and brand harmonisation have emerged where subdepartments are aligned with the organisational brand and brand values (Dholakia and Acciardo 2014; HemsleyBrown and Goonawardana 2007). Alignment may in part be based on the visual identity of the brand, e.g. logos and style guides. It also puts focus on the identity and values of the organisation to define ‘‘who’’ the organisation is (Balmer 2010; Hatch and Schultz 2009). Aligning the organisation around this identity and values is considered necessary to support a strong organisational brand (Hatch and Schultz 2009; Harris and de Chernatony 2001). A brand strategy that encompasses the whole organisation is necessary; departments need to work together to support a brand that is embedded in the behaviour and people of the organisation (de Chernatony and Cottam 2009). The organisational brand is a means to promoting an ‘‘umbrella image’’ for the organisation that ‘‘casts one glow over an array of products’’ (or services) (Hatch and Schultz 2001). From a brand architecture perspective this ‘‘umbrella image’’ may parallel that of a branded house, i.e. where all individual products and services are coated in the organisational brand (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). Brand architecture describes the hierarchal structure of brands within the organisation and the relationship between the brands (Brexendorf and Keller 2017; Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). However, existing research has mainly taken a consumer market, private sector perspective (e.g. Brexendorf and Keller 2017; Aaker 2004; Rajagopal and Sanchez 2004). In the public sector only three papers have been identified relating to brand architecture (Dholakia and Acciardo 2014; Hudson 2009; Hemsley-Brown and Goonawardana 2007). Branding is arguably a relatively new development in the public sector, but studies suggest that existing brand management theories and models may not be fully transferable to this context (Dean et al. 2016; Hytti et al. 2015; Chapleo 2010; Wæraas and Solbakk 2009). Further, branding in public organisations may meet resistance from internal (Hytti et al. 2015; Sataøen and Wæraas 2015) and external stakeholders (Fa¨rlin 2016; Westin 2016; Whelan et al. 2010). This is troublesome as a strong organisational brand is dependent on a unified perception of the brand among various stakeholders. If existing brand management theories and models are insufficient for the public sector, while branding efforts at the same time may meet resistance, understanding how public organisations should manage the brand is key.

Can Porsche be construed as a successful and dynamic man in his 1940s? Research on person–object relations shows that consumers can anthropomorphize brands, thinking about them as if they were human characters (Belk 1988; Plummer 2000; Puzakova et al. 2009). They show no difficulty in assigning human characteristics to brands (Aaker 1997) as if they would describe other people (Azar 2015). Even more, they tend to maintain relationships with brands similar to the way they interact with other people (Fournier 1998). MacInnis and Folkes (2017) consider brand anthropomorphism as a contemporary phenomenon driven by societal changes such as the advent of digital avatars and robots that cue human knowledge schemas. Brand managers often also encourage consumers to attribute human qualities to their brands. They implement brand anthropomorphization techniques using brand characters, mascots and spokespeople to create symbolic meaning and improve brand differentiation. This, in turn, helps consumers with their identity maintenance and enhancement (Wee 2004). In addition, a humanized brand can have ‘quasi social influence’ triggering effects on consumers previously seen for responses to other people (Aggarwal and McGill 2012, p. 307). Although not fully understood (Freling and Forbes 2005), brand anthropomorphization can strengthen consumer–brand relationships, which ultimately affects consumer preferences, purchase, loyalty and brand love (Rauschnabel and Ahuvia 2014). Paradoxically, anecdotal evidence suggests that many brand managers do not believe their brand to be a person themselves, even though they aim at creating anthropomorphized brands in the minds of consumers (Puzakova et al. 2009). The reason lies in their approach of brand management. Since about a decade, identity-driven brand management has been getting increasingly popular. Compared with positioning-based branding, the main source of inspiration for brand-building has shifted from consumer and competitor analyses to the brand’s inner beliefs and vision (Kapferer 2012). Although brand personality is seen as a key component of brand identity, often it still does not consist of more than a set of traits used for brand personification in the minds of consumers.

مقاله سال 2016