Results

Once the selection process of the articles considered in this study had been carried out and the methodology and classification process had been defined, the 86 selected articles were classified according to the following factors:

  1. the four dimensions and nine elements of CRM and the five dimensions of entrepreneurial marketing
  2. the year of publication of each selected article
  3. the journal where each article was published
  4. the number of citations of each article according to WoS.

From these classifications, a clear and concise picture about the state of the art was expected to form. This picture can be used to focus and develop future studies in which the primary topic of study is CRM in entrepreneurial marketing in general or, more specifically, the impact of CRM on company performance through its strategic potential in entrepreneurial marketing.

Next, and as support for the discussion of results and presentation of conclusions of the study, the results are presented concisely and in a table format that allows an easy identification of the key arguments of discussion.

To analyze the results of the study, classification of the 86 selected articles was first necessary. The detailed distribution of these articles classified according to the proposed classification framework is shown in Table.

Table 1 Distribution of the selected articles according to the proposed classification framework.

CRM dimension

CRM element

Entrepreneurial Marketing dimension

Customer Identification

Target customer analysis

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Customer segmentation

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Customer attraction

Direct marketing

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Customer retention

Loyalty programs

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

One-to-one marketing

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Complaint management

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Customer development

Customer lifetime value

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Upselling/cross-selling

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

Market basket analysis

Trust

Commitment

Cooperation

Closeness

Relationship management

In this table (Distribution of the selected articles according to the proposed classification framework) it has been identified which are the determining dimensions and elements (of CRM and entrepreneurial marketing) in each of the studies analyzed, in order to establish new classifications a posteriori that make it possible to identify the most relevant research focuses for future research, as well as to identify in which areas CRM and entrepreneurial marketing coincide decisively in terms of powerful business management tools. Following the four specified distribution criteria, this classification was analyzed to determine the most important selection criteria in this field.


Distribution of the selected articles by CRM dimension and entrepreneurial marketing dimension

From the results obtained in Table 1, it has been analyzed and taken a further step in their interpretation based on the distribution of the selected articles by CRM dimension and entrepreneurial marketing dimension. The aim is to identify which are the dimensions of CRM and entrepreneurial marketing that have aroused and arouse more interest in recent years, so that conclusions and recommendations can be drawn on relevant aspects of both tools that help to improve business management strategies, and with it to improve organizational performance and business results.

The quantitative distribution of the selected articles by CRM dimension and entrepreneurial marketing dimension is shown in Table 2. This table was created once the CRM dimensions, CRM elements, and entrepreneurial marketing dimensions that are crucial for business decision makers had been highlighted for each selected article shown in Table 1.

Table 2 Distribution of the selected articles by CRM dimension and entrepreneurial marketing dimension.

CRM dimension

CRM element

Entrepreneurial Marketing dimension

Number per entrepreneurial marketing dimension

Number per CRM element

Number per CRM dimension

Customer identification

Target customer analysis

Trust

0

9

(10.47%)

17

(19.77%)

Commitment

1

Cooperation

2

Closeness

1

Relationship management

5

Customer segmentation

Trust

1

8

(9.30%)

Commitment

1

Cooperation

1

Closeness

1

Relationship management

4

Customer attraction

Direct marketing

Trust

1

14

(16.28%)

14

(16.28%)

Commitment

3

Cooperation

2

Closeness

3

Relationship management

5

Customer retention

Loyalty programs

Trust

7

23

(26.75%)

32

(37.21%)

Commitment

5

Cooperation

1

Closeness

1

Relationship management

9

One-to-one marketing

Trust

1

4

(4.63%)

Commitment

1

Cooperation

0

Closeness

0

Relationship management

2

Complaint management

Trust

2

5

(5.83%)

Commitment

1

Cooperation

0

Closeness

1

Relationship management

1

Customer development

Customer lifetime value

Trust

2

14

(16.28%)

23

(26.74%)

Commitment

3

Cooperation

2

Closeness

0

Relationship management

7

Upselling/cross-selling

Trust

0

5

(5.83%)

Commitment

0

Cooperation

1

Closeness

1

Relationship management

3

Market basket analysis

Trust

0

4

(4.63%)

Commitment

0

Cooperation

2

Closeness

0

Relationship management

2
   

TOTAL

86

86

(100%)

86

(100%)

The overall distribution in Table 2 shows that customer retention is the most common CRM dimension where marketing is used to support decision making. Table 2 shows 32 results out of a total of 86 selected articles, representing a percentage of 37.21% of the total. The next most common CRM dimension by number of results is customer development, with 23 results, representing 26.74% of the total. Next are the CRM dimensions of customer identification, with 17 results (19.77%), and customer attraction, with 14 results (16.28%). Summing the results of customer retention and those of customer development gives a total of 55 results, representing 63.95% of the total of 86 selected articles. Therefore, these are the most influential CRM dimensions.

The most commonly used CRM element for assisting business decision makers is loyalty programs (within the CRM retention dimension), with 23 results, representing 26.75% of the 86 selected articles. The CRM elements with the next highest numbers of results are customer lifetime value (within the CRM development dimension) and direct marketing (within the CRM attraction dimension), both with 14 results, each representing 16.28% of the 86 selected articles. Aggregating the results from these three most common CRM elements gives a total of 51 results, representing 59.31% of the total. The rest of the CRM elements in descending order are target customer analysis (10.47%), customer segmentation (9.30%), complaint management (5.83%), upselling/cross-selling (5.83%), one-to-one marketing (4.63%), and market basket analysis (4.63%).

Table 3 shows the importance of the entrepreneurial marketing dimensions according to their prominence in the decisions of business decision makers. The results were obtained by classifying the 86 selected articles. To avoid overlaps, the most relevant dimension is considered. These dimensions are shown in descending order.

Table 3 Distribution of the selected articles by entrepreneurial marketing dimension.

Entrepreneurial Marketing dimension

Number of publications

Percentage

Relationship management

38

44.19%

Commitment

15

17.44%

Trust

14

16.28%

Cooperation

11

12.79%

Closeness

8

9.30%

Total:

86

100.00%

Relationship management is the most commonly used entrepreneurial marketing dimension, with 38 results of the 86 selected articles, representing 44.19%. With less than half this number of results are commitment (17.44%) and trust (16.28%). Following these are cooperation (12.79%) and closeness (9.30%).


Distribution of the selected articles by year of publication

Table 4 shows the distribution of the selected articles by year of publication. In this table, the 86 selected articles are sorted according to the year in which they were published.

Table 4 Distribution of the selected articles by year of publication.

Year

Number of publications

2015

12

2016

19

2017

20

2018

21

2019

14

Total

86

Clear growth can be observed since 2015, which, as previously stated, is the year in which scientific research interest in this subject began to rise.

The decline in publications in 2019, based on the recent trend and experience, is most likely to have occurred because some articles have been approved for publication but are still in the editing and production process. The calendar year 2019 had just ended at the time of this study, so there is still the possibility of more papers being published with the reference year of 2019.


Distribution of the selected articles by journal

The selected articles were also classified according to the journal where they were published. This analysis shows which journals are most focused on this topic. This distribution is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Distribution of the articles by journal.

Journal

Number of publications

Percentage

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING

5

5.81%

JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING

4

4.65%

MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT

4

4.65%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT

3

3.49%

JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING

3

3.49%

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH

2

2.33%

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING

2

2.33%

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS

2

2.33%

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN THE SERVICE SECTOR

2

2.33%

IRANIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

2

2.33%

COGENT BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT

2

2.33%

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH

2

2.33%

MARKETING AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR: CONCEPTS, METHODOLOGIES, TOOLS, AND APPLICATIONS

2

2.33%

MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATIONS

2

2.33%

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & BUSINESS EXCELLENCE

2

2.33%

OTHERS (47 JOURNALS)

1

(× 47 Journals)

1.16%

(× 47)

Total:

86

100.00%

The first noteworthy conclusion arising from the distribution of articles by journal is that this distribution has a broad spread, with the 86 selected articles published across 62 journals. Therefore, many journals can be used to search for information on this topic. The second striking conclusion is that no journal stands out over the others.

In the period under study, the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing published the most articles (five), representing a percentage of 5.81% of the total of 86 selected articles. With four published articles each (4.65% of the total), the Journal of Strategic Marketing and the Middle East Journal of Management were the next most prolific journals. Two journals published three articles each (3.49% of the total): International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and Journal of Interactive Marketing, and 10 Journals published two articles each (2.33% of the total). The rest of the journals published only one article each (47 journals with 1.16% of the total).


Distribution of the selected articles by number of citations

Table 6 was used to study the articles with the greatest influence in this field of scientific study. Table 6 shows the distribution of articles by number of citations of each publication in the WoS.

Table 6 Distribution of articles by number of citations.

Number of citations

Percentage of citations

Author(s) of article(s)

39

11.27%

Fidel et al. (2015)

31

8.96%

Breugelmans et al. (2015)

29

8.38%

So et al. (2016)

27

7.80%

Wang and Kim (2017)

14

4.05%

Morgan et al. (2018)

13

3.76%

Charoensukmongkol and Sasatanun (2017)

10

2.89%

Fu and Chang (2016)

9

(× 3 articles)

2.60%

(× 3)

Ascarza et al. (2017), Hutchinson et al. (2015), Yoon and Sims (2014)

7

(× 5 articles)

2.02%

(× 5)

Youssef et al. (2018), Stone et al. (2017), Chang and Zhang (2016), Chen and Wu (2016), Marolt et al. (2015)

6

(× 5 articles)

1.73%

(× 5)

Kim and Kumar (2018), Marino and Lo Presti (2018), Rodriguez and Trainor (2016), Matikainen et al. (2015), Venturini and Benito (2015)

5

(× 3 articles)

1.45%

(× 3)

Law et al. (2018), Diffley et al. (2018), Kang and Kim (2017)

4

(× 4 articles)

1.16%

(× 4)

Dewnarain et al. (2019), Haenlein (2017), Bucic et al. (2017), Lau et al. (2016a)

3

(× 9 articles)

0.87%

(× 9)

Olavarría-Jaraba et al. (2018), Galvão et al. (2018), Oumar et al. (2017), Afèche et al. (2017), Barac et al. (2017), Gu et al. (2016), Wali et al. (2016), Swarts et al. (2016), Gupta and Aggarwal (2016)

2

(× 7 articles)

0.58%

(× 7)

Kantorová and Bachmann (2018), Jaber and Simkin (2017), Singh et al. (2017), Kamboj et al. (2016), Pedron et al. (2016), Lau et al. (2016b), Ravasan and Mansouri (2018)

1

(× 19 articles)

0.29% (× 19)

Foltean et al. (2019), Kumar et al. (2019a, b), Pesonen et al. (2019), Pohludka and Štverková (2019), Cheng et al. (2019), Ben Rhouma and Zaccour (2017), Hu et al. (2018), Alizadeh Zoeram and Karimi Mazidi (2018), Aliyu and Nyadzayo (2018), Miell et al. (2018), Nawaser and Jahanshahi (2018), Kaptein (2018), Ashraf et al. (2017), Brockman et al. (2017), Filip et al. (2016), Mehta and Tajeddini (2016a), Mehta and Tajeddini (2016b), Singh and Saini (2016), Chung and Chen (2016)

0

(× 24 articles)

0.00%

(× 24)

Chierici et al. (2018), Lu and Miller (2019), Hamidi and Safareeyeh (2019), Roopchund (2019), Denizci Guillet and Shi (2019), Hitka et al. (2019), Budiman et al. (2019), Alhakimi and Ghaleb (2019), Al-Zadjali and Al-Busaidi (2018), Nemati et al. (2018), Mau et al. (2018), Powell et al. (2018), Oh and Ma (2018), Bojanowska (2017), Dukić and Gale (2015), Duggal and Verma (2017), Orantes Jiménez et al. (2017), Kashani and Shahmirzaloo (2017), Canhoto et al. (2017), Williams et al. (2017) Serebrennikova (2016), Yang and Hu (2015), Ozuem and Thomas (2015), El-Gohary et al. (2013)

346

100.00%

Total

The most cited article has a much higher number of citations than any other article. It can therefore be considered the most influential of the selected articles. This article, by Fidel et al., had received 39 citations when this study was conducted, representing 11.27% of the total citations of all selected articles. In second place is the article by Breugelmans et al., with 31 citations (8.96% of the total). This article is followed by the article by So et al., with 29 citations (8.38% of the total), and then the article by Wang and Kim, with 27 citations (7.80% of the total citations).

Callback before_footer in local_aigrade component should be migrated to new hook callback for core\hook\output\before_footer_html_generation
  • line 7225 of /lib/moodlelib.php: call to debugging()
  • line 7292 of /lib/moodlelib.php: call to {closure}()
  • line 71 of /lib/classes/hook/output/before_footer_html_generation.php: call to get_plugins_with_function()
  • line 987 of /lib/classes/output/core_renderer.php: call to core\hook\output\before_footer_html_generation->process_legacy_callbacks()
  • line 154 of /mod/book/view.php: call to core\output\core_renderer->footer()