RELATIONSHIP MARKETING AND THE NATURE OF MARKET RELATIONSHIPS
Given RM’s undoubted popularity and intuitive appeal, the diversity in operational approaches
employed, and the lack of accepted definitions, it has become impossible to limit its domain.
Today, RM is embraced by both practitioners and academics in a wide range of markets and
contexts (O’Malley and Tynan 2000). Whereas some scholars are convinced of the existence of
one overall RM theory, others argue that RM is context-specific. For instance, Reinartz and
Kumar (2000) present empirical findings that show that the contractual vs the noncontractual
setting have consequences on relationships. These authors challenge the RM literature showing
that long-life customers and relationships are not necessarily profitable (Reinartz and Kumar 2003). But, the current discussion has been characterized more by rhetoric than by rigorous examination of what the concept actually involves, bypassing sound theory development. As Palmer (2000) refers, only a limited amount of empirical work has been conducted and till now the concept is only something ambiguous and not-specific. Researchers seemed, however, suggesting that a term such RM, involving a vague notion of the term “relationships” was bound to generate multiple definitions. According to Egan (2003, 151), although “breadth of domain” has always been an issue, arguments appear to be coalescing around two, perhaps, irreconcilable,
camps of researchers. First is a narrower viewpoint (solely concerned with the customer-supplier
dyad or market-based theory) but with a distinctly broader application (even to consumer
markets, extending the term relationships to non-personal, technology driven contact associated
with direct marketing and lately CRM). The second is a broad definition of RM (embracing a
wide range of relationships or network-based theory), but with a narrow application (its benefits
appear limited to certain industries and situations) (Payne 2000). A second feature of this divide
appears to be between the non-American (Nordic and Anglo-Australian approaches) and
American researchers, which appear to be leading the move to a narrower form more than their
European and southern hemisphere colleagues, who defend a holistic, multi-dimensional
definition of RM (Sheth and Parvatiyar 2000).
请勿用在线翻译