38 The Marketing Book
undermines relationship-building efforts (see
O’Malleyet al., 1997; Fournier et al., 1998). In
spite of these fears, the emphasis on technol-
ogy as a solution has continued (for an inter-
esting review, see Sisodia and Wolf, 2000).
Indeed, such is the contribution of database
marketing that Coviello et al. (1997) suggest
that database marketing is actually a type of
relationship marketing.
Recently, this focus on consumer markets
has evolved into CRM, which is variously
understood as Customer Relationship Market-
ing and/or Customer Relationship Manage-
ment. Although philosophically in line with
relationship marketing, the focus in CRM is on
the technology, particularly that technology
which attempts to manage all customer touch
points and facilitate the integration of various
database systems to provide a single picture of
the customer (Peppers and Rogers, 1995; Ryals
and Knox, 2001). This picture encompasses the
customer’s needs, preferences, buying behav-
iour and price sensitivity, and allows the CRM
business to focus on building customer reten-
tion and profitability. However, underpinning
both approaches is that CRM is a technology
tool which facilitates interaction between dif-
ferent databases and different interaction
media in order to facilitate segmentation and
communication (see Ryals and Knox, 2001).
Thus, the 1990s marked a turbulent time
for marketing, with two apparently competing
paradigms vying for attention and supremacy.
Despite its centrality to the theory and practice
of marketing, the mix management paradigm
(4Ps) began to be seriously questioned (Kent,
1986; van Waterschoot and van den Bulte, 1992;
Gr ̈onroos, 1994; O’Malley and Patterson, 1998).
Now, in the early years of the new millennium,
it appears that the debates that emerged
throughout the 1980s and 1990s have been
quieted (if not resolved) and that relationship
marketing is synonymous with marketing. As
such, it is difficult to conceive a marketing
problem or issue that does not have the notion
of building, maintaining or dissolving relation-
ships at its core. Indeed, within contemporary
conceptualizations, to do relationship market-
ing well is simply to do traditional marketing
better.
Thus far, this chapter has addressed the
history of relationship marketing in several
disparate schools and considered some of the
most commonly used definitions. The previous
section should go some way to explaining why
it is difficult to find a single, readily agreed
upon definition, because each research stream
has emphasized different elements and is itself
influenced by diverse underpinning theories.
These are identified in Figure 3.1.
Essentially, what is obvious from the above
is the number of different empirical contexts in
which relationship marketing research was ini-
tially considered. These have been explored
earlier in the chapter and include services
marketing, buyer–seller and channel theory in
the USA (Anderson and Narus, 1984, 1990) and
in Europe (Ford, 1980; Håkansson 1982; Turnbull
and Valla, 1985). Each have been influenced to a
greater or lesser degree by a number of under-
pinning theories. Although it is not possible to
consider these in detail, readers are directed to
research within particular traditions. For exam-
ple, when considering resource dependence
theory and micro-economic theory, useful dis-
cussions are provided by Gattora (1978), Arndt
(1983), and Easton and Araujo (1994). Similarly,
for institutional economics and Transaction Cost
Analysis, consult Gattora (1978), Williamson
(1975, 1985), and Weitz and Jap (1995). Macneil
(1980) explained the basis for contractual rela-
tions (usefully employed by Dwyer et al., 1987),
and Stern and Reve (1980), Arndt (1983), and
M ̈oller (1994) provide interesting discussions of
the Political Economy Paradigm (PEP). Social
Exchange Theory (SET) is considered to be the
most influential, particularly in terms of the
ideology of relationship marketing (see O’Mal-
ley and Tynan, 1999), and is based on the work of
Homans (1950), Blau (1964), and Thibaut and
Kelley (1959). This diversity in underpinning
theories is the basis for the rich tapestry that
relationship marketing has become and it has
helped to define particular research traditions.