AUTHOR MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED VERSION
Journal of Business Research
Accepted 19 July 2019, Available online 30 July 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.027
Overcoming Vulnerability: Channel Design Strategies to Alleviate
Vulnerability Perceptions in Customer Journeys
Jens Hogreve a, Nancy V. Wünderlich b,*, Ilma Nur Chowdhury c,
Hannes Fleischer a, Sahar Mousavi d, Julia Rötzmeier-Keuper b, Rui
Sousa e
a Ingolstadt School of Management, Catholic University of
Eichstaett- Ingolstadt, Germany
b School of Business Administration and Economics, Paderborn
University, Germany
c Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of
Manchester, United Kingdom
d School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University,
United Kingdom
e School of Economics and Management, Catholic University of
Portugal (Porto), Portugal
* Corresponding author:
Prof. Dr. Nancy V. Wünderlich
Chair of Service Management
University of Paderborn
Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany
Phone: +49 5251 60 3075
eMail: [email protected]
Channel Design Strategies to Alleviate Vulnerability in Customer
Journeys
Abstract
Research has shown that any individual consumer, regardless of
membership in any particular class, may experience vulnerability in
the marketplace. While studies have identified core determinants of
customer vulnerability states and perceptions and outlined their
impact on consumers and firms, there is little research on how
channel design, as part of service design strategies, can be
employed to alleviate or prevent states and perceptions of
vulnerability. This study extends the current literature on
customer vulnerability by developing a framework that delineates
determinants and consequences of vulnerability that manifest in
problems of accessing or processing resources. We outline three
relevant channel design strategies that service providers might
employ to alleviate vulnerability: (1) flexibility through multiple
multichannel paths, (2) guidance through constrained channel paths
and (3) proactive initiation of interactions. Additionally, we
propose a future research agenda and offer recommendations for
managerial practice regarding how to identify customer
vulnerability and employ countermeasures.
Keywords: Channel management; Channel design; Customer
vulnerability; Customer journey mapping; Transformative service
research
1. Introduction
Across multiple service contexts consumers experience
vulnerability because they cannot access or consume services in the
marketplace. For example, hearing-disabled commuters who cannot
understand loudspeaker announcements on service platforms, bank
customers who are under emotional stress while making far-reaching
financial decisions and welfare recipients who fear being
stigmatized if they are observed while publicly showing their
social welfare ID in order to get discounts, might all share a
feeling of vulnerability – a state of powerlessness and lack of
control – leaving them to feel dependent on a service provider’s
support (Baker, Gentry, & Rittenburg, 2005; Rosenbaum,
Seger-Guttmann, & Giraldo, 2017). Studies have shown that
customers feel vulnerable for a number of reasons (Edwards,
Rosenbaum, Brosdahl, & Hughes Jr., 2018). Next to physical
disabilities or individual characteristics of the customer, the
service design, in particular the choice of channels that are made
available to customers along their journey, might directly impact
their vulnerability perceptions. Considering the possibilities for
reaching out to customers through different channels – such as
offline, online, mobile or social channels – we propose that
channel design initiatives are important means of addressing
customer vulnerability across the customer journey. The
availability of multiple channels (both offline and online) that
customers can individually combine at each stage of the journey can
improve customers’ experiences and well-being by allowing them to
choose those touchpoints with which they are most comfortable. For
example, consumers in rural areas may be able to get remote
consultations with medical experts they would not have been able to
see personally because of travel distances.
While service research has identified the core determinants of
customer vulnerability and outlined their impact on customers and
firms (e.g. Baker et al., 2005), there is little research on how
channel design strategies can be employed to alleviate and prevent
perceptions of vulnerability (Edwards et al., 2018). This study
contributes to customer vulnerability research by developing a
framework delineating determinants and consequences of perceived
customer vulnerability that result in problems in accessing or
processing resources.
We identify and illustrate three relevant channel design
strategies that service providers can employ to alleviate
vulnerability along the stages of the customer journey. First,
service providers can offer flexibility through multiple channel
paths and enable their customers to select the channel path
(sequence of channels used along the stages) which maximizes their
ability to maintain control. This strategy requires providers to
make multiple channels available and allow customers to switch
between channels at each stage of their journey. Second, service
providers might offer guidance through constrained channel paths.
This strategy requires providers to anticipate and predefine the
best channel path for the individual customer and guide him/her
through this path, purposefully alleviating the customer from the
burden of choosing the most appropriate path. A third strategic
decision entails to offer proactive support through interaction
initiation during the customer journey. The method of initiating an
interaction and the level of interactivity can be altered for every
stage and channel a provider offers to its customers.
This article makes several theoretical and managerial
contributions. First, we contribute to the literature on customer
vulnerability by offering a conceptual framework that integrates
the determinants and the outcomes of vulnerability states and
perceptions with a set of channel design strategies intended to
alleviate vulnerability. Second, we contribute to channel
management literature by pointing out how channel design decisions
impact vulnerability states and perceptions. Third, in line with
the understanding of transformative service research that services
can go beyond purely market-oriented measures and create “uplifting
changes” in the lives of individuals (Anderson et al., 2013), our
research shows how companies can improve social participation
through careful service design, in particular, channel design.
Finally, we contribute to the customer journey literature by
proposing the integration of new elements into customer journey
maps that allows a better understanding of vulnerable customers’
experience.
2. Customer Vulnerability States and Perceptions
Customer vulnerability “occurs when control is not in an
individual’s hands, creating a dependence on external factors (e.g.
marketers) to create fairness in the marketplace” (Baker et al.,
2005, p. 134). The definition highlights two characteristics of
vulnerability: (1) vulnerability is a perceived state of
powerlessness within a market interaction (Baker et al., 2005), and
(2) vulnerability is dependent on situational and contextual
factors (Commuri & Ekici, 2008). Customer vulnerability occurs
when an individual is unable to realize the maximum level of value
from a service (Rosenbaum et al., 2017) and is dependent on the
service provider to help him/her realize the desired outcome.
Customers may feel “underserved, ignored, or excluded on a regular
basis from the marketplace that they seek to experience”
(Kaufman-Scarborough, 2015, p. 157).
Previous research asserts that vulnerability is a situational
and temporary state rather than a persistent condition (Baker et
al., 2005; Ford, Trott, & Simms, 2016). While it is accepted
that some people are more likely to experience vulnerability than
others, it is equally accepted that these predispositions do not
necessarily cause a lack of control and therefore a perception of
vulnerability (Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997). Rather, context
often determines a vulnerability (Canhoto & Dibb, 2016). Every
customer has the potential to feel vulnerable when placed in a
consumption situation over which he or she has little control. As
customers play an active role in creating value from services or
products (Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Lusch & Vargo, 2006), the
co-creation process requires access to and processing of different
types of resources such as facilities (e.g. store), people (e.g.
store staff), goods (e.g. ATM or product on a shelf) and
information. Thus, in a service context vulnerability can manifest
in two fundamental dimensions (1) accessing resources and (2)
processing resources.
Accessing resources. Customers need to possess the knowledge and
capabilities to co-create a service and to obtain value from access
to a variety of value-creating elements, such as labour, skills,
expertise, goods, facilities, networks and systems (Lengnick-Hall,
1996; Bettencourt, Ostrom, Brown, & Roundtree, 2002; Wirtz
& Lovelock, 2016). A lack of access (e.g. by sight, sound or
touch) to the resources necessary to co-create the service hinders
customers from reaching consumption goals and thereby causes states
and perceptions of vulnerability. While a service might be
generally available, some consumers may encounter difficulties in
accessing that service. For example, a city may provide a
sufficient number of hospitals for its citizens, but some
individuals might be unable to access the information necessary to
use the hospital, e.g., where the hospital is located or how to get
there on their own.
Processing resources. From a consumer behaviour perspective,
vulnerability is also an expression of challenges arising when
customers process resources of different types such as goods or
information. For example, if the ability of a customer to process
information is limited due to individual customer characteristics
or situational states, the customer might be unable to make optimal
decisions and realize the optimal level of value during a market
interaction (Rosenbaum et al., 2017). A customer making a decision
under time pressure might not be able to process the information
necessary to achieve the maximum possible value. Challenges also
arise in the processing of goods, e.g. technological equipment. For
instance, while technological developments can offer additional
benefits for customers, there is evidence that customer frustration
with technology-based systems increases simultaneously with such
developments (Parasuraman, 2000). We assume that even if customers
have access to the latest technology, individuals who are less
technologically savvy may not know how to use modern technological
devices and therefore cannot participate in market transactions
that involve a higher degree of technology.
3. Channel Design
Service design has been defined as “the activity of planning and
organizing people, infrastructure, communication, and material
components of a service in order to improve its quality and the
interaction between service providers and customers” (Andreassen et
al., 2016, p. 22). Understanding customers, the context under which
they consume a service and their social practices is an integral
part of service design strategies (Evenson, 2008). Service design
is a holistic approach and multidisciplinary field, that crosses
marketing, human resources, operations, organizational structure,
and technology disciplines (Ostrom et al., 2010) and applies
various methods and tools such as service blueprinting or personas
(Teixeira et al., 2012). Within our research, we focus on channel
design that has been discussed under the umbrella of service design
strategies (Patrício et al., 2011) as well as customer journeys as
a valuable framework to use in the service design process
(Zomerdijk and Voss, 2010).
3.1 Channel Design along the Customer Journey
With the profusion of technology-based channels and omnichannel
services, channel design has become key in offering customer
journeys and experiences in accordance with individual customer
needs. The customer journey consists of a set of sequential stages
during the course of service delivery in which the customer
interacts with the provider. Although the stages in a customer
journey may be partitioned in different ways (Engel et al., 1986;
Bitran and Lojo 1993; Walker 1995; Edvardsson and Olsson, 1996),
for the purpose of conceptualizing customer experience a common
approach has been to consider three broad stages, namely
prepurchase, purchase and postpurchase for journeys in general
(Lemon and Verhoef, 2016) and pre-core, core and post-core for
service journeys in particular (Voorhees et al., 2017). Service
channels are the means of communication that support customer
interactions at each stage of the customer journey (Neslin et al.,
2006). Service outcomes are co-created via customer–provider
interactions through multiple channels along the several stages of
the journey (Chandler & Lusch, 2015). Designers of multichannel
paths along the customer journey typically specify (i) the
multichannel paths (flows) to be offered to customers (system
architecture and navigation) and (ii) the detailed customer
interactions at each stage / service encounters (Patrício, Fisk,
& Falcão e Cunha, 2011).
Channels can be classified as physical (physical facilities such
as stores or trains) and virtual (technology-based channels) (Sousa
& Voss, 2006). Physical channels allow for richer interactions
with service employees and increased perceptions of security.
Virtual channels tend to offer superior convenience (e.g. 24/7
remote access), information availability and privacy. Virtual
channels based on the internet and mobile devices have great
potential to empower and provide customers with control during the
customer journey; they also offer opportunities for firms to
proactively lead customers through the journey. For examples, firms
may use knowledge about where a customer is in a journey (e.g.
disembarking a train) to lead him/her into subsequent interactions
in an efficient way (e.g. moving to another platform to board a
connecting train) and personalize the journey to each customer
based on past history and analytics (Edelman & Singer, 2015).
Mobile devices are especially suitable for directly interacting
with other channels and seeking assistance across the customer
journey (Berry, Davis, & Wilmet, 2015).
3.2 Customer Preferences for Channels and Provider Operational
Requirements
Different channels have intrinsically distinct attributes, both
in terms of ease of access (e.g. speed and convenience) and
interface (e.g. personal contact, customization, information
richness; Sousa, Amorim, Rabinovich, & Sodero, 2015).
Consequently, they differ in their ability to meet customers’
preferences as well as to enable the provider to operationally
support different stages of the customer journey (Sousa, Amorim,
Pinto, & Magalhães, 2016). Thus, providers need to account for
customer channel preferences and balance them with their own
operational requirements.
From the customer perspective, research has shown that customers
frequently have intrinsic preferences for different channels. These
preferences are often associated with personal characteristics such
as age, aversion to risk or propensity to use technology (Patrício,
Fisk, & Falcão e Cunha, 2008). Customers also often have
different channel preferences for distinct service stages (Gensler,
Verhoef, & Böhm, 2012). These differences result from the
characteristics of a stage, such as frequency of use, complexity
and risk (Sousa et al., 2015). For example, Polo and Sese (2016)
found that customers prefer online channels for communication
interactions and offline channels for purchase interactions. As a
consequence, different customers may prefer different multichannel
paths along the customer journey (Konuş, Verhoef, & Neslin,
2008). These preferences may also vary over time for a particular
customer based on situational factors (e.g. distance from physical
service facilities, time pressure or lack of mobility; Monsuwé,
Dellaert, & de Ruyter, 2004), past channel experiences or
channel choices made in prior stages (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016).
Moreover, the design of these multichannel paths influences
customer perceptions (Sousa & Voss, 2006).
From the provider perspective, the design of multichannel paths
strongly influences key operational performance metrics, such as
cost or speed of delivery (Sousa et al., 2016). In general,
offering additional channel paths to customers may lead to reduced
operational efficiency due to the need to support and coordinate
the same stage across multiple channels (Sousa & Amorim,
2018).
3.3 Channel Design for Segmented Customer Groups
Substantial research on multichannel customer journeys has
focused on the design of multichannel paths along a customer
journey for a set of mainstream target customers. However, the
existence of heterogeneous and dynamic customer segments (within
the target markets) in relation to channel preferences is
increasingly recognized (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), and segmenting
customers based on their preference for one channel over another is
considered an important research direction (Ailawadi & Farris,
2017). Yet, little attention has been paid to the determinants
(individual characteristics, individual states and external
conditions) of customer vulnerability as aspects to be addressed
via segmented customer journeys. In addition, while there is
emerging work on the design of customer journeys for customers with
a high potential to perceive vulnerability in market interactions
(Berry et al., 2015), prior work has not systematically addressed
the role of channel design. Specifically, because technology-based
channels have great potential to provide customers with control but
also guide them during the customer journey, they offer substantial
promise to ameliorate vulnerability.
4. A Framework on the Alleviating Effect of Channel Design
Strategies on Customers’ Vulnerability
We propose a conceptual framework that introduces channel design
strategies as a means to alleviate the impact of vulnerability
determinants on perceived customer vulnerability. The framework is
centred on vulnerability states and perceptions that manifest in
problems with accessing and processing resources. Individual
characteristics and states, as well as external conditions can
determine vulnerability that eventually lead to negative outcomes
for customers, firms and society at large. The framework highlights
the alleviating effect of channel design strategies as they play a
focal role in reducing vulnerability and their potential negative
outcomes (see Figure 1).
- Insert figure 1 here -
4.1 Determinants of Vulnerability
The determinants triggering consumers’ perceptions and actual
states of vulnerability can be divided into three categories, two
of which are internal − (1) individual characteristics and (2)
individual states − and one of which is external − (3) any factors
outside of the customer’s personal sphere of influence or control
(Baker et al., 2005).
Individual characteristics tend to be constant over time and
under situational changes (Roe, 1984). They can be biophysical
(disability, race/ethnicity, chronological age, gender, health,
addiction or cognitive deficiencies) or psychosocial (socioeconomic
status, social isolation, resources, assets, acculturation or
self-concept) (Baker et al., 2005). Prior research has explored
individual customer states and characteristics as causes for
vulnerability perceptions (Ford et al., 2016) such as visual
(Crosier & Handford, 2012; Falchetti, Ponchio, & Botelho,
2016), auditive (Abney, White, Shanahan, & Locander, 2017;
Beudaert et al., 2017), physical (Baker, Holland, &
Kaufman-Scarborough, 2007; Downey, 2016) and mental impairments
(Mansfield & Pinto, 2008; Sharma, Conduit, & Rao Hill,
2017). Research analysing blind customers in shopping environments,
for example, has revealed multiple factors that may result in a
lack of control during shopping, including differentiating between
other customers and staff and knowing how much change they receive
(Crosier & Handford, 2012). Although not being a specific
category of impairment, age has also received significant attention
in the literature. While some studies identify older customers as
predisposed to vulnerability based on difficulties during
interactions with product packaging (Ford et al. 2016), other
studies have found no evidence that older customers are more likely
to perceive vulnerability (Mathur & Moschis, 1995; Berg, 2015).
Vulnerability research has also looked at customer minority groups,
including homosexuals (Minton et al., 2017), ethnic minorities
(Hepi et al., 2017) and the poor (Varma & Vijay, 2018).
Research on ethnic minorities, for example, found that these groups
do not have the same access to services such as healthcare,
education or other community services as the local majority group
and thus are and feel vulnerable (Hepi et al., 2017).
The second group of vulnerability determinants is individual
states, which may be unstable and changeable under situational
influences (Roe, 1984). Possible states include mood, grief,
stress, life transition and motivation. Individual states can cause
disorientation and lead customers to avoid decision-making or may
reduce their ability to act in their own best interest (Baker et
al., 2005). For example, Gentry, Kennedy, Paul and Hill (1995) show
that the death of a spouse, forcing the surviving spouse to take
over new responsibilities while simultaneously experiencing grief,
reduces the decision-making capabilities of the surviving spouse.
Such consumers might forget or have insufficient information to pay
bills or manage family finances. In these circumstances, the
customer has little control and is dependent on a service provider,
for example, to not cut off an unpaid telephone line without
consulting the customer. Individual states such as grief can lead
to vulnerability as a lack of access and limitation in processing
resources.
Customer vulnerability can also emerge from external conditions,
which include determinants that are not related to and cannot be
influenced by the individual but rather are rooted in market or
societal conditions (Baker et al., 2005). However, external factors
can also include firm actions such as extensive mailings or
individual store employee behavior that cause customers to feel
powerless and vulnerable. Both actions can deter customers from
accessing the offerings of the firm or from processing detailed
information on the store’s offerings. External factors discussed in
previous research include stigmatization and discrimination by
others (Peñaloza, 1995), the distribution of resources such as
healthcare (Scammon, Li, & Williams, 1995) and food (Shultz,
1997), employment possibilities (Hill, Hirschman, & Bauman,
1996) and physical and logistical elements such as access to retail
facilities and transportation, for instance bus routes (Baker &
Kaufman-Scarborough, 2001; Baker, Stephens, & Hill, 2001; Elms
& Tinson, 2012). While most external conditions clearly
influence access to resources, some conditions, like violence or
oppression, may affect the way customers process information and
interact during the services they are able to access.
4.2 Outcomes of Vulnerability
We differentiate three potential groups affected by outcomes
resulting from vulnerability: (1) the individual customer, (2) the
firm and (3) society. On the customer level, vulnerability may
impact the individual’s present and future perception of self
(Baker et al., 2005) or lead to customers’ social discomfort and
exclusion (Beudaert et al., 2017). Vulnerability can also cause
customers to make sub-optimal decisions because of inadequate,
discriminatory or fraudulent marketplaces and/or communication
activities that, in turn, lead to inferior service quality or the
purchase of harmful products (Shi, Jing, Yang, & Nguyen, 2017;
Rosenbaum et al., 2017). These outcomes reduce quality of life
(Ford et al., 2016) or lead to distress, depression and increased
levels of anxiety (Crews & Campbell, 2004).
Firm-level outcomes include reputation/image, market share,
operational costs and, ultimately, profitability. Consumers with
disabilities represent, e.g., 20% – 54 million − of the US
population (Kaufman-Scarborough & Childers, 2009) and more than
133 million consumers in the -US suffer from a chronic illness,
such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity or
arthritis (National Health Council, 2014). These numbers provide a
clear indication that possible determinants of vulnerability affect
not only a large portion of US society but also a huge percentage
of market participants. Considering that one of the most common
customer responses to perceived vulnerability is coping strategies,
including avoiding or substituting (Beudaert et al., 2017;
Falchetti et al., 2016; Ford et al., 2016), companies that do not
provide an appropriate environment for these customers are likely
to lose their business. Conscientious consumers who put higher
emphasis on ethical consumption especially appreciate companies
that address customer vulnerability issues. Simultaneously, the
growing importance of social media channels has increased the risk
of reputational damage in cases of organizational misbehaviour
(Aula, 2010). Consequently, failing to integrate vulnerable
customers puts companies not only at risk of direct profit loss
based on the excluded customer segment, but also at risk of
negative media coverage, which can have an additional indirect
effect on profits. Finally, reducing customers’ perceptions of
vulnerability in appropriate ways may reduce the costs of service
delivery, for example, by reducing the volume of service failure
and recovery incidents.
The vulnerability states of individuals can affect society at
large. If customer segments are excluded from market participation,
it is the responsibility of government to step in via public policy
to support these customer segments. However, if the number of
excluded customers is too large, overall societal welfare might be
compromised. Additionally, the negative individual outcomes of
perceived vulnerability, such as a reduced quality of life, leading
to distress or depression, may increase costs in the healthcare
sector. Similarly, limited access to resources such as education
can cause long-term negative effects for society in terms of e.g.
lower employment levels.
4.3 Channel Design Strategies to Alleviate Vulnerability States
and Perceptions
4.3.1 Offer Flexibility through Multiple Channel Paths
Service providers control the level of channel choice they offer
to their customers. One strategy to address vulnerability is to
offer multiple channel paths, i.e. combinations of channels and
service stages, so that customers can choose among different
channels for accessing or processing resources and can switch
channels across stages. Customers are enabled to self-select the
most appropriate path and thereby gain the power to circumvent
vulnerability that might exist in other paths that hinder the
access or processing of resources. The customer’s flexibility to
choose the most appropriate channel path for his/her needs depends
on the extent to which the stages are supported by multiple
channels and the specific allocation of channels to stages (Sousa
& Amorim, 2018). In particular, this strategy requires the
provider to make multiple complementary channels available that
allow customers to access a service in different ways; providers
must also integrate the channels across stages. Specifically, firms
should include channels with diverse attributes to meet various
customers’ requirements (e.g. medium, information richness, ease of
access), thus providing a seamless flow along the customer
journey.
Channels may differ in the deployed medium and the amount of
information that can be conveyed via the medium, a notion referred
to as information richness (Daft & Wiginton, 1979). Channels
facilitate information richness via four factors: transmission of
multiple cues (e.g. vocal inflection and gestures), provision of
immediate feedback (prompt responses), use of a variety of
languages (e.g. symbols, numbers, natural language) and personal
focus (e.g. emotions and feelings; Daft & Lengel, 1986).
Offering a continuum of information richness allows customers to
select the optimum degree of information he/she needs to facilitate
information processing. Customers can select the channel that
offers access to the information needed. In the example of a brick
and mortar retailer, information richness could be facilitated by
providing another channel such as a website with product
information in several languages. This would allow customers
experiencing language barriers to access the information and to
engage more effectively in the information search stage.
This strategy tends to be costly because the service stages need
to be duplicated and supported across the multiple channels as well
as integrated such that customers can seamlessly switch from one
channel to another (Sousa & Amorim, 2018). However, providers
do not need to put much effort into gaining knowledge about which
customers have which predispositions to be vulnerable, as customers
can match their individual accessibility, information and
interaction needs to different channels on their own.
While the flexibility of multiple channel paths has the
potential to decrease customer vulnerability, it is important to
note that providers need to always highlight a way for the customer
to exit the channel path, e.g. with an exit button, because not
having the option to opt out of service offerings could cause
customers to feel vulnerable.
4.3.2 Offer Guidance through Constrained Channel Paths
Service providers can restrict the channel paths available to
certain customers based on knowledge about the characteristics and
states that can cause vulnerability. Constraining channel paths
means predefining one or a very limited number of possible paths so
that each stage in the journey is supported typically by only one
channel (for example, in retail, information search and order
placement available online only, followed by collection of the item
at a physical location only; Sousa & Amorim, 2018). Thus,
customers do not need to think about how to proceed through
different stages within the customer journey because they follow a
predefined path to access and process resources necessary for the
service consumption. This strategy reduces complexity and is
therefore especially useful in cases when customers cannot decide
for themselves which channel might cater best to their needs and
abilities. For example, a constrained channel path might be helpful
for customers who feel high levels of stress or who suffer from
behavioural or mental disorders that limit their capacity to handle
complexity and to process information. Customers under stress might
be easily overwhelmed when they enter service situations that
entail selecting between different options and making decisions.
Cognitive overload may hamper information processing. This might
trigger feelings of vulnerability, leading to poor decision-making
and unfavourable service outcomes (Starcke & Brand, 2012).
Identifying stressed customers and directing them through a
standardized channel path that assists this specific customer
segment is the goal of the constrained channel paths strategy. Take
the example of a bank that accepts transactions during online live
chat conversations with customers; these transactions must be
explicitly confirmed by customers. Rather than offering several
channel alternatives for the customer to confirm the transaction
(e.g. a written reply during the live chat session and a deferred
confirmation by email), the bank may require the customer to make
the confirmation via the channel that most effectively alleviates
vulnerability perceptions. In particular, the bank might send the
chat protocol to the customer by email and require the customer to
confirm the transaction by that channel. This would address
vulnerability states and perceptions of customers identified as
suffering from high levels of stress. Constraining the channel path
helps the customer to focus on the relevant information from the
live channel interaction because the non-synchronous channel
(e-mail) offers customers more time for cognitive processing and
decision-making.
The strategy of guiding a customer through constrained channel
paths requires that the provider learns at which stages of the
customer journey and in which channels vulnerabilities may
manifest. Therefore, an initial grasp of the individual customer’s
internal states is needed to identify the channel path that is
suitable to access and process resources and to prevent the
emergence of vulnerability in the later stages of the customer
journey. This requires upfront measurement of the individual states
that affect a customer in the service situation and flexible
allocation of the appropriate constrained channel path for this
customer. This strategy thus calls for in-depth customer knowledge
and data to identify the individual customer’s characteristics and
states as well as understanding the contextual information that
effects vulnerability.
Using the strategy of guidance through constrained channel paths
to ameliorate vulnerability among customers creates the benefit of
increasing operational efficiency because clear customer processes
exist and there is no need to duplicate channels across stages for
certain customer segments. However, the strategy requires
significant effort from providers to obtain customer information
and data to identify the customer’s vulnerability traits, select
the suitable channel path, and guide the customer through the
journey accordingly.
4.3.3 Offer Proactive Support by Initiating Interaction
Independent of the high-level decision on the channel paths,
another important strategic decision entails the specific design of
customer-provider interactions at the different stages of the
customer journey (Patrício et al., 2011). The method of initiating
an interaction and the level of interactivity can be altered for
every stage and channel a provider offers to its customers. Thus,
service providers must design the mode of interaction and decide
who initiates the interaction. Channels can be configured to allow
customers to actively initiate an interaction or they can respond
to provider-initiated interactions. Receiving content through push
media puts the customer in a more passive role, while allowing the
customer to pull the relevant content enables more active
engagement. For example, a railway provider might proactively
initiate interaction with commuters via push Short Message Services
to notify them of an ad-hoc platform change to help mitigate
potential vulnerability among customers who might not be able to
otherwise access this information in a timely manner.
Also, provider-initiated interaction may be useful at
touchpoints where customers may feel too embarrassed to ask for
information. Providers can actively approach customers and, for
example, inform them about different available channels that may
facilitate access to information. Depending on the context,
initiation of interaction can be useful for buffering unexpected
vulnerability effects that may emerge from external conditions,
such as a severe storm that disrupts a train route or schedule.
Pushing information to the affected passengers about possible
evacuation and onward journey options can mitigate vulnerability
perceptions that may have appeared due to insecurity about a
contingency plan. This strategy requires the provider to
systematically identify the touchpoints or events during the
customer journey at which customers may feel vulnerable and decide
which channel is most suitable for initiation of the
interaction.
Multiple provider efforts have to be made to understand when,
where and why a customer vulnerability might manifest. Mapping the
customer journey from the customer’s perspective can be especially
useful in this effort. Providers may also track customers and
contextualize their information as they proceed along the journey
to detect instances in which the customer has increased potential
of experiencing vulnerability. This leads to higher operational
costs and requires implementation of technologies that can track
the necessary data. For example, by installing context-aware
systems (Baldauf, Dustdar, & Rosenberg, 2007), a service
provider can gain information on the customer’s current position
within the customer journey and provide proactive support. Thus,
initiating interaction is a useful strategy in combination with
customer-specific or context-specific information that directs the
relevant content to the relevant interaction partner.
5. Opportunities for Implementation in Managerial Practice
5.1 Customer Journey Mapping to Unveil Potential Paths to
Vulnerability
Our framework implies that vulnerability manifests in service
situations and that channel design strategies can be utilized to
alleviate vulnerability perceptions. Thus, it is important for
service providers to gain awareness of the emergence of customer
vulnerability states and perceptions. A useful method of
systematically recording and analysing customer perceptions along
the customer journey is customer journey mapping. This involves
mapping co-creation activities and events in the service delivery
process from the customer’s perspective (Zomerdijk & Voss,
2010), and it allows managers to clarify design strategies for
managing the entire process through which customers go (Lemon &
Verhoef, 2016). Managers outline the steps of a customer journey
and visualize the core interactions, the utilized channels and the
emotional reactions of a customer in each distinct layer of the
map. This tool is used in managerial practice to identify important
process steps from a customer perspective. Apart from sketching
interactions and activities, customer journey mapping is
increasingly being used to understand how customers feel and what
their motivations and attitudes are across a journey (Zomerdijk
& Voss, 2010). While mapping emotional journeys is growing in
popularity, it is still underrepresented in managerial practice
(e.g. Crosier & Handford, 2012; McColl-Kennedy et al., 2017).
We propose that customer journey mapping can be effectively adapted
to unveil the service interactions and activities that typically
facilitate the formation of vulnerability perceptions. Therefore,
we propose the addition of two additional layers to the classical
journey map.
First, managers should outline the interactions or steps in the
customer journey at which vulnerability perceptions could arise due
to problems in accessing or processing resources. Second, managers
should indicate the level of perceived vulnerability customers
experience. An example of a customer journey map with these
additional layers is depicted in Figure 2.
-Insert figure 2 here-.
Figure 2 depicts a customer journey map of a train ride. The
core service stages are shown in the top layer, which contains
information about customer interactions in a logical sequence. The
next layer represents the general channels made available by the
provider to the customer that enable the interaction at each
touchpoint. The additional layers depict the dimensions of
vulnerability perception in either accessing or processing
resources for a customer at that particular touchpoint and his/her
corresponding vulnerability perception as well as emotional
reactions. This provides insights into how vulnerability
perceptions unfold over the service journey and which touchpoints
are critical, calling for potential redesign. The journey map can
reveal the link between vulnerability perceptions and individual
customer journey paths, which may inform future service
interactions as well as helping to identify similar profiles,
facilitating customer segmentation. Customers with similar
vulnerability profiles may be grouped into a distinct customer
segment based on the vulnerability journey. Service providers need
to measure the vulnerability states or perceptions of their
customers within the customer journey and identify whether these
perceptions manifest in deficiencies in accessing resources or
processing resources. Multiple vulnerability profiles can be
developed based on the service journeys customers are likely to
take and the potential problems that they might encounter.
5.2 Using Channel Design Strategies to Alleviate Customers’
Vulnerability
Analysing how a vulnerability determinant manifests from the
customer perspective subsequently informs channel design
strategies. The three channel design strategies described in
Section 4.3 are examples of the types of strategies that can be
implemented to alleviate vulnerability in service situations that
manifest in a lack of accessing or processing resources. For
example, customer segments that face difficulty when dealing with
complexity might be offered fewer available channels throughout the
service journey (offering guidance through constrained channel
paths) as a means to present an optimized journey. Figure 3 shows
an example of such a journey. Compared to the general customer
journey in Figure 2, the constrained-channel-path journey map
offers fewer channels for touchpoints subsequent to the step
placing the assisted travel request. Introducing another channel
(i.e. mail) and directing the remainder of the customer journey
along predefined steps that account for difficulties with, e.g.
information processing, ameliorates vulnerability states and
perceptions. However, for customers who gain a feeling of control
by selecting the channel path on their own, the strategy of
offering flexibility through multiple multichannel paths might be
applicable. This strategy is superior when customers need a variety
of channels to self-serve in a way that allows them to mitigate the
emergence of vulnerability on their own. This strategy is most
suitable if customers are familiar with the resources they want to
access and process. By offering access to resources across multiple
well-integrated channels, customers self-select to the most
suitable multichannel path with the needed degree of information
richness and do not use those paths that are unable to facilitate
control along the customer journey.
- Insert figure 3 here -
6. Discussion and Future Research Agenda
6.1 Contributions to Theory and Practice
Our article outlines four major contributions, which we discuss
next. First, we present a framework that delineates determinants
and consequences of customer vulnerability that manifest in
problems in accessing or processing resources. Introducing these
two fundamental dimensions – accessing resources and processing
resources – allows us to extend the discussion away from isolated
vulnerability examples and establish a more generalizable
understanding of vulnerability states and perceptions in service
situations. Second, we identify and illustrate three relevant
channel design strategies that service providers can employ to
alleviate vulnerability. Third, our framework shows how “uplifting
changes” (Anderson et al., 2013) on an individual and a societal
level can be achieved via implementation of channel design
strategies, thus contributing to the field of transformative
service research. In line with the understanding of transformative
service research, by going beyond purely market-oriented measures,
channel design can mitigate social discomfort and feelings of
exclusion, thereby ultimately influencing quality-of-life
perceptions and lowering discrimination and incidence of fraudulent
marketplaces in general. Fourth, we contribute to the customer
journey literature and suggest implementing two additional elements
in mapping customer journeys: vulnerability perceptions and
vulnerability manifestations in terms of accessing and processing
resources. Thus, we include additional layers which reveal the
vulnerability perception from the customer’s point of view and
allow identification of the corresponding vulnerability
determinants.
6.2 Future Research Agenda
We propose a future research agenda organized around the core
themes that emerge from our framework (see Table 1). We call for
more research in the following distinct areas.
Future research regarding vulnerability perceptions: Extant
literature has explored the impact of different vulnerability
determinants. However, due to ongoing societal changes and ongoing
technological changes, additional determinants of vulnerability
emerge or grow in importance. Future research must therefore
account for these new developments. One crucial aspect regarding
future research on the determinants of vulnerability is their
categorization, as previous research has identified a huge variety
of vulnerability examples. However, many vulnerability
determinants, despite seeming very distinct, manifest in a similar
lack of access and/or lack of processing of resources. Categorizing
vulnerability determinants and understanding their manifestations
is of great importance for developing practical countermeasures, as
it is not possible for a company to offer individual strategies for
every single possible vulnerability to be alleviated.
Vulnerability has mainly been investigated through qualitative
research methods based on interviews with affected customers. While
Shi et al. (2017) developed a scale to measure vulnerability,
future research should focus on quantifying the impact of
vulnerability determinants on vulnerability perceptions, dimensions
and individual, organizational and societal outcomes. Another
aspect regarding the perception of vulnerability is the influence
of individual personality traits – such as resilience – or
cultures. Resilience, for example, was identified as a pathway to
reframe challenging market situations (Hutton, 2016), allowing
individuals to better deal with such situations. Future research
should investigate other individual personality traits or cultural
variations that might have similar effects.
A detailed understanding of the impact of vulnerability
perceptions on organizational outcomes is needed. For example, the
impact of vulnerability perceptions on central company measures
such as service quality, satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth,
willingness to pay or time spent in store has yet to be understood.
Additionally, investigating possible outcomes of customer
vulnerability on service employees or third parties has not
received sufficient attention. In this context, it would be worth
analysing whether employees or other customers even realize that
someone in their proximity currently perceives vulnerability and if
so, how these third parties feel in such situations. These
questions are of crucial importance, as third parties must
recognize vulnerability and know how to deal with such a situation
if they are to be able to proactively help affected vulnerable
customers. Finally, future research should investigate subsequent
consequences of customer perceptions of vulnerability on the
societal level, for instance, lower education or employment rates
or health issues.
Future research regarding channel design strategies: Another
area for future research is to deepen our understanding of channel
design strategies for addressing vulnerability that balance the
customer perspective and the provider perspective. The customer
perspective on channel design needs to be augmented to consider not
only how channel choices impact the experience of mainstream target
customers, but also the vulnerability perceptions of particular
segments of customers under different consumption situations.
Analogously, the provider perspective on channel design needs to be
augmented to consider ways to mitigate potentially adverse effects
on operational efficiency of channel design decisions to ameliorate
vulnerability.
In this context, research should identify the most suitable
channel design elements and explore how these impact the dimensions
of vulnerability. To do so, future studies might focus on methods
of capturing and measuring vulnerability states and perceptions in
customer journeys. A typology of vulnerability profiles matched to
channel design strategies would provide insights into segmenting
customers so as to prevent the emergence of vulnerability
perception. Studies should also focus on the unintended effects of
channel design strategies and examine channel design elements that
may themselves become vulnerability determinants. In addition,
future research should investigate the stages and touchpoints along
the customer journey where customers are more susceptible to
perceiving vulnerability. While our research investigated channel
design strategies in particular, future research should also
investigate other service design strategies to alleviate
vulnerability, such as training concepts for employees as part of
human resource strategies.
- Insert Table 1 here -
References
Abney, A. K., White, A., Shanahan, K. J., & Locander, W. B.
(2017). In their shoes: Co-creating value from deaf/hearing
perspectives. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4/5), 313–325.
doi:10.1108/JSM-05-2016-0201
Ailawadi, K. L., & Farris, P. W. (2017). Managing multi- and
omni-channel distribution: Metrics and research directions. Journal
of Retailing, 93(1), 120–135.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2016.12.003
Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., Corus, C., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A.
S., Giraldo, M., Williams, J. D. (2013). Transformative service
research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research,
66(8), 1203–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013
Andreassen, T. W., Kristensson, P., Lervik-Olsen, L.,
Parasuraman, A., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Edvardsson, B., Colurcio,
M. (2016). Linking service design to value creation and service
research. Journal of Service Management, 27(1), 21-29.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-04-2015-0123
Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient
publicity management. Strategy & Leadership, 38(6), 43–49.
doi:10.1108/10878571011088069
Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005).
Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability.
Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 128–139.
doi:10.1177/0276146705280622
Baker, S. M., Holland, J., & Kaufman‐Scarborough, C. (2007).
How consumers with disabilities perceive “welcome” in retail
servicescapes: A critical incident study. Journal of Services
Marketing, 21(3), 160–173. doi:doi:10.1108/08876040710746525
Baker, S. M., & Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2001). Marketing
and public accommodation: A retrospective on Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 20(2), 297–304. doi:10.1509/jppm.20.2.297.17370
Baker, S. M., Stephens, D. L., & Hill, R. P. (2001).
Marketplace experiences of consumers with visual impairments:
Beyond the Americans with disabilities act. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 20(2), 215–224.
doi:10.1509/jppm.20.2.215.17369
Baldauf, M., Dustdar, S., & Rosenberg, F. (2007). A survey
on context-aware systems. International Journal of ad Hoc and
ubiquitous Computing, 2(4), 263–277.
Berg, L. (2015). Consumer vulnerability: Are older people more
vulnerable as consumers than others? International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 39(4), 284–293. doi:doi:10.1111/ijcs.12182
Berry, L. L., Davis, S. W., & Wilmet, J. (2015). When the
customer is stressed. Harvard Business Review, 93(10), 86–94.
Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., &
Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client co-production in
knowledge-intensive business services. California Management
Review, 44(4), 100–128.
Bitran, G., Lojo, M. (1993). A framework for analyzing the
quality of the customer interface. European Management Journal,
11(4), 385-396. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-2373(93)90002-Y
Canhoto, A. I., & Dibb, S. (2016). Unpacking the interplay
between organisational factors and the economic environment in the
creation of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Marketing
Management, 32(3–4), 335–356. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1123759
Chandler, J. D., & Lusch, R. F. (2015). Service systems: A
broadened framework and research agenda on value propositions,
engagement, and service experience. Journal of Service Research,
18(1), 6–22. doi:10.1177/1094670514537709
Commuri, S., & Ekici, A. (2008). An enlargement of the
notion of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2),
183–186. doi:10.1177/0276146708316049
Crews, J. E., & Campbell, V. A. (2004). Vision impairment
and hearing loss among community-dwelling older Americans:
Implications for health and functioning. American Journal of Public
Health, 94(5), 823–829. doi:10.2105/ajph.94.5.823
Crosier, A., & Handford, A. (2012). Customer journey mapping
as an advocacy tool for disabled people: A case study. Social
Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 67-76. doi:10.1177/1524500411435483
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational
information requirements, media richness and structural design.
Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554
Daft, R. L., & Wiginton, J. C. (1979). Language and
organization. Academy of Management Review, 4(2), 179–191.
doi:10.5465/amr.1979.4289017
Downey, H. (2016). Poetic inquiry, consumer vulnerability:
Realities of quadriplegia. Journal of Marketing Management,
32(3–4), 357–364. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1103301
Edelman, D. C., & Singer, M. (2015). Competing on customer
journeys. Harvard Business Review, 93(11), 88–100.
Edvardsson, B., & Olsson, J. (1996). Key concepts for new
service development. Service Industries Journal, 16(2), 140-164
Edwards, K., Rosenbaum, M. S., Brosdahl, D., & Hughes, P.
(2018). Designing retail spaces for inclusion. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 44, 182–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.013
Elms, J., & Tinson, J. (2012). Consumer vulnerability and
the transformative potential of Internet shopping: An exploratory
case study. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(11–12), 1354–1376.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.691526
Engel, J., Blackwell, R., & Miniard, P. (1986). Consumer
Behavior. 5th ed., Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.
Evenson, S. (2008). A Designer’s View of SSME. In B. Hefley,
& W. Murphy (Eds.), Service Science, Management and
Engineering: Education for the 21st Century (pp. 25-30). New York:
Springer
Falchetti, C., Ponchio, M. C., & Botelho, N. L. P. (2016).
Understanding the vulnerability of blind consumers: Adaptation in
the marketplace, personal traits and coping strategies. Journal of
Marketing Management, 32(3–4), 313–334.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1119710
Ford, N., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2016). Exploring the
impact of packaging interactions on quality of life among older
consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3–4), 275–312.
doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1123758
Gensler, S., Verhoef, P. C., & Böhm, M. (2012).
Understanding consumers’ multichannel choices across the different
stages of the buying process. Marketing Letters, 23(4), 987–1003.
doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9199-9
Gentry, J. W., Kennedy, P. F., Paul, C., & Hill, R. P.
(1995). Family transitions during grief: Discontinuities in
household consumption patterns. Journal of Business Research,
34(1), 67–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00054-I
Hepi, M., Foote, J., Finsterwalder, J., Hinerangi, M.-o.,
Carswell, S., & Baker, V. (2017). An integrative transformative
service framework to improve engagement in a social service
ecosystem: The case of He Waka Tapu. Journal of Services Marketing,
31(4/5), 423–437. doi:doi:10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0222
Hill, R. P., Hirschman, E. C., & Bauman, J. F. (1996). The
birth of modern entitlement programs: Reports from the field and
implications for welfare policy. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 15(2), 263–277.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2015). Social exclusion: A perspective
on consumers with disabilities. In K. Hamilton, S. Dunnett, &
M. Piacentini (Eds.), Consumer vulnerability: Conditions, contexts
and characteristics. New York: Routledge.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Childers, T. L. (2009).
Understanding markets as online public places: Insights from
consumers with visual impairments. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 28(1), 16–28. doi:10.1509/jppm.28.1.16
Konuş, U., Verhoef, P. C., & Neslin, S. A. (2008).
Multichannel shopper segments and their covariates. Journal of
Retailing, 84(4), 398–413.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.09.002
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding
customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of
Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420
Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality:
A different view of the customer-oriented firm. Academy of
Management Review, 21(3), 791–824.
doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9702100315
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic:
Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3),
281–288. doi:10.1177/1470593106066781
Mansfield, P. M., & Pinto, M. B. (2008). Consumer
vulnerability and credit card knowledge among developmentally
disabled citizens. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 425–438.
doi:doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00115.x
Mathur, A., & Moschis, G. P. (1995). Older consumers'
vulnerability to bait-and-switch. Advances in Consumer Research,
22, 674–679.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Danaher, T. S., Gallan, A. S., Orsingher,
C., Lervik-Olsen, L., & Verma, R. (2017). How do you feel
today? Managing patient emotions during health care experiences to
enhance well-being. Journal of Business Research, 79, 247–259.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.022
Minton, E. A., Cabano, F., Gardner, M., Mathras, D., Elliot, E.,
& Mandel, N. (2017). LGBTQ and religious identity conflict in
service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4/5), 351–361.
doi:doi:10.1108/JSM-05-2016-0196
Monsuwé, P. y. T., Dellaert, B. G. C., & de Ruyter, K.
(2004). What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1),
102–121. doi:doi:10.1108/09564230410523358
National Health Council. (2014). About chronic diseases.
Retrieved from
http://www.nationalhealthcouncil.org/sites/default/files/NHC_Files/Pdf_Files/AboutChronicDisease.pdf
(Accessed: 01/25/2019).
Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling,
M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006). Challenges and
opportunities in multichannel customer management. Journal of
Service Research, 9(2), 95–112. doi:10.1177/1094670506293559
Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W., Burkhard, K.A., Goul,
M., Smith-Daniels, V.,
Demirkan, H., & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and
making a difference:
Research priorities for the science of service. Journal of
Service Research, 13(1), pp. 4-36.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A
multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new
technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320.
doi:10.1177/109467050024001
Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., & Falcão e Cunha, J. (2008).
Designing multi-interface service experiences: The service
experience blueprint. Journal of Service Research, 10(4), 318–334.
doi:10.1177/1094670508314264
Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., Falcão e Cunha, J., &
Constantine, L. (2011). Multilevel service design: From customer
value constellation to service experience blueprinting. Journal of
Service Research, 14(2), 180–200. doi:10.1177/1094670511401901
Peñaloza, L. (1995). Immigrant consumers: Marketing and public
policy considerations in the global economy. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 14(1), 83–94.
Polo, Y., & Sese, F. J. (2016). Does the nature of the
interaction matter? Understanding customer channel choice for
purchases and communications. Journal of Service Research, 19(3),
276–290. doi:10.1177/1094670516645189
Roe, R. A. (1984). Individual characteristics. In P. J. D.
Drenth (Ed.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp.
103–130). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Seger-Guttmann, T., & Giraldo, M. (2017).
Commentary: Vulnerable consumers in service settings. Journal of
Services Marketing, 31(4/5), 309–312.
doi:doi:10.1108/JSM-05-2017-0156
Scammon, D. L., Li, L. B., & Williams, S. D. (1995).
Increasing the supply of providers for the medically underserved:
Marketing and public policy issues. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 14(1), 35–47.
Sharma, S., Conduit, J., & Rao Hill, S. (2017). Hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being outcomes from co-creation roles: A study of
vulnerable customers. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4/5),
397–411. doi:doi:10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0236
Shi, H. Y., Jing, F. J., Yang, Y., & Nguyen, B. (2017). The
concept of consumer vulnerability: Scale development and
validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(6),
769–777. doi:doi:10.1111/ijcs.12390
Shultz, C. J. (1997). Improving life quality for the destitute:
Contributions from multiple-method fieldwork in war-ravaged
transition economies. Journal of Macromarketing, 17(1), 56–67.
doi:10.1177/027614679701700106
Smith, N. C., & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and target
marketing: The role of product harm and consumer vulnerability.
Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 1–20. doi:10.2307/1251786
Sousa, R., & Amorim, M. (2018). Architectures for
multichannel front-office service delivery models. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 38(3), 828–851.
doi:doi:10.1108/IJOPM-10-2015-0612
Sousa, R., Amorim, M., Pinto, G. M., & Magalhães, A. (2016).
Multi-channel deployment: A methodology for the design of
multi-channel service processes. Production Planning & Control,
27(4), 312–327. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1125031
Sousa, R., Amorim, M., Rabinovich, E., & Sodero, A. C.
(2015). Customer use of virtual channels in multichannel services:
Does type of activity matter? Decision Sciences, 46(3), 623–657.
doi:doi:10.1111/deci.12142
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2006). Service quality in
multichannel services employing virtual channels. Journal of
Service Research, 8(4), 356–371. doi:10.1177/1094670506286324
Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under
stress: A selective review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral
Reviews, 36(4), 1228–1248.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.02.003
Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., Nunes, N. J., Nóbrega, L., Fisk, R.
P., Constantine, (2012),"Customer experience modeling: from
customer experience to service design", Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 23 Iss: 3 pp. 362 - 376
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Varman, R., & Vijay, D. (2018). Dispossessing vulnerable
consumers: Derealization, desubjectification, and violence.
Marketing Theory, 18(3), 307–326. doi:10.1177/1470593117753980
Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S.,
Gustafsson, A., Sousa, R., & Walkowiak, T. (2017). Service
encounters, experiences and the customer journey: Defining the
field and a call to expand our lens. Journal of Business Research,
79, 269–280. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014
Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction:
conceptualized. Journal of Services Marketing, 9(1), 5-14. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/08876049510079844
Wirtz, J., & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing:
People, Technology. World Scientific Publishing Company.
Zomerdijk, L. G., & Voss, C. A. (2010). Service design for
experience-centric services. Journal of Service Research, 13(1),
67–82. doi:10.1177/1094670509351960
Figures
Figure 1: Framework on the alleviating effect of channel design
strategies on customers’ vulnerability states and perceptions.
Figure 2: Example of a general customer journey map with
vulnerability layers for a train journey.
Figure 3: Example of a customer journey map that applies
constrained channel paths to mitigate vulnerability perceptions for
a train journey.
Table
Table 1. Agenda for future research on customer vulnerability
and channel design strategies
Theme
Research questions
Vulnerability states and perceptions
· What are important (future) determinants of vulnerability?
· How can customers’ vulnerability states perceptions be
quantified?
· How do recurrent vulnerability states and perceptions compare
to one-time situational vulnerability perceptions?
· How do individual personality traits influence vulnerability
perceptions?
· How do cultural or geographical differences influence
vulnerability perceptions? Are there positive outcomes of
vulnerability on an individual level?
· How does vulnerability affect company performance measures
such as satisfaction, loyalty or WOM?
· Do employees and other customers recognize customer
vulnerability?
· How does customer vulnerability affect service employees?
· How does customer vulnerability affect third parties?
· What are subsequent outcomes on a society level (e.g.
employment rates, education levels)?
Channel design strategies and vulnerability in the customer
journey
· What are the most suitable (efficient and effective) channel
design strategies and approaches to alleviate vulnerability
perceptions?
· What is the optimum way (effective and efficient) to segment
multiple channel paths to alleviate vulnerability perceptions? How
to avoid channel design decisions themselves to have unintended
negative impacts on vulnerability perceptions?
· What are the main stages and touchpoints in a customer journey
where vulnerability perceptions can occur?
· At what journey stages and touchpoints do specific
determinants cause vulnerability perceptions?
33
