Where does customer engagement collide?

Customer engagement treated as a psychological state that a customer reaches through interactive, value-creating experiences with a brand or firm. Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, and Ilić's 2011 Customer Engagement in the Journal of Service Research built a foundational conceptual model, arguing that engagement is context-dependent, varies in intensity, and has thinking, feeling, and acting parts that recur through repeated interaction. This is a foundational treatment on the map: it fixes engagement as an inner state of investment in a relationship, and it is a different thing from the same word used in organizational behavior, where engagement names an employee's absorption in their job rather than a buyer's connection to a brand.[1]

Unit

One customer's state of investment in a brand relationship

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Framed conceptually across thinking, feeling, and acting parts, prior to any single scale

The same construct modeled as observable behavior rather than an inner state: what customers do for or against a firm beyond the act of purchase, such as posting reviews, recommending, helping other customers, or complaining. Van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, Pick, Pirner, and Verhoef's 2010 Customer Engagement Behavior in the Journal of Service Research defined these behaviors, laid out their drivers, and mapped their consequences for the firm. It is the same underlying investment as the conceptual model names, but located in action a firm can count, which is a different treatment from a felt state inside the customer and a different thing again from an employee's engagement at work.[2]

Unit

One customer's behavioral act toward a firm beyond a transaction

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Catalogued by type of behavior, its valence, and its impact on the firm

The construct pinned down as a measurement instrument. Hollebeek, Glynn, and Brodie's 2014 Consumer Brand Engagement in Social Media in the Journal of Interactive Marketing developed and validated a scale with three dimensions: cognitive processing, affection, and activation, so that engagement could be scored and related to other variables. This treatment turns the earlier conceptual state into numbers on a survey, which is why it can look like a distinct construct even though it models the same customer investment; it is one model treatment among several here, and unrelated to the work-engagement scales built for employees in organizational research.[3]

Unit

One customer's score across cognition, affect, and activation toward a brand

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Self-report survey items loading on cognitive processing, affection, and activation

The construct widened to cover people who are not yet, or not only, buyers. Vivek, Beatty, and Morgan's 2012 Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase in the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice defined engagement as the intensity of an individual's participation in and connection with a firm's offerings or activities, whether initiated by the customer or the firm, and covering current and potential customers. It names the same investment as the other treatments but stretches the boundary past the purchase relationship, so its object is broader than a buyer's felt state, a firm-directed behavior, or a scale score, and broader still than an employee's engagement with a job.[4]

Unit

One person's intensity of participation and connection with a firm

Recovery means

Not applicable

Measured by

Survey items on conscious attention, enthused participation, and social connection