Overcoming vulnerability: Channel design strategies to alleviate vulnerability perceptions in customer journeys

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Overcoming vulnerability: Channel design strategies to alleviate vulnerability perceptions in customer journeys Jens Hogrevea, Nancy V. Wünderlichb, , Ilma Nur Chowdhuryc, Hannes Fleischera, Sahar Mousavid, Julia Rötzmeier-Keuperb, Rui Sousae ⁎

a

School of Business Administration and Economics, Paderborn University, Germany Ingolstadt School of Management, Catholic University of Eichstaett- Ingolstadt, Germany c Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, United Kingdom d School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, United Kingdom e Católica Porto Business School, Universidade Católica Portuguesa and CEGE, Portugal b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Channel management Channel design Customer vulnerability Customer journey mapping Transformative service research

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.

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, SegerGuttmann, & Giraldo, 2017). Studies have shown that customers feel vulnerable for a number of reasons (Edwards, Rosenbaum, Brosdahl, & Hughes, 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

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.V. Wünderlich).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.027 Received 1 February 2019; Received in revised form 15 July 2019; Accepted 19 July 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jens Hogreve, et al., Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.027

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

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.

create a service and to obtain value from access to a variety of valuecreating elements, such as labour, skills, expertise, goods, facilities, networks and systems (Bettencourt, Ostrom, Brown, & Roundtree, 2002; Lengnick-Hall, 1996; 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. 2.2. Processing resources From a consumer behavior 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 (Ostrom et al., 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.

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 & CooperMartin, 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 (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Vargo & Lusch, 2004), 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.

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., 2000) and applies various methods and tools such as service blueprinting or personas (Teixeira, Patrício, Nunes, & Nóbrega, 2012). Within our research, we focus on channel design that has been discussed under the umbrella of service design strategies (Patrício, Fisk, Falcão e Cunha, & Constantine, 2011) as well as customer journeys as a valuable framework to use in the service design process (Zomerdijk & 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 (Bitran & Lojo, 1993; Edvardsson & Olsson, 1996; Engel, Blackwell, & Miniard, 1986; Walker, 1995), 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 & Verhoef, 2016) and pre-core,

2.1. Accessing resources Customers need to possess the knowledge and capabilities to co2

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

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 et al., 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).

3.3. 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 Fig. 1).

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).

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 (Berg, 2015; Mathur & Moschis, 1995). Vulnerability research has also looked at customer minority groups, including homosexuals (Minton et al., 2017), ethnic minorities (Hepi et al., 2017) and 3

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

Fig. 1. Framework on the alleviating effect of channel design strategies on customers' vulnerability states and perceptions.

4.2. Outcomes of vulnerability

the poor (Varman & 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 & KaufmanScarborough, 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.

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 (Rosenbaum et al., 2017; Shi, Jing, Yang, & Nguyen, 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 4

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

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.

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. 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.

4.3.3. 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.

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 5

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

Fig. 2. Example of a general customer journey map with vulnerability layers for a train journey.

5. Opportunities for implementation in managerial practice

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.

5.1. 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 Fig. 2. Fig. 2 depicts a customer journey map of a train ride. The core 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

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.

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. 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

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. Fig. 3 shows an example of such a journey. Compared to the general customer journey in Fig. 2, the constrained-channel-path journey map

Fig. 3. Example of a customer journey map that applies constrained channel paths to mitigate vulnerability perceptions for a train journey. 7

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

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)? • 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?

Channel design strategies and vulnerability in the customer journey

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.

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.

6.2.2. 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.

6.2.1. 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 8

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

References

Ford, N., Trott, P., & Simms, C. (2016). Exploring the impact of packaging interactions on quality of life among older consumers. J. Mark. Manag. 32(3–4), 275–312. https:// doi.org/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. Mark. Lett. 23(4), 987–1003. https://doi.org/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. J. Bus. Res. 34(1), 67–79. 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. J. Serv. Mark. 31(4/5), 423–437. https://doi.org/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. J. Public Policy Mark. 15(2), 263–277. Hutton, M. (2016). Neither passive nor powerless: reframing economic vulnerability via resilient pathways. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3-4), 252–274. https://doi. org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1118144. 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. J. Public Policy Mark. 28(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.28.1.16. Konuş, U., Verhoef, P. C., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Multichannel shopper segments and their covariates. J. Retail. 84(4), 398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.09.002. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. J. Mark. 80(6), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420. Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1996). Customer contributions to quality: A different view of the customer-oriented firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21(3), 791–824. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1996.9702100315. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Mark. Theory, 6(3), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1470593106066781. Mansfield, P. M., & Pinto, M. B. (2008). Consumer vulnerability and credit card knowledge among developmentally disabled citizens. J. Consum. Aff. 42(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00115.x. Mathur, A., & Moschis, G. P. (1995). Older consumers' vulnerability to bait-and-switch. Adv. Consum. Res. 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. J. Bus. Res. 79, 247–259. 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. J. Serv. Mark. 31(4/5), 351–361. https://doi.org/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. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 15(1), 102–121. https://doi. org/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 date: 25 January 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. J. Serv. Res. 9(2), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670506293559. Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith-Daniels, V., & Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI): A multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. J. Serv. Res. 2(4), 307–320. https:// doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001. Patrício, L., Fisk, R. P., & Falcão e Cunha, J. (2008). Designing multi-interface service experiences: The service experience blueprint. J. Serv. Res. 10(4), 318–334. https:// doi.org/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. J. Serv. Res. 14(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511401901. Peñaloza, L. (1995). Immigrant consumers: Marketing and public policy considerations in the global economy. J. Public Policy Mark. 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. J. Serv. Res. 19(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/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. J. Serv. Mark. 31(4/5), 309–312. https://doi.org/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. J. Public Policy Mark. 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. J. Serv. Mark. 31(4/5), 397–411. https://doi.org/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. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 41(6), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12390. Shultz, C. J. (1997). Improving life quality for the destitute: Contributions from multiple-

Abney, A. K., White, A., Shanahan, K. J., & Locander, W. B. (2017). In their shoes: Cocreating value from deaf/hearing perspectives. J. Serv. Mark. 31(4/5), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2016-0201. Ailawadi, K. L., & Farris, P. W. (2017). Managing multi- and omni-channel distribution: Metrics and research directions. J. Retail. 93(1), 120–135. 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. J. Bus. Res. 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. J. Serv. Manag. 27(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM04-2015-0123. Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strateg. Leadersh. 38(6), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878571011088069. Baker, S. M., Gentry, J. W., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005). Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability. J. Macromark. 25(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/ 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. J. Serv. Mark. 21(3), 160–173. https://doi.org/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. J. Public Policy Mark. 20(2), 297–304. https://doi.org/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. J. Public Policy Mark. 20(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.20.2.215.17369. Baldauf, M., Dustdar, S., & Rosenberg, F. (2007). A survey on context-aware systems. Int. J. Ad Hoc Ubiquitous Compu. 2(4), 263–277. Berg, L. (2015). Consumer vulnerability: Are older people more vulnerable as consumers than others? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 39(4), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs. 12182. Berry, L. L., Davis, S. W., & Wilmet, J. (2015). When the customer is stressed. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93(10), 86–94. Bettencourt, L. A., Ostrom, A. L., Brown, S. W., & Roundtree, R. I. (2002). Client coproduction in knowledge-intensive business services. Calif. Manag. Rev. 44(4), 100–128. Beudaert, A., Gorge, H., & Herbert, M. (2017). "An exploration of servicescapes’ exclusion and coping strategies of consumers with “hidden” auditory disorders". Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4/5), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2016-0247. Bitran, G., & Lojo, M. (1993). A framework for analyzing the quality of the customer interface. Eur. Manag. J. 11(4), 385–396. 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. J. Mark. Manag. 32(3–4), 335–356. https://doi.org/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. J. Serv. Res. 18(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514537709. Commuri, S., & Ekici, A. (2008). An enlargement of the notion of consumer vulnerability. J. Macromark. 28(2), 183–186. https://doi.org/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. Am. J. Public Health, 94(5), 823–829. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.5.823. Crosier, A., & Handford, A. (2012). Customer journey mapping as an advocacy tool for disabled people: A case study. Soc. Mark. Q. 18(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1524500411435483. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag. Sci. 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/ mnsc.32.5.554. Daft, R. L., & Wiginton, J. C. (1979). Language and organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 4(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4289017. Downey, H. (2016). Poetic inquiry, consumer vulnerability: Realities of quadriplegia. J. Mark. Manag. 32(3–4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1103301. Edelman, D. C., & Singer, M. (2015). Competing on customer journeys. Harv. Bus. Rev. 93(11), 88–100. Edvardsson, B., & Olsson, J. (1996). Key concepts for new service development. Serv. Ind. J. 16(2), 140–164. Edwards, K., Rosenbaum, M. S., Brosdahl, D., & Hughes, P. (2018). Designing retail spaces for inclusion. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 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. J. Mark. Manag. 28(11−12), 1354–1376. https://doi.org/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. J. Mark. Manag. 32(3–4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015. 1119710.

9

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Hogreve, et al.

appeared in journals including MIS Quarterly, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Retailing and Journal of Business Research. She is an Associated Editor of the Journal of Business Research and a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Service Research. She has received best article and best dissertation awards from the American Marketing Association (SERVSIG), the Society of Marketing Advances, the Academy of Marketing Science, and the German Ministry for Education and Research, among others.

method fieldwork in war-ravaged transition economies. J. Macromark. 17(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614679701700106. Smith, N. C., & Cooper-Martin, E. (1997). Ethics and target marketing: The role of product harm and consumer vulnerability. J. Mark. 61(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1251786. Sousa, R., & Amorim, M. (2018). Architectures for multichannel front-office service delivery models. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 38(3), 828–851. https://doi.org/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. Prod. Plan. Control, 27(4), 312–327. https://doi.org/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? Decis. Sci. 46(3), 623–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12142. Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2006). Service quality in multichannel services employing virtual channels. J. Serv. Res. 8(4), 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670506286324. Starcke, K., & Brand, M. (2012). Decision making under stress: A selective review. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 36(4), 1228–1248. 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. J. Serv. Manag. 23(3), 362–376. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036. Varman, R., & Vijay, D. (2018). Dispossessing vulnerable consumers: Derealization, desubjectification, and violence. Mark. Theory, 18(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/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. J. Bus. Res. 79, 269–280. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014. Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction: Conceptualized. J. Serv. Mark. 9(1), 5–14. 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. J. Serv. Res. 13(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509351960.

Ilma Nur Chowdhury is a Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Marketing at Alliance Manchester Business School and a Chartered Marketer. Her previous work experience includes working as an Assistant Brand Manager at Unilever Bangladesh and as a Lecturer in Marketing at the Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka. She completed her doctoral study at Manchester Business School on full scholarship. Her current research areas include transformative service research, sustainability in supply chains, social innovation and BoP markets. She has published in Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Operations Management, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, and Business Strategy and the Environment. Hannes Fleischer is a PhD student at the Ingolstadt School of Management, Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany. Before starting his PhD, he worked in the automotive industry as a product manager and in the sales department of a large German OEM manufacturer. His research interests include customer experience, service management and the influence of stereotypes in a business context. He presented his research at several national and international conferences (e.g. Frontiers in Service Conference, International Research Conference in Service Management). Sahar Mousavi is a Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Marketing at School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, UK. She gained her PhD in Marketing from Manchester Business School, UK. Her research interests include customer experience, customer engagement in social media and online platforms, and branding. Her research has been published in international journals including Psychology & Marketing, and European Journal of Marketing. Julia Rötzmeier-Keuper is a PhD researcher at the Department of Service Management at Paderborn University, Germany. She received her Master degree in Business Administration. Her research focus is on transformative consumer research, especially consumer vulnerability and well-being in service relationships. Her work has been published in the Journal of Business Research and she presented her research at several national and international conferences (e.g. AMA SERVSIG Conference, Frontiers in Service Conference and Macromarketing).

Jens Hogreve is Professor and Chair of Service Management at the Ingolstadt School of Management, Catholic University of Eichstaett-Ingolstadt, Germany. His research focuses on service issues such as service recovery, service innovation, industrial services, and customer co-production and co-creation. His work appeared in the International Journal of Research in Marketing, the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Service Research, the Journal of Retailing, and the Journal of Business Research among others. In 2017 he received the AMA SERVSIG Best Service Article Award. He is co-founder of BESH, the KU Research Institute for Business and Economics in Service of Humanity.

Rui Sousa is Professor of Operations Management at the Catholic University of Portugal (Porto) and holds a PhD from London Business School. His research has been published in leading international journals, including the Journal of Operations Management (JOM), Production and Operations Management, Decision Sciences, International Journal of Operations & Production Management (IJOPM), Journal of Service Research and the Journal of Business Research. Rui is an Honorary Fellow of the European Operations Management Association, Associate Editor for JOM and IJOPM, invited lecturer of EIASM (European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management, Belgium) and Director of the Service Management Lab (www.catolicabs.porto.ucp.pt/slab/home/?lang=en). His present research interests include service operations, digitally-enabled services and servitization.

Nancy V. Wünderlich is Professor and Chair of Service Management at Paderborn University, Germany. Her research focuses on issues related to technology at the customer-provider interface, including adoption of technology-intensive services as well as on transformative service and social support in service relationships. Her work has

10