See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/200121177

CRM in sales-intensive organizations: A review and future directions

Article  in  Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management · March 2005

DOI: 10.1080/08853134.2005.10749057

CITATIONS READS
66 1,917

10 authors, including:

John F. Tanner Thomas Leigh

Baylor University University of Georgia
88 PUBLICATIONS   2,299 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   3,586 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Charlotte H Mason
University of Georgia
29 PUBLICATIONS   4,647 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Charlotte H Mason on 07 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CRM IN SALES-INTENSIVE ORGANIZATIONS:
A REVIEW AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
John F. Tanner Jr., Michael Ahearne, Thomas W. Leigh, Charlotte H. Mason, and William C. Moncrief

With the advent of technology enabling greater customer tracking, more robust knowledge management, and direct
customer communication, the implementation of customer relationship management (CRM) strategies has grown in
importance with many implications for sales-intensive organizations. Implications of CRM strategy, analytical CRM, and
operational CRM are discussed, particularly in terms of research opportunities. Although there are, no doubt, many other
interesting and worthwhile research opportunities available, the nexus of technology, CRM, and sales-intensive go-to-
market strategies provide myriad opportunities for exciting research.

According to one study, implementing customer relationship the sales force in the context of an organization-wide focus
management (CRM) strategy currently ranks among the top on the customer as the center of the firm. This framework
five corporate objectives in over 60 percent of enterprises distinguishes between strategic, analytical, and operational
(Nelson 2004). With the advent of technology enabling greater aspects of CRM (Buttle 2004). Strategic CRM refers to the
customer tracking, more robust knowledge management, and managerial decision-making processes involved with defin-
direct customer communication, the implementation of rela- ing and building a customer-oriented business strategy, busi-
tionship marketing strategies has grown in importance. ness processes and culture, and requisite supporting
Ideally, CRM is “a cross-functional process for achieving a technology models. At the core of the firm’s strategic CRM
continuing dialogue with customers, across all of their contact model, and its longer-term competitive advantage and suc-
and access points, with personalized treatment of the most cess, is the ability to define and implement a right customer →
valuable customers, to increase customer retention and the ef- right strategy → right organization → right channel → right
fectiveness of marketing initiatives” (Day 2001, p. 1). As this people → right rewards success model. This strategic model
definition suggests, CRM is a strategy resulting in developing encompasses a variety of intelligent and creative executive
the most appropriate relationship with a customer, a process decisions, as captured at the center of the CRM framework
that is supported by technology and that may not necessarily in Figure 1. These decisions are fueled by analytical and op-
yield deep or strategic partnerships with all customers. erational CRM as the firm seeks to learn from its customers,
The essence of this enterprise-level perspective is captured develops insights and knowledge concerning its customers’
in the CRM framework presented in Figure 1, which embeds needs and requirements, and translates these insights into
customer value through its product, service, and channel of-
ferings (Leigh and Marshall 2001).
John F. Tanner Jr. (Ph.D., University of Georgia), Professor of Mar- Analytical CRM refers to the firm-level processes involved
keting, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, in analyzing customer and market-level information in order
[email protected]. to provide the intelligence and insights that guide the firm’s
Michael Ahearne (Ph.D., Indiana University), Associate Professor strategic marketing, CRM, service, and go-to-market choices.
of Marketing and Research Director, Sales Excellence Institute, Bauer Fundamental processes include questions such as: Who are
College of Business, University of Houston, [email protected]. our most valuable customers? Which customers are most likely
Thomas W. Leigh (DBA, Indiana University), Tanner Chair of Sales to respond to this marketing offer? and, What sales channels
Management, Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, and effort levels should be used to access and interact with
[email protected]. these customers? Analytical CRM investments pay off for both
Charlotte H. Mason (Ph.D., Stanford University), Associate Pro- the customer and the firm. Appropriately selected customers
fessor of Marketing, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of receive more personalized, timely, and relevant solutions
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, [email protected]. through desirable channels. Firms benefit in the sense of ra-
William C. Moncrief (Ph.D., Louisiana State University), Senior tionalizing their marketing investments to desirable custom-
Associate Dean and Bedford Professor of International Business, ers for maximum cost-effectiveness.
Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, b.moncrief@ Operational CRM consists of the specification of suitable
tcu.edu. and replicable business processes (lower half of Figure 1)

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXV, no. 2 (spring 2005), pp. 169–180.
© 2005 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1584771

170 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 1
Enterprise-Level CRM Model and Processes

designed to implement the firm’s desired customer relation- In sales force–intensive organizations (those organizations
ship model in terms of customer access, customer interac- whose go-to-market strategy relies heavily on salespeople),
tion, sales and channel choices, and customer learning at the CRM has primarily been the responsibility of the sales force.
one-on-one level. At a technology level, operational CRM In these settings, research regarding technology has its roots
involves the automation of these customer-facing aspects of in understanding sales force automation (SFA). Yet, as orga-
the business (Buttle 2004), with emphasis on (1) marketing nizations recognize the enterprise-wide nature of CRM, SFA
automation, in particular, campaign management, event- is being overtaken by broader, relationship-wide (or enter-
based marketing, and promotional management; (2) sales prise-wide) technology. Although there have been many at-
force automation, in particular, lead management, opportu- tempts to develop frameworks for understanding technology,
nity management, customer contact management, and sales and, specifically, SFA technology, our understanding of this
forecasting; and (3) service automation, such as inbound shift to an enterprise- or relationship-wide perspective has
customer call center management, service call routing and been limited due to the unit of study. Traditionally, that unit
prioritization, customer complaint handling, and customer of study has been the salesperson, as in studies that have ex-
self-service systems. amined adoption issues (e.g., Jones, Sundaram, and Chin
These general and technological operational CRM issues 2002).
are increasingly important as firms move from relatively simple The individual sales representative as the unit of study was
customer access and interaction models, such as a direct sales appropriate, for at that time, the salesperson was responsible
force, to complex multichannel strategies that allow custom- for managing the relationship with the customer. As Wotruba
ers to determine if, when, where, and how they prefer to in- (1996) and others have noted, the traditional paradigm in a
teract with the firm. As complexity of customer interaction sales-intensive setting represented the salesperson as the
increases, operational CRM systems become more critical. company’s primary, if not only, point of contact for custom-

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1584771

 Spring 2005 171

ers. This one-rep/one-relationship model was particularly ef- Perhaps the most obvious question concerns whether CRM
fective in business-to-business (B2B) settings. Cost pressures, changes the way salespeople “sell.” In other words, does the
more knowledgeable customers, technology, and a host of salesperson use the same set of sales activities without CRM
other factors, however, have brought the one-rep/one-rela- systems as they would with a CRM system (Marshall,
tionship model into question. Multichannel go-to-market Moncrief, and Lassk 1999)? What functions are fulfilled by
strategies are now more common, with the traditional sales- nonsalespeople or by technology when the cost and competi-
person replaced completely in some situations (e.g., Stone, tiveness of maintaining a field force is in question? How does
Hobbs, and Khaleeli 2002). For these and other reasons, the salesperson interact with CRM systems to manage cus-
Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh (2002) argue that taking a per- tomer relationships?
spective at the strategic sales force level is necessary, in this In the traditional model of standard geographic territo-
case, to understand relationship management and technol- ries, remaining sales-intensive while implementing CRM may
ogy in sales force–intensive settings. be problematic. Geographic territory management implies that
In this paper, we examine the issues that are arising at the all types of accounts exist in a given territory. One can make
nexus of relationship management and technology within the argument that CRM technology and strategy can benefit
sales-intensive organizations. The purpose is to develop a territory management because of the sheer number of accounts
framework from which to guide research on issues facing sales- in a territory that must be managed through a process of as-
intensive organizations. From this framework, we further de- sessing and allocating resources to more profitable accounts.
velop a research agenda. We begin with a discussion of strategic Another benefit may be a much more account-knowledge-
issues surrounding CRM and sales. We then follow with a able salesperson. Yet, in the multichannel environment, the
discussion of the effect of two forms of CRM—analytical nature of the salesperson’s role in a territory management sys-
CRM and operational CRM. tem becomes an important issue.
For example, the model of salesperson effort allocation
STRATEGIC ISSUES (LaForge, Young, and Hamm 1983) has long served as a
method of determining where a salesperson should apply ef-
A key CRM goal is to allocate resources more effectively so fort. This model considered account potential and position
that customers receive the appropriate attention, at the right within the account as the two dimensions upon which the
cost (e.g., Zeithaml, Rust, and Lemon 2001). Note that the salesperson builds a portfolio of accounts. Both of these di-
emphasis is the appropriate relationship, meaning that the mensions are related to lifetime value of an account, as the
objective is not always a deeper relationship. Personal selling model is a precursor to CRM strategies. One important ques-
is an expensive endeavor, and in many cases, may not be how tion, then, is how to build upon the model: Do CRM sys-
a customer wants to interact with the organization (e.g., Dwyer tems simply bring a higher level of sophistication of analysis,
and Tanner 2001). Even within a relationship managed by a and, if so, then how is a salesperson to make use of that so-
salesperson, multichannel marketing may be necessary to reach phistication in determining account coverage strategies?
each of the buyers within the customer organization appro- Further, whose responsibility is it to determine account
priately (e.g., Stone, Hobbs, and Khaleeli 2002). coverage strategy? The ability to access and model data may
These changes in resource allocation across customer-facing result in centralized sales strategy via more effective customer
channels and accompanying changes in relationship strategy profiling, as well as via more comprehensive data collection
point to several issues at the strategic level. These include and analysis. For an example of the latter, consider the impli-
(1) account management issues, (2) organizational structure, cations of event-based sales. An event occurs that involves a
(3) cultural and environmental issues, and (4) enterprise-level transaction with the organization, such as a service call. The
knowledge management. Table 1 presents research questions result is the identification of a sales opportunity that is auto-
on these strategic CRM issues. The reader should refer to matically delivered to the salesperson. Research is needed to
Table 1 as they read the strategic issues section. understand the strategic implications, as well as the opera-
tional implications (discussed later), of such model building.
Account Management Issues A key account system seems ideal for the implementation
of a CRM system. The key account system implements the
One of the strategic issues that a sales organization must con- Pareto principle, such that 20 percent of all accounts provide
sider when reviewing the issues of CRM is how accounts are 80 percent of the profits, resulting in special coverage. Key
managed. For the purpose of this discussion, we assume three account systems imply that the salesperson is focused on one
methods of account management: territory management, key or more (a few) primary accounts. Can it be assumed that the
account, and a collaborative or value chain model (cf. Weitz, more knowledgeable the key account salesperson through
Castleberry, and Tanner 2004). CRM, then the more effective the salesperson because of better
172 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1
Research Questions on Strategic CRM issues

Account Management
• How does CRM affect the salesperson’s role in a traditional field geographic territory?
• How does CRM change the way salespeople sell?
• Is CRM appropriate in a large geographic territory with a large number of customers?
• How does the salesperson interact with CRM to manage customer relations?
• Does CRM change the selling philosophy and methods of selling in a traditional salesperson? If so, is it for the better?
• Can or will the salesperson be replaced or supplemented by other sales methods when implementing a CRM system?
• Is there a substantive way to determine the return on investment for implementing a CRM system versus traditional selling? Can it be
shown that CRM is more effective?
• Does CRM bring a high level of sophisticated analysis to a territory, and, if so, how does the salesperson make use of that sophistication in
determining account coverage?
• Are key account sales structures more appropriate for CRM than traditional geographic territories?
• How does, or can, CRM integrate with a collaborative (value chain) account management system?
• Is the role of the salesperson sufficiently different in a collaborative value chain account with CRM than with a traditional field salesperson?
Sales Structure
• How has the increase in team selling affected the need for CRM systems?
• How do we best automate sales data that may be accumulating from multiple sales structures?
• How do we keep other organizational departments current on data acquired by sales organizations?
Culture and Environmental Issues
• Is a CRM system less effective in a commission-based sales structure?
• Is a sales organization in a more transaction-oriented industry less likely to be benefited by CRM?
• How do various environmental issues (competition, product category, organizational technology, “trendiness” of product, importance of
relationships in the industry, size of purchase, and global markets) affect CRM implementation?

account information? A counterargument is that key accounts Sales Structure

may conduct business in multiple locales, using various cur-
rencies, with many decision makers, and other challenges. The selling function has evolved to more than the basic field
Because KAM is the topic of Jones et al. (2005, this issue), we sales force, even in sales-intensive settings. Because of CRM
will not discuss that issue further; however, it is important to and a growing emphasis on selling the way the customer wants
note that CRM philosophy greatly supports the adoption of to buy, today’s sales organizations are using a variety of meth-
key account systems. ods in their selling, including the traditional field sales force,
The third account management system is a collaborative team selling, electronic selling and contact centers, and evolv-
(value chain) system in which supply-chain partners, custom- ing sales structures that include part-time salespeople, cross-
ers, and support people all provide input and data on the selling by sales divisions, sales support personnel, supply-chain
selling and buying situation. Such an account coverage strat- personnel, and organizational partners.
egy necessarily changes the role of the salesperson. The role of There have been a number of articles describing how com-
the salesperson in terms of internal boundary spanning (Work- panies have reorganized to implement relationship-selling
man, Homburg, and Jensen 2002), as well as across various strategies (cf. Bauer et al. 1998), with team selling as one of
levels of the supply chain, raises questions regarding the sales- the most common strategies. The rapid increase in team sell-
person’s role as a “seller” versus as a general manager in the ing, however, has created a pressing need for better knowl-
channel partnership. There has been little work on salespeople edge management. With multiple people now responsible for
who operate at this level, but it appears that there is a distinc- customer relations within an account, a system automating
tion between strategic accounts and collaborative accounts. account information is necessary to give all participants ac-
This distinction needs to be examined empirically, and the cess to updated knowledge (Sharma 2002). Managing knowl-
sales role defined more clearly, with an eye to understanding edge within one salesperson/one relationship is no longer
the effect of CRM. adequate, particularly when selling and relating activities are
From the resolution of account management issues in an conducted by many who may be part of a formal team, or
organization comes the next set of issues, those that deal with who may be selling and relating as part of the normal job in a
the sales structure. The adoption of an account management situation where the relationship is served by multiple func-
plan or plans does not necessarily imply a specific sales struc- tions. As a result, formal knowledge management systems are
ture, as is seen next. required.
 Spring 2005 173

Similarly, multichannel go-to-market strategies require dif- points with the customer and enters this data into a central-
ferent forms of knowledge management. Electronic selling, ized data warehouse. Thus, these customer data provide a com-
the twenty-first-century’s version of the field order taker, cer- plete record of the customer’s interactions in a timely and
tainly requires an automated database and account system. readily accessible format to drive the analytic CRM process,
Electronic selling, however, may simply be one of the chan- the development of marketing strategies, and feedback (or
nels with which an account interacts—that account may also suggestion prompts) to the sales force and channels. As a con-
interact with an account manager who needs access to the sequence, the firm is more likely to settle on a “holistic” view
same information. Further, as sales structures evolve to in- of the customer that will enable enterprise-level marketing,
clude partners, suppliers, part-time sellers, and other “new” sales, and channel decisions that drive customer satisfaction
salespeople, more people will require access to a knowledge through more timely, relevant, and personalized products/
management system. Similar to team selling, these evolving service offers, messages, and interactions. Traditional break-
sales structures will have multiple people and, potentially, or- downs that occur between the marketing strategies and sales
ganizations that will play a part in the management of key channel tactics (Kotler 1977) are potentially avoidable. Mar-
customers. keting and sales may literally be on the same page concerning
the customer, as they begin to understand and trust each other’s
Culture and Environmental Issues contributions in creating customer value and the need to will-
ingly exchange information and knowledge at the individual
There are a number of variables that can determine the de- customer level.
gree to which a sales organization may be more oriented to a Customer-level information may be explicit or tacit. Ex-
CRM philosophy. Corporate culture, particularly if customer plicit information is structured in the form of specific cus-
service is a primary component of the culture, can determine tomer events or activities and is more readily packaged and
the level of relationship marketing that occurs (cf. Vargo and accessed through CRM operational processes. The collection
Lusch 2004). Organizations that are more commission ori- of explicit information may be automated and reacted to in
ented may be less supportive of a CRM program (Schultz real time without the intervention of a sales agent using pre-
and Good 2000). The commission salesperson might argu- determined business rules. To illustrate, explicit transactional
ably be more concerned with his or her individual accounts information may include inbound calls to a call center, a Web
than the needs or desires of the sales organization. The use of site visit or search process, a product pamphlet request, a text
commission versus salary might imply that certain industries or voiced complaint, or the return of a satisfaction survey.
are more prone to use CRM. In addition, sales organizations These transactions can be captured in a timely fashion to en-
that employ independent sales reps may be even more likely able either an automated response (a mailed brochure, a spe-
to not implement a relationship strategy. cial offer) or a prompt for a customer service representative
Similarly, industries that are price oriented and thus more or sales agent to follow up on the request or complaint. Cur-
transaction based may be less likely to employ CRM philoso- rent rules-based systems are most effective at responding to
phies—yet they may be more likely to implement multichan- simple, positive events. Unnecessary and often tardy human
nel strategies as a method of reducing costs. A number of responses are automated and made more cost-effective.
other environmental issues can also affect the level of CRM Tacit knowledge is more personal and context-specific. The
implementation, including sales job type (Moncrief 1986), development of tacit knowledge about a customer usually
level of competition, nature of the product category, technol- involves a salesperson inferring and sharing customer insights
ogy level of the organization, “trendiness” of the product, the through the CRM system. A salesperson may be asked through
importance of relationships in the industry, the size and dol- the SFA system to estimate the size and nature of a sales op-
lar value of the purchases, the relative ease of moving into the portunity, provide insights as to the key decision makers and
international market, and the economics of the region, coun- their decision criteria, and predict the likelihood of a pur-
try, or globe. Although there is significant trade literature sug- chase at various price points. Thus, human judgment and
gesting a relationship between industry and strategic CRM talent in the form of tacit learning processes must be inte-
implementation, there has been little academic work on those grated into the CRM system for a holistic view of the cus-
factors that make CRM more likely. tomer to emerge. This is a significant challenge for several
reasons. First, building a customer-oriented culture is often
CRM and Knowledge Management at the daunting, but a necessary step. Second, it is difficult to for-
Enterprise Level malize and transfer tacit knowledge, because it is not easy for
“experts,” such as a salesperson, to articulate knowledge. Tacit
As Figure 1 suggests, a properly designed CRM system col- knowledge is often in the form of a customer-based story,
lects customer-level data from all sales and channel touch hence, it is difficult to codify and share. Finally, it is not easy
174 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

to design a CRM system that motivates users to participate of CRM tools, each with its own, unlinked, customer file.
in the information acquisition and use processes. For example, Businesses are increasingly realizing that a “360-degree view”
SFA systems are often standardized to fit a specific customer of the customer with all customer-related data in a single cross-
model and sales process, rather than a personalized approach functional and integrated database is key for enterprise-wide
that is more intuitive to the user. Hence, sales personnel may CRM success.
compromise the CRM system as they focus on alternate uses In addition to explicit, descriptive, and behavioral customer
of their time (such as making sales) or input information in a data, there is growing recognition of the added value of atti-
tardy or inaccurate fashion. tudinal data (Peltier, Schibrowsky, and Davis 1998), includ-
In light of these knowledge issues, it is clear that the use of ing measures of satisfaction or commitment. These forms of
a closed-loop CRM system may profoundly alter the cross- tacit knowledge are especially valuable in sales-intensive envi-
functional relationships that enable the firm to translate cus- ronments where there is significant interpersonal interaction
tomer learning into actionable and profitable marketing and with buyers and the corresponding opportunity to integrate
sales programs. However, the technological and cultural un- automatically captured transactional and behavioral data with
derpinnings for achieving one-on-one relationships with the attitudinal data.
customers require considerable thought and research. Signifi- A significant challenge is the collection of sales activity
cant academic research issues abound in examining how data—as contrasted with sales outcome data—which are of-
closed-loop CRM models involving complex marketing and ten not adequately captured (Desisto 2004b). Accurate activ-
sales interactions are designed for customer satisfaction and ity data, including sales calls made, proposals submitted, and
firm-level profitability. demonstrations, are needed to fully analyze and better under-
These strategic areas of account management, sales force stand the links between inputs (e.g., activities) and outcomes
structure, cultural environmental issues, and knowledge man- (e.g., sales results).
agement and exchange are important. Finally, business markets often look to current customers
as a natural opportunity for growth. Yet this requires knowl-
ANALYTICAL CRM IN SALES-INTENSIVE edge of the firm’s “share of customer,” which refers to the
ENVIRONMENTS percentage of a particular customer’s business that the firm
currently provides. The sales force is the natural starting point
Analytical CRM, the analysis of customer data for strategic for gathering this important information, which might in-
or tactical purposes to enhance both customer and firm value clude details by product line and location. By systematically
(Buttle 2004), has been characterized as the difference be- collecting, updating, and analyzing data on their share of cus-
tween excellent and merely sufficient CRM implementations tomers’ business, best-practice firms can identify ways to le-
(Buytendijk and Herschel 2001). Analytical CRM aids deci- verage its value for both themselves and their customers
sion making with a range of tools from simple spreadsheet (Anderson and Narus 2003).
analyses to sophisticated data mining. Insights into custom- The history of SFA implementation has shown that atten-
ers’ behaviors obtained from analytical CRM (or business tion must be paid to organizational issues and incentives if
intelligence) are then tied into operational CRM solutions. adequate data are to be collected. “Perfect” data are not al-
The realized outcomes from analytical CRM depend on ways needed—rather, a business needs to distinguish between
the quality of the underlying data, the sophistication and skill activities that require perfect data and those where “good
of analytical methods and their application, and the match enough” data will suffice (Rigby and Ledingham 2004). When
between sales objectives and the CRM tools. These three ar- CRM is a corporate strategy, though, the implications of how
eas are discussed below, and Table 2 summarizes key research data is gathered, the quality of that data, and the availability
questions for these analytical CRM issues. to those who need it, mushroom. The issue is no longer sim-
ply managing the activities of the sales force; now, the entire
Data enterprise may operate based upon that data, increasing the
organizational dependency on the sales force.
Customer data are the lifeblood of CRM (Radcliffe, Collins,
and Kirkby 2001), so firms need to build a knowledge man- Analytical CRM Tools
agement strategy that will support the collection, analysis,
and use of customer data (Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh 2002). In the current marketplace, vendors offer a wide variety of
Analytical CRM depends on the quality and completeness of analytical CRM tools that vary in sophistication. One sales
the underlying customer data. Many early CRM implemen- analytics hierarchy (Desisto 2004a) aligns methods in a pyra-
tations started out as “point” solutions—designed for a spe- mid. The base is reporting, or “what happened?” analytics,
cific function such as SFA—which can lead to a proliferation which focus on descriptive reporting and tracking of metrics.
 Spring 2005 175

Table 2
Research Questions in Analytical CRM

Data
• What attitudinal and behavioral data can be captured by salespeople?
• What data need to be collected to estimate and track “share of customer”?
• What are the implications of attempting to develop data systems for that data—such as what forms of compensation, performance
measurement, and training are necessary to encourage salespeople to collect and retain the appropriate data?
Analytical Tools
• What forms of models—historic or descriptive, customer-centric analysis, and market models—can be developed using data provided by
salespeople?
• Given that salespeople deal with small samples, and with qualitative data, what forms of modeling are suited to sales-intensive settings?
• How does the development of such models influence salesperson activities?
Sales Force CRM Objectives
• As models are built to depict customer life cycles, how does the role of the salesperson change over those life cycles?
• How do these models affect resource allocation, including, but not limited to, the effort of the salesperson?
Customer Valuation and Segmentation
• How can models be created to more appropriately account for customer value?
• How should a firm weigh current customer value versus potential (but unrealized) value in segmenting and prioritizing customers?
• Can models include an accounting for lead users and other technology innovators?
Managing Customer Relationships
• What is the effect of models on sales activities and strategies? Can business-to-consumer (B2C) models, such as basket analysis, enable
cross-selling in the same way in a B2B or sales-intensive setting?
• What tools are appropriate for modeling B2B and sales-intensive settings?
Customer-Centric Metrics
• How can sales activities that influence long-term relationships be accounted for properly?
• How can activities be compensated when the firm’s financial payout may not occur until sometime in the future?

The next tier is understanding, or “why did it happen?” analy- Nevertheless, the potential return from successful CRM is
ses, involving correlational analyses across multiple dimen- high (Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh 2002). In fact, the Gartner
sions such as products, geographies, customers, and time. The Group characterizes sales analytics (defined as advanced busi-
top of the pyramid consists of predictive models that address ness intelligence tools, including data mining, to enhance sales
“what will happen?” and may use techniques such as linear performance) as “on the rise” for 2004 (Desisto, Galvin, and
and logistic regression analysis or data mining algorithms. Hagemeyer 2004). While the current market penetration is
Another typology classifies CRM analytics into three cat- less than 1 percent of the target audience, they assess the ben-
egories: (1) historical analysis, (2) customer-centric analysis, efits as having the potential to transform and enable new ways
and (3) market analysis (Herschel 2001). Historical analysis of doing business, resulting in major shifts in industry dynam-
is useful for tracking results and identifying patterns and trends ics (Desisto, Galvin, and Hagemeyer 2004). Low penetration
over time and is primarily descriptive in nature. Customer- coupled with high potential means it is important to better
centric analysis is “predictive, creating a deeper understand- understand the challenges to adopting and implementing ana-
ing of the customer’s potential relationship” (Radcliffe, lytically based CRM initiatives in sales-intensive organizations.
Collins, and Kirkby 2001, p. 5). Finally, market analysis looks
at relationships within the market that include market basket Sales Force CRM Objectives
analyses and customer segmentation.
To date, analytical CRM in most sales-intensive environ- Objectives vary with the stages of the customer life cycle. The
ments has involved primarily reporting or descriptive analy- first step is customer acquisition, where the objective is to
ses (Desisto 2004a). Advanced analytical techniques that have acquire the right customers at the right cost (e.g., Reinartz,
been successfully used in business-to-customer (B2C) busi- Krafft, and Hoyer 2004). Acquisition costs reflect the invest-
nesses are generally too complex for the quality of data that ment in advertising, marketing, and selling expenses aimed
are available in most business-to-business (B2B) organizations. at attracting new customers. Once acquired, goals shift to
The challenge facing the advanced predictive analytics is that cost-effective ways to retain and “grow” the customer. Costs
they may “require too much effort by a sales manager to ana- include programs to increase the value of existing relation-
lyze the data or a sales representative to use the data” (Desisto ships, loyalty or preferred buyer programs, “win-back” cam-
2003, p. 2). paigns, and servicing customer accounts.
176 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Another important consideration is managing and allo- to identify the “next best offer” for cross-selling (Knott, Hayes,
cating resources across the customer portfolio. To efficiently and Neslin 2002). Similar predictive modeling approaches
accomplish resource allocation, a firm must be able to evalu- are used to model churn or attrition and identify customers
ate the value or profitability of individual or customer seg- at risk of defecting. Finally, Thomas, Blattberg, and Fox (2004)
ments—both current as well as potential future value. This examine optimal pricing strategies for reacquiring lapsed or
analysis has great implications for the allocation model defected customers, including both the initial win-back price
(LaForge, Young, and Hamm 1983) discussed earlier, as prof- as well as subsequent pricing once reacquired.
itability was previously assumed. Specific analytical techniques vary but fall into two pri-
mary categories: (1) statistical modeling such as linear or lo-
Customer Valuation and Segmentation gistic regression, or (2) data-mining algorithms such as
CHAID or CART classification trees or neural networks. Both
Identifying customer groups or segments and prioritizing them presume a sufficiently large number of observations, but data
is a first step in developing an effective sales strategy (Ingram, mining, in particular, is based on the semiautomatic process-
LaForge, and Leigh 2002). Techniques for segmentation range ing of large quantities of data to discover meaningful patterns
from managerial judgment to sophisticated analytical models and associations. Such tools may be more appropriate for con-
(Levin and Zahavi 2001), including customer portfolio analy- sumer markets that tend to have larger numbers of and rela-
sis (Buttle 2004), sales forecasting, activity-based costing, and tively more homogeneous customers or identifiable segments
customer lifetime value. than many B2B markets, especially those that are sales inten-
Much of the academic research on customer profitability sive. Thus, a key research issue is the development of models
and lifetime value has been in a direct marketing or B2C con- with more limited data, particularly in settings such as KAM.
text (Jain and Singh 2002). However, customer valuation in
B2B markets is more complex—especially in terms of under- Customer-Centric Metrics
standing costs. These complicating factors include the use of
extensive personal selling, indirect selling though distribu- New classes of customer-centric metrics are used to monitor
tors, maintenance and repair services, discounting and bonus CRM initiatives, including customer profitability and life-
structures for customers and distributors, and the prevalence time value, share of customer or wallet, retention or attrition
of multiple channel/multiple product relationships (van Raaij, rates, customer satisfaction, loyalty, up-sell and cross-sell rates,
Vernooij, and van Triest 2003). Niraj, Gupta, and Narasimhan and cost to serve. Since the total quality movement, compa-
(2001) model customer profitability in a supply chain, but nies have considered factors such as customer satisfaction when
additional research is needed to translate the concepts of cus- developing pay schemes for salespeople (e.g., Churchill et al.
tomer valuation into practice in sales-intensive settings. 2004). Yet there has been little to no work on CRM metrics
In B2B environments, profitability may not be reflected of loyalty, cost-to-serve, lifetime value, and others.
in only the transactions within the account. If the notion of a
lead user, or accounts in which innovations are developed OPERATIONAL CRM IN SALES-INTENSIVE
into new products for the vendor (von Hipple 1988), is taken ENVIRONMENTS
into account, such an account may also be profitable as a
codeveloper of new products or applications. Similarly, there Companies implement operational CRM in hopes of enhanc-
are accounts with whom it may make sense to partner in or- ing productivity, communication, and customer relationships
der to learn or codevelop technologies that affect other areas (e.g., Campbell 1998; Goldenberg 1996). Despite the im-
of the firm, such as logistics (e.g., Weitz, Castleberry, and portant role of sales technology tools, relatively little research
Tanner 2004). Research not only needs to consider how these has been done concerning how to best implement and man-
relationships grow and are different, but also how to account age these operational CRM systems. Notable exceptions in-
for such potential. Otherwise, that account may be passed clude Jones, Sundaram, and Chin (2002), Morgan and Inks
over as marginal or unprofitable. (2001), Schillewaert et al. (2005), and Speier and Venkatesh
(2002).
Acquisition, Development, and Retention This research focuses on individual adoption of technol-
ogy, or the important question of how to get salespeople to
Analytical CRM offers many opportunities to more efficiently use the technology (e.g., Jones, Surandam, and Chin 2002;
and effectively manage customer relationships. In the cus- Schillewaert et al. 2005). The operational issues are far broader,
tomer acquisition stage, predictive models are used to score however, and include many other areas, such as the use of
and select which prospects or potential customers to target. technology for organizational coordination, understanding
For current customers, advanced analytical techniques are used situations when technology is successful/effective, how tech-
 Spring 2005 177

nology makes a rep/team more effective, as well as strategic pensively the content and nature of communication events,
issues related to the purpose and mission of the technology in and (d) to more selectively control access and participation in
an organization. a communication event or network” (1990, p. 50). Such com-
munication effects could be realized through increases in such
Adoption Research salesperson abilities and behaviors as enhanced knowledge,
more effective customer targeting, better call planning, and
Jones, Surandam, and Chin (2002), Morgan and Inks (2001), enhanced sales presentation skills.
Schillewaert et al. (2005), and Speier and Venkatesh (2002) Moderating variables that facilitate or enhance the effects
examine the adoption of sales technology, focusing on the of sales technology usage are also important to consider. They
salesperson as the unit of analysis. Primarily, they examined are likely to include individual (sales experience, time in ter-
main effect antecedents of individual technology adoption. ritory, learning orientation), managerial (manager use of tech-
Given the transition of many sales forces from individual to nology, territory size), organizational (technology training
team selling structures (Moon and Armstrong 1994), research and support), and industry-level (data intensity of industry)
focusing on factors leading to sales team adoption of technol- moderators. For example, new sales representatives may ben-
ogy is becoming more important. Many of the same con- efit more from sales technology, because it can provide them
structs are likely to affect team adoption through individual with a great deal of information about their customers, prod-
adoption such as ease of use, usefulness, training, technology ucts, and competitors, whereas more experienced sales reps
support, and personal innovativeness. However, many team- would benefit less due to their established knowledge and
level factors may also become important, such as other team experience with their customer. Another example is that in-
members’ use of technology, shared knowledge, levels of per- dustries that are more data intensive (e.g., pharmaceutical or
sonal versus virtual communication, team cohesiveness, and financial services) may benefit more from sales technology
physical office/home proximity. due to increased efficiency in handling and managing large
In addition to these main effect antecedents, moderators amounts of data about products and customers. Understand-
that become important in sales settings may be of particular ing variables that facilitate or enhance the effect of technol-
interest. For example, adoption levels of sales representatives ogy on salesperson efficiency and effectives should be a high
with a high learning orientation (versus low) may be affected priority.
to a greater extent by organizational facilitators such as tech-
nology training and support, as well as factors such as peer Organizational Coordination
usage of technology, customer interest in technology, and com-
petitor utilization of technology. A major function of CRM tools is to help salespeople coordi-
nate their efforts with peers, inside sales, customer service,
Outcomes Research engineering, and marketing. Research should examine the ex-
tent to which these technologies are used to engage in cus-
Organizations implementing CRM believe that supplying tomer contact coordination, under what circumstances, and
information technology (IT) to their sales representatives will with what effect on outcomes such as customer loyalty and
enable them to achieve higher levels of performance. Specifi- customer purchasing behavior. As was discussed earlier, there
cally, managers perceive that IT will contribute to greater sales, are strategic issues involved also, such as the development of a
customer service, customer satisfaction, and enhanced rela- culture that supports cross-functional coordination and CRM.
tionships. Research in outcomes of sales technology usage Similarly, with open information systems and the appro-
needs to examine the circumstances under which such usage priate level of coordination comes the need for control. While
leads to higher levels of salesperson effectiveness, efficiency, there has been limited research on the sales and marketing
and customer satisfaction. Developing methods to measure interface (Dewsnap and Jobber 2000) and more on market-
return on investment (ROI) in CRM technology should be ing and other areas of the firm (e.g., Sethi, Smith, and Park
important to practitioners and researchers alike. 2001), there has been little on the interaction of sales with
An important step is to test the possible mediators and other areas. If a purpose of CRM is to enhance the customer’s
moderators of the relationship of sales technology on effec- experience within the new dominant logic of marketing (cf.
tiveness and efficiency. For example, Huber hypothesized that Vargo and Lusch 2004), then how does the salesperson con-
communication capabilities mediate the effect of IT adop- tribute when service functions are carried out elsewhere in
tion as individuals are able “(a) to communicate more easily the firm? Is the role of the salesperson merely to coordinate,
and less expensively across time and geographic location, (b) to or can the salesperson design service augmentation? These,
communicate more rapidly and with greater precision to tar- and similar questions, arise when the need for greater organi-
geted groups, (c) to record and index more reliably and inex- zational coordination is confronted.
178 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 3
Research Questions on Operational CRM Issues

Adoption of CRM
• What factors lead to the adoption of CRM in the sales force (individual, team, manager, company, and industry levels)?
• Are there certain contexts or conditions (moderators) that impact these antecedents to CRM adoption?
• What additional factors are important when studying the adoption of CRM in sales teams (versus individuals)?
• Are the same factors important when examining adoption in such sales roles as call centers, sales support, or account management (as in
traditional sales roles)?
Outcomes of CRM Usage
• How can we measure the ROI of sales technology? At what point (if any) following the implementation of a new technology does a
company realize a return?
• Does sale technology usage lead to higher levels of salesperson effectiveness (e.g., sales, quotas, or manager evaluations), efficiency (e.g.,
average number of sales calls per day or proposals written), and customer satisfaction?
• Does the use of sales technology lead to increases in such salesperson abilities and behaviors as enhanced market and technical knowledge,
more effective customer targeting, better call planning, and enhanced sales presentation skills?
• Are there conditions in which technology usage leads to decreased (versus increased) effectiveness and efficiency, or are there conditions
that help facilitate increases in effectiveness and efficiency?
• Does the use of sales technology enable higher levels of cooperation/coordination among salespeople (sales team members), inside sales,
customer service, engineering, and post-sale service?
Strategic Issues Relating to Operational CRM
• Should the behaviors (who to contact, with what frequency, and what message) of a salesperson be centrally managed with the use of CRM
analytics, or should the salesperson be armed with more information from which to make these decisions?
• What is the effect of such strategies on salesperson job performance, job satisfaction, and turnover?

Strategic Effect on Operational Issues management (TQM) and excellence, the reality is that the
practice of marketing has changed significantly. Multichan-
Companies implementing CRM technologies select one of nel customer-facing strategies, internal communications abili-
two major organizational philosophies with regard to how ties, and other factors have affected, and will continue to
they plan to manage their sales force. The first approach arms affect, sales forces. In sales-intensive settings, these changes
the salesperson with information about customers, products, have raised many research questions.
and competitors in the hopes that the salesperson will use At the strategic level, issues concerning account manage-
these technology tools to develop strategies on how to man- ment and organizational structure are being addressed by prac-
age their territories. The other strategy is to manage the sales titioners. Ingram, LaForge, and Leigh (2002) raised the issue
force centrally by providing sales representatives with direc- of span of control and how it is being influenced by technol-
tion as to which customers to contact, at what frequency, and ogy; there are, however, many more issues driven by the adop-
with what message to deliver based on the modeling of cen- tion of a CRM strategy. We have identified a few, such as
tralized data. Some argue that this method takes away the how CRM will influence territory design, account coverage,
advantage of professional selling, which relies, in large part, and sales force structure.
on such principles as adaptive selling. Others argue that cen- Also at the strategic level, there are significant questions sur-
tral management allows for a more effective global analysis of rounding the effect of environmental and cultural factors on
customer contact that will yield superior returns. Research the adoption of CRM and other go-to-market strategies that
examining the benefits and weaknesses of these two opera- will affect the sales force. At the heart of the conundrum is the
tional strategies would be quite useful. tug between those factors that influence adoption of specific
In short, operational issues concerning the implementa- CRM and sales strategies, and those that influence CRM and
tion and maintenance of a CRM strategy raise a number of sales strategy success. While these may be the same factors,
interesting research questions. Summarized in Table 3, the research is needed to understand what drives success in the
issues raised here are meant to serve as a starting point for this new economy, particularly within sales-intensive organizations.
incredibly fertile area of study. Analytical CRM is the use of data to develop relationship
strategies. There is little doubt that technology has enabled
SUMMARY salespeople to capture and share more data than ever before.
There are, however, limitations on the amount and nature of
Whether or not the term customer relationship management data collected in sales-intensive settings. Further, the model
will go the way of other business fads such as total quality of the one-rep/one-relationship no longer applies in a multi-
 Spring 2005 179

channel world. The implications of wider and deeper knowl- Goldenberg, B. (1996), “Re-Engineering Sales & Marketing with
edge, and utilization of that knowledge, beg exploration. Advanced Information Delivery Systems,” Sales & Market-
Operational CRM also creates interesting research questions. ing Management, 148 (Special Supplement), S1–S31.
Assuming an adoption of CRM, operational issues such as cross- Herschel, Gareth (2001), “The Three Categories of CRM
Analytics,” Gartner Group Research Report SPA-22–7274,
functional coordination rise in importance. Of course, as with
Stamford, CT.
all sales research, understanding the effect on performance is Huber, G. (1990), “A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Infor-
central to understanding CRM in a sales-intensive setting. mation Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence,
There are, no doubt, many other interesting and worth- and Decision Making,” Academy of Management Review, 15
while research opportunities available, the nexus of technol- (1), 47–71.
ogy, CRM, and sales-intensive go-to-market strategies provide Ingram, Thomas N., Raymond W. LaForge, and Thomas W.
myriad opportunities for exciting research. These may have Leigh (2002), “Selling in the New Millennium: A Joint
been many of the same issues some 40 years ago (cf. Jones et Agenda,” Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 7 (Octo-
al. 2005, this issue), but there is something magically differ- ber), 559–577.
ent about this point in time that energizes research for the Jain, Dipak, and Siddharta Singh (2002), “Customer Lifetime
Value Research in Marketing: A Review and Future Direc-
next 25 years.
tions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (2), 34–46.
Jones, Eli, S. Sundaram, and Wynne Chin (2002), “Factors Lead-
REFERENCES ing to Sales Force Automation Use,” Journal of Personal Sell-
ing & Sales Management 22, 3 (Summer), 145–156.
Anderson, James C., and James A. Narus (2003), “Selectively Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A.
Pursuing More of Your Customer’s Business,” Sloan Man- Weitz (2005), “The Changing Environment of Selling and
agement Review, 44 (3), 42–49. Sales Management,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Man-
Bauer, Gerald J., Mark S. Baunchalk, Thomas N. Ingram, and agement, 25, 2 (Spring), 105–111.
Raymond W. LaForge, eds. (1998), Emerging Trends in Sales Knott, Aaron, Andrew Hayes, and Scott A. Neslin (2002), “Next-
Thought and Practice, Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Product-to-Buy Models for Cross-Selling Applications,”
Buttle, Francis (2004), Customer Relationship Management: Con- Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (Summer), 59–75.
cepts and Tools, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Kotler, Philip (1977), “From Sales Obsession to Marketing Ef-
Buytendijk, Frank, and Gareth Herschel (2001), “Analytical Skills fectiveness,” Harvard Business Review, 55, 6 (November–
Make All the Difference in CRM,” Gartner Group Research December), 1–9.
Report SPA-14–7196, Stamford, CT. LaForge, Raymond W., Clifford E. Young, and Curtis Hamm
Campbell, T. (1998), “Beating the Sales Force Technophobia,” (1983), “Increasing Sales Productivity Through Improved
Sales & Marketing Management, 150 (December), 68–72. Sales Call Allocation Strategies,” Journal of Personal Selling
Churchill, Gilbert, Neil Ford, Orville Walker, Mark Johnston, & Sales Management, 3, 2 (November), 53–59.
and Greg Marshall (2004), Sales Force Management, 7th Leigh, Thomas W., and Greg W. Marshall (2001), “Research
ed., Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Priorities in Sales Strategy and Performance,” Journal of Per-
Day, George (2001), “Capabilities for Forging Customer Rela- sonal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 83–93.
tionships,” Marketing Science Institute Report 00–118, Levin, Nissan, and Jacob Zahavi (2001), “Predictive Modeling
Cambridge, MA. Using Segmentation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15
Desisto, Robert P. (2003), “Future of Selling and Technology: (Spring), 2–22.
Questions and Answers,” Gartner Group Research Report Marshall, Greg W., William C. Moncrief, and Felicia G. Lassk
QA-19–5652, Stamford, CT. (1999), “The Current State of Sales Force Activities,” In-
——— (2004a), “A Sales Analytics Hierarchy of Needs,” Gartner dustrial Marketing Management, 28, 1 (January), 87–95.
Group Research Report T-14–5545, Stamford, CT. Moncrief, William C. (1986), “Selling Activity and Sales Posi-
——— (2004b), “Sales Metrics Are a Prerequisite to Analytics,” tion Taxonomies for Industrial Salesforces,” Journal of Mar-
Gartner Group Research Report SPA-22–5815, Stamford, keting Research, 23 (August), 261–270.
CT. Moon, Mark A., and Gary M. Armstrong (1994), “Selling Teams:
———, Joe Galvin, and Dale Hagemeyer (2004), “Hype Cycle A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda,” Journal of
for CRM for Sales, 2004,” Gartner Group Research Re- Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 1 (Winter), 17–30.
port G00120930, Stamford, CT. Morgan, A., and Scott Inks (2001), “Technology and the Sales
Dewsnap, Belinda, and David Jobber (2000), “The Sales–Mar- Force,” Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (5), 463–472.
keting Interface in Consumer Packaged Goods: A Concep- Nelson, Scott (2004), “CRM Is Dead; Long Live CRM,” in
tual Framework,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Defying the Limits, 5th ed., John Freeland, ed., San Fran-
Management 20, 2 (Spring), 109–120. cisco: Montgomery Research, 194–195.
Dwyer, Robert, and John F. Tanner, Jr. (2001), Business Market- Niraj, Rakesh, Mahendra Gupta, and Chakravarthi Narasimhan
ing: Connecting Strategy, Relationships, and Learning, 2d ed., (2001), “Customer Profitability in a Supply Chain,” Jour-
Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. nal of Marketing, 65 (July), 1–16.
180 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Peltier, James W., John A. Schibrowsky, and John Davis (1998), Stone, Merlin, Matt Hobbs, and Mahnaz Khaleeli (2002), “Mul-
“Using Attitudinal and Descriptive Database Information tichannel Customer Management: The Benefits and Chal-
to Understand Interactive Buyer–Seller Relationships,” Jour- lenges,” Journal of Database Management, 10 (1), 39–53.
nal of Interactive Marketing, 12 (Summer), 32–45. Thomas, Jacquelyn S., Robert C. Blattberg, and Edward Fox
Radcliffe, John, Kimberly Collins, and Jennifer Kirkby (2001), (2004), “Recapturing Lost Customers,” Journal of Market-
“Customer Information is the Lifeblood of CRM,” Gartner ing Research, 41 (February), 31–45.
Group Research Report DF-14–9264, Stamford, CT. van Raaij, Erik M., Maarten J.A. Vernooij, and Sander van Triest
Reinartz, Werner, Manfred Krafft, and Wayne D. Hoyer (2004), (2003), “The Implementation of Customer Profitability
“The Customer Relationship Management Process: Its Analysis: A Case Study,” Industrial Marketing Management,
Measurement and Impact on Performance,” Journal of 32 (7), 573–583.
Marketing Research, 41 (3), 269–280. Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a
Rigby, Darrell K., and Dianne Ledingham (2004), “CRM Done New Dominant Logic in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing,
Right,” Harvard Business Review, 82 (11), 118–129. 68 (1), 1–25.
Schillewaert, Niels, Michael Ahearne, Ruud Frambach, and Rudy von Hipple, Eric (1988), The Sources of Innovation, New York:
Moenaert (2005), “The Adoption of Technology in the Sales Oxford University Press.
Force,” Industrial Marketing Management, 34 (4), 323–336. Weitz, Barton A., Stephen B. Castleberry, and John F. Tanner, Jr.
Schultz, Roberta J., and David J. Good (2000), “Impact of the (2004), Selling: Building Partnerships, 5th ed., Burr Ridge,
Consideration of Future Sales Consequences and Customer- IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Oriented Selling on Long-Term Buyer–Seller Relationships,” Workman, John P., Christian Homburg, and Ove Jensen (2002),
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15 (4), 200–214. “Intraorganizational Determinants of Key Account Man-
Sethi, Rajesh, Daniel C. Smith, and C. Whan Park (2001), agement,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31
“Cross-Functional Product Development Teams, Creativ- (Winter), 3–22.
ity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products,” Wotruba, Thomas (1996), “The Transformation of Industrial
Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (1), 73–86. Selling: Causes and Consequences,” Industrial Marketing
Sharma, Arun (2002), “Trends in Internet Based Business-to- Management, 25 (5), 327–339.
Business Marketing,” Industrial Marketing Management, 31 Zeithaml, Valarie A., Roland T. Rust, and Katherine N. Lemon
(2), 77–84. (2001), “The Customer Pyramid: Creating and Solving
Speier, Cheri, and Viswanath Venkatesh (2002), “The Hidden Profitable Customers,” California Management Review, 43
Minefields in the Adoption of Sales Force Automation Tech- (4), 118–142.
nologies,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (July), 98–111.

View publication stats