IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/gemptp/hal-02956892.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is it enough to be customer oriented? The ethical use of social influence principles for selling
[Suffit-il d'être orienté client ? L'utilisation éthique des principes d'influence sociale dans la vente]

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Julienne

    (LITEM - Laboratoire en Innovation, Technologies, Economie et Management (EA 7363) - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management - UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management, UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne)

  • Annie Banikema

    (LITEM - Laboratoire en Innovation, Technologies, Economie et Management (EA 7363) - EESC-GEM Grenoble Ecole de Management - UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management, UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne)

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, customer orientation has been the dominant paradigm for sellers who want to build long- term relationships with customers (Saxe and Weitz, 1982). On the other hand, social influence techniques (seller's sympathy, gifts which induce reciprocity, etc.) is suspected of being non ethical and not compatible with building an enduring relationship (Cialdini, 2009). However, this research shows that (1) being customer oriented and using si-multaneously social influence techniques is more effective for closing short term transactions; (2) social influence does not hurt relationship quality when used together with customer orientation.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Julienne & Annie Banikema, 2014. "Is it enough to be customer oriented? The ethical use of social influence principles for selling [Suffit-il d'être orienté client ? L'utilisation éthique des principes d'influence sociale dans la v," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-02956892, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:gemptp:hal-02956892
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02956892v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02956892v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chonko, Lawrence B. & Hunt, Shelby D., 2000. "Ethics and Marketing Management:: A Retrospective and Prospective Commentary," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 235-244, December.
    2. F. Thomas Juster, 1966. "Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number just66-2.
    3. Spiro, Rosann L & Perreault, William D, Jr, 1979. "Influence Use by Industrial Salesmen: Influence-Strategy Mixes and Situational Determinants," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 435-455, July.
    4. Laure Lavorata, 2007. "Proposition d'une échelle de mesure du climat éthique dans l'entreprise: Une application au domaine de la vente en B to B," Post-Print hal-02050959, HAL.
    5. Laure Lavorata & Jean-Jacques Nillès & Suzanne Pontier, 2005. "La méthode des scénarios : une méthode qualitative innovante pour le marketing. Application au comportement éthique du vendeur en B to B," Post-Print halshs-02915761, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric Julienne & Annie Banikema, 2014. "Is it enough to be customer oriented? The ethical use of social influence principles for selling [Suffit-il d'être orienté client ? L'utilisation éthique des principes d'influence sociale dans la v," Post-Print hal-02956892, HAL.
    2. Ralph Stinebrickner & Todd R. Stinebrickner, 2014. "A Major in Science? Initial Beliefs and Final Outcomes for College Major and Dropout," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(1), pages 426-472.
    3. Engelberg, Joseph & Manski, Charles F. & Williams, Jared, 2009. "Comparing the Point Predictions and Subjective Probability Distributions of Professional Forecasters," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 27, pages 30-41.
    4. Jos'e Raimundo Carvalho & Diego de Maria Andr'e & Yuri Costa, 2023. "Individual Updating of Subjective Probability of Homicide Victimization: a "Natural Experiment'' on Risk Communication," Papers 2312.08171, arXiv.org.
    5. Kirstin Lindloff & Nadine Pieper & Nils C. Bandelow & David M. Woisetschläger, 2014. "Drivers of carsharing diffusion in Germany: an actor-centred approach," International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 14(3/4), pages 217-245.
    6. Tine Janžek & Petra Ziherl, 2013. "Overview of models and methods for measuring economic agent’s expectations," IFC Bulletins chapters, in: Bank for International Settlements (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth IFC Conference on "Statistical issues and activities in a changing environment", Basel, 28-29 August 2012., volume 36, pages 172-179, Bank for International Settlements.
    7. Pamela Giustinelli & Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Survey Measures Of Family Decision Processes For Econometric Analysis Of Schooling Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 81-99, January.
    8. Das, J.W.M. & Dominitz, J. & van Soest, A.H.O., 1997. "Comparing Predictions and Outcomes : Theory and Application to Income Changes," Other publications TiSEM 6eef11dd-0ae4-4673-b8c0-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Parker & Jürgen Maurer, 2011. "Assessing small non-zero perceptions of chance: The case of H1N1 (swine) flu risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 145-159, April.
    10. Roper, Stuart & Parker, Cathy, 2013. "Doing well by doing good: A quantitative investigation of the litter effect," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2262-2268.
    11. Han Lin & Saixing Zeng & Liangyan Wang & Hailiang Zou & Hanyang Ma, 2016. "How Does Environmental Irresponsibility Impair Corporate Reputation? A Multi‐Method Investigation," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 413-423, November.
    12. John R. Hauser & Guilherme (Gui) Liberali & Glen L. Urban, 2014. "Website Morphing 2.0: Switching Costs, Partial Exposure, Random Exit, and When to Morph," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1594-1616, June.
    13. Michael D. Hurd & Kathleen McGarry, 2002. "The Predictive Validity of Subjective Probabilities of Survival," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 966-985, October.
    14. Bryan Hochstein & Willy Bolander & Ronald Goldsmith & Christopher R. Plouffe, 2019. "Adapting influence approaches to informed consumers in high-involvement purchases: are salespeople really doomed?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 118-137, January.
    15. Ozer, Muammer, 2007. "Reducing the demand uncertainties at the fuzzy-front-end of developing new online services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1372-1387, November.
    16. Asher A. Blass & Saul Lach & Charles F. Manski, 2010. "Using Elicited Choice Probabilities To Estimate Random Utility Models: Preferences For Electricity Reliability," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(2), pages 421-440, May.
    17. Michael Hurd & Maarten Van Rooij & Joachim Winter, 2011. "Stock market expectations of Dutch households," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 416-436, April.
    18. Denis Darpy, 1997. "Une variable médiatrice du report d’achat : la procrastination," Post-Print hal-01518926, HAL.
    19. Kettlewell, Nathan & Walker, Matthew J. & Yoo, Hong Il, 2024. "Alternative Models of Preference Heterogeneity for Elicited Choice Probabilities," IZA Discussion Papers 16821, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Carman, K.G. & Kooreman, P., 2010. "Flu Shots, Mammogram, and the Perception of Probabilities," Other publications TiSEM fba970b8-6fc7-449b-acf9-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:gemptp:hal-02956892. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.