1564
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
differences between more experienced and less
experienced mobile service customers. Research
on technology adoption covers descriptions of
adopter characteristics (e.g., Okazaki, 2006) but
to a lesser extent differences between perceptions
of technological applications in different adopter
groups. For example, Anckar and D’Incau (2002)
IRXQGVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVLQLQWHQWLRQVWR
use mobile services between adopters and non-
adopters of the Internet. Thus, we expected the
experienced mobile service customers to evaluate
the proposed services more positively than the
less experienced customers.
Sample
6WUDWL¿HGVDPSOLQJZDVXVHGWRLQFOXGHFXVWRP-
HUVIURPDOOIUHTXHQWÀ\HUOHYHOVUHSUHVHQWLQJD
variety of customer loyalty to the company. Since
there are fewer customers on the higher levels,
a normal probability sampling procedure would
have yielded a disproportionately high number of
EURQ]HPHPEHUVPDQ\RIZKRPÀ\LQIUHTXHQWO\
DQGWKXVZRXOGQRWEHWKHSULPHEHQH¿FLDULHVRI
the proposed services.
7KHVXUYH\ZDVSRVWHGLQDQRI¿FLDODLUOLQH
branded envelope, together with an introductory
letter and a prepaid return envelope, to 262 fre-
TXHQWÀ\HUVLQFOXGLQJ%URQ]H6LOYHU
Gold members, and all the Platinum members
(52). The total response rate was 42%, yielding

104 completed questionnaires. In addition to
the completed responses, nine were returned
uncompleted. One questionnaire was discarded
as incomplete, two were returned blank because
WKHUHVSRQGHQWVZHUHQRWSUR¿FLHQWLQWKHORFDO
language, and six envelopes were returned because
of change of address.
7KH UHVSRQVH UDWHV IRU IUHTXHQW À\HU OHYHOV
were: Bronze (32.9%), Silver (40%), Gold (45.7%),
and Platinum (40.4%). There may be several rea-
sons for a higher response rate among the more
I UHT XH QWÀ \H U VD PR QJO R\ DOW\ FD UGPH PE HU V 2 QH
reason could be that people who travel often are
more likely to have sophisticated phones, with
which they can access e-mail while being away
from work. Another plausible reason is that cus-
tomers who have reached a higher level within
the loyalty program feel a greater attachment to
the airline and thus are more inclined to respond
to the survey.
Answers to the background questions revealed
that 78.8% of all respondents were male, which
is representative of the total sample that received
the survey. Male customers are overrepresented
on all loyalty program levels, except the Bronze
level. The age distribution among survey par-
ticipants was 18-25 years (1.9%), 26-35 (13.5%),
36-50 (46.2%), 51-65 (37.5%), and 66+ (1%).
7KHVH¿JXUHVFRUUHVSRQGZLWKSUHYLRXVVWXGLHV
RIWKH¿UP¶VIUHTXHQWÀ\HUVDQGVXJJHVWWKDWWKH

age distribution is representative of the airline’s
loyalty program clientele.
RESULTS
Customer Readiness to use Mobile
Services
When new services and technologies emerge,
customer adoption is often slower than expected
by companies (Gilbert & Han, 2005). For ex-
ample, customer adoption of self-service check-in
automats at airports has been slow, as has been
the adoption of electronic check-in (Liljander
et al., 2006). However, the customers who re-
sponded to the present survey appear to be at the
forefront of mobile service adoption. More than
half of the respondents (53.8%) used the mobile
Internet daily, weekly, or monthly, whereas
only 26% had never used it, or had only tried
it (20.2%). There was no relationship between
the loyalty program level and the use of mobile
Internet services (Chi-Square=5.049, p= 0.168).
In addition, Chi-square tests showed that there
1565
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
was no relationship between gender and mobile
Internet adoption (p=0.258), but that there was a
relationship between adoption and age (p=0.025).
1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ EXW FRQWUDU\ WR LQVLJQL¿FDQW
¿QGLQJVLQRWKHUPRELOHVHUYLFHFRQWH[WV0RUW
& Drennan, 2005), older customers (51-65, 66+)
had adopted sophisticated mobile services to a

lesser extent than younger customers.
Customers are not necessarily aware of what
applications they use to access services, and thus
they may possess Java-supporting phones with-
out being aware of this. Among the respondents
RQO\ZHUHFRQ¿GHQWWKDWWKHLUSKRQHVXS-
ports Java, 22.1% said that it did not, and 33.7%
did not know. Thus a fairly large percentage of
loyalty program customers have the necessary
equipment to access and receive new services,
but the majority showed the need to either update
their phones or receive help in recognizing and
using inherent mobile features. The results are
presented in Table 1.
Percentages
Use of mobile internet Bronze Silver Gold
Plati-
num
Total
N=23 N=28 N=32 N=21 N=104
Daily 17.4 28.6 46.9 47.6 35.6
Weekly 17.4 10.7 6.3 4.8 9.6
Monthly 4.3 10.7 15.6 0 8.7
Have tried a couple of
times
17.4 25.0 18.8 19.0 20.2
Have never used 43.5 25.0 12.5 28.6 26.0
Gender Age
Use of mobile
internet

M F 18-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 66+
N=82 N=22 N=2 N=14 N=48 N=39 N=1
Daily 37.8 27.3 0 42.9 43.8 25.6 0
Weekly 8.5 13.6 0 0 16,7 5.1 0
Monthly 9.8 4.5 0 28.6 4.2 7.7 0
Have tried a
couple of times
22.0 13.6 50.0 14.3 25.0 15.4 0
Have never used 22.0 40.9 50.0 14.3 10.4 46.2 100.0
Awareness of JAVA support in respondents’ personal mobile phone Total
Mobile phone has JAVA support 43.3
Mobile phone has no JAVA support 22.1
Do not know 33.7
Table 1. Mobile Internet use and awareness of JAVA support
1566
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
Next, the attractiveness of the proposed
services, as well as their impact on image and
loyalty will be presented. The respondent data
were divided into two groups, those who used
the mobile Internet daily, weekly, or monthly
(mobile Internet adopters) and those who never
used it, or who had only tried it (mobile Internet
QRQDGRSWHUV$VSUHYLRXVO\PHQWLRQHGWKH¿UVW
group was expected to evaluate the services more
highly than the second group.
Mobile Service Evaluation
Table 2 presents the mean result for customer
evaluations of SCU; comfort and security; m-
feedback; and improvement of brand assets. The

results for the total sample show a neutral atti-
tude towards the proposed mobile services, with
means close to the middle value of the scale (4).
T-tests were performed to investigate differences
in means between adopters and non-adopters
of the mobile Internet. Since mobile Internet
adopters were expected to exhibit higher scores
than non-adopters, one-tailed t tests are reported.
As expected, customers who already use more
sophisticated mobile services found the offered
VHUYLFHVVLJQL¿FDQWO\PRUHDWWUDFWLYHLQWHUPVRI
SCU, comfort, and security.
Of particular interest from a CRM perspec-
WLYHLVWKH¿QGLQJWKDWIUHTXHQWÀ\HUVHYDOXDWHG
IUHTXHQW À\HU LQIRUPDWLRQ 6&8 DV WKH OHDVW
interesting service. This result requires further
investigation within the company to reveal the
reasons for it. One reason may be that customers
cannot imagine what kind of information could be
communicated on the small screen, and what the
EHQH¿WVZRXOGEH3DLUZLVHt tests revealed that
the mean for customers’ perceived use of check-in
PRELOHVHUYLFHV6&8ZDVVLJQL¿FDQWO\KLJKHU
(p<0.01, two-tailed) than the means of other pro-
posed services. One explanation is that check-in
via various technological devices is becoming
increasingly familiar to airline customers. Thus,
familiarity with performing these services by us-
ing other technologies may have a positive effect
o n c o n s u m e r i n t e r e s t i n p e r f o r m i n g t h e m a l s o w i t h

their mobile phone. In addition, paired-samples
tWHVWVVKRZHGWKDWFXVWRPHUVIHOWVLJQL¿FDQWO\
(p<0.01, two-tailed) more comfortable and secure
booking (Comfort1 and Secure1) than paying for
ÀLJKWV&RPIRUWDQG6HFXUHZLWKWKHLUPRELOH
phone. This was the case in all customer groups
(complete sample, adopters and non-adopters).
M-feedback would be a novel service, offering
customers the possibility of immediate feedback
to the company through a device that they always
carry with them. Even though customers believed
that mobile feedback would be handled in the
same way as other feedback (MFB2 M = 5.40),
they expressed only a lukewarm interest in the
service. Means of MFB1 and MFB3-6 ranged
from 3.46 to 4.35 for non-adopters, and from
3.98 to 4.88 for adopters. Only the difference in
WKHPHDQVRI0)%DQG0)%ZDVVLJQL¿FDQW
between adopters and non-adopters, showing
that adopters would be more comfortable using
the mobile phone for feedback (MFB1) and that
they would use it more regularly (MFB5). How-
ever, the low means overall (adopters M= 4.14,
non-adopters M = 3.46) for MFB5 suggests that
most clients would hesitate in making mobile
feedback their primary communication channel
with the company.
5HJDUGLQJ P&50 EHQH¿WV WR WKH ¿UP LQ
the form of improved brand assets, there were
QRVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQG

non-adopters (Table 2). According to the mean
values, offering mobile services might improve
the image only slightly. In particular Image4
(adopters M = 5.45 and non-adopters M = 4.96)
showed that the airline with mobile services would
be perceived as a modern and technologically up-
to-date company. However, customers’ responses
to loyalty (M = 3.34 and M = 2.44) demonstrated
that mobile services would probably not be a key
factor in keeping customers from switching air-
lines. This mean score is the lowest in comparison
with all other statements. Thus, the conclusion
1567
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
Components
(7-point scales)
Mobile Inter-
net Adopters
N=48
Mobile Internet
Non-Adopters
N=56
t test
p-value
1
Total
N=104
SD
Service content and usability
0RELOHSKRQHEDVHGÀLJKWVFKHGXOHDQG

route information SCU(1)
4.80 3.81 0.004 4.35 1.945
)UHTXHQWÀ\HULQIRUPDWLRQDQGVSHFLDO
offers SCU(2)
4.18 3.23 0.002 3.74 1.712
Flight booking and payment SCU(3) 4.68 3.77 0.008 4.26 1.926
Check-in services SCU(4) 5.84 4.71 0.000 5.32 1.541
Comfort and security
I would feel comfortable booking my
ÀLJKWWKURXJKDPRELOHSKRQHVHUYLFH
Comfort(1)
4.85 3.73 0.001 4.33 1.839
,ZRXOGIHHOVHFXUHERRNLQJP\ÀLJKW
through a mobile phone service Secure(1)
5.24 4.17 0.000 4.74 1.754
I would feel comfortable paying for a
ÀLJKWWKURXJKDPRELOHSKRQHVHUYLFH
Comfort (2)
4.25 3.29 0.006 3.81 1.986
,ZRXOGIHHOVHFXUHSD\LQJIRUDÀLJKW
through a mobile phone service Se-
cure(2)
4.40 3.64 0.014 4.05 1.793
Mobile feedback (MFB)
I would feel comfortable giving feedback
through a mobile phone service MFB(1)
4.71 3.98 0.026 4.37 1.927
I believe that the airline would handle
mobile feedback in the same way as
conventional feedback MFB(2)

5.41 5.40 0.430 5.40 1.523
Mobile feedback would make it easier
for me to contact the airline MFB(3)
4.88 4.35 0.072 4.63 1.790
Mobile feedback could help the airline
better solve my problems MFB(4)
3.98 3.75 0.258 3.88 1.810
I would use the mobile feedback ser-
vice regularly MFB(5)
4.14 3.46 0.024 3.83 1.765
I would give mobile feedback in in-
stances I otherwise would not MFB(6)
4.67 4.35 0.203 4.52 1.887
Brand assets
Mobile services would make the airline
more desirable as an airline carrier Im-
age(1)
4.52 3.92 0.033 4.24 1.726
1
WWHVWVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQGQRQDGRSWHUVRQHWDLOHGVLJQL¿FDQFHUHSRUWHG
Table 2. Item means for mobile Internet adopters, non-adopters, and the total sample
1568
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
must be that customers do not expect the mobile
services to be a bonding factor in their relation-
ship with the company. They might be perceived
as nice additions to existing services, but not as
a relationship strengthening factor.
Speed of Mobile Feedback, Willingness
to Pay and Intentions to Use

One of the key features of mobile feedback is its
potential speed both in sending and in receiving
feedback (MFBSend and MFBReceive). Only 49%
said that they would send feedback immediately
when they had experienced a problem, while the
rest would do it later; 42.2% expected to get an
answer immediately, or within 2 hours, while
the rest expected to get it in one day or later.
The results are presented in Table 3. Since quick
handling of mobile feedback would require extra
resources and thus added costs, customers were
asked if they would be willing to pay for the mobile
feedback service. Not surprisingly, the majority
of customers were prepared to pay either nothing
(31.4%), or the price of an SMS (54.9). Only a small
percentage of customers (13.7%) were prepared
WRSD\¼RUPRUHIRUWKHVHUYLFH6LPLODUUHVXOWV
were obtained for customers’ willingness to pay
IRUÀLJKWERRNLQJVHUYLFHV:LOO3D\)OLJKW2QO\
ZHUHSUHSDUHGWRSD\¼RUPRUHIRUWKH
services, while the others were prepared to pay
nothing (38.8%) or the price of an SMS (51.5%).
7KLV UHVXOW LV LQ OLQH ZLWK HDUOLHU ¿QGLQJV RQ
customer willingness to pay for mobile services
(Jarvenpaa, Lang, Takeda, & Tuunanen, 2003)
Customers were also asked how soon they
believed that they would start using these services
if they were offered (StartUse, Table 3). The an-
swers revealed that 35% would begin to use them
immediately, while 48.6% would wait until more

people had adopted the service, and 16.5% said
that they would probably never use them.
Components
(7-point scales)
Mobile Inter-
net Adopters
N=48
Mobile Internet
Non-Adopters
N=56
t test
p-value
1
Total
N=104
SD
Mobile services would improve my
picture of the airline as an airline carrier
Image(2)
4.80 4.23 0.041 4.54 1.683
Mobile services would distinguish the
airline from other airlines Image(3)
4.86 4.35 0.061 4.63 1.656
Mobile services are associated with a
modern and technologically up-to-date
company Image(4)
5.45 4.96 0.060 5.22 1.595
Mobile services could be a key factor that
keeps me from changing to another airline
Loyalty

3.34 2.44 0.005 2.92 1.810
1
WWHVWVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQGQRQDGRSWHUVRQHWDLOHGVLJQL¿FDQFHUHSRUWHG
Table 2. Item means for mobile Internet adopters, non-adopters, and the total sample
1569
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
DISCUSSION
$NH\¿QGLQJRIWKHVWXG\LVWKDWFXVWRPHUVGR
not yet seem to be ready to fully embrace mo-
bile services as part of an airline’s relationship
marketing program. Their attitudes towards the
SURSRVHGVHUYLFHVFDQEHGHVFULEHGDV³ZDLWDQG
VHH´DQG³OHWRWKHUVXVHLW¿UVW´7KLVLVDW\SLFDO
consumer response to many innovations, and it
does not in itself mean that they would not adopt
any of the services, if they were available. Re-
sistance to innovations is an instinctive response
in many consumers, which is due to functional
and psychological barriers (Ram & Sheth, 1989).
So far, consumers have not embraced mobile
commerce to the extent that was predicted at the
beginning of this century (Anckar & D’Incau,
2002; Nordman & Liljander, 2004). However,
consumers have expressed a higher interest in
utility than in entertainment services (Anckar
& D’Incau, 2002), which seems promising also
for m-CRM programs. Our study showed that
customers were most interested in utility mobile
services that they were likely to have used pre-
viously on other technological interfaces (e.g.,

check-in services).
Percentages
MFBSend Total MFBReceive Total
Immediately 49.0 Immediately 21.6
Sometime later 16.7
Within couple of
hours
20.6
Same time frame as conventional
feedback
22.5 The same day 24.5
Not at all 11.8 In due time 33.3
WillPay Feedback Total
¼RUPRUH 13.7
The price of SMS 54.9
Nothing 31.4
WillPay Flight Total
¼RUPRUH 9.7
The price of SMS 51.5
Nothing 38.8
StartUse Total
Immediately 35.0
Wait until more people have
adopted the services
48.6
Probably never 16.5
Table 3. Quickness of m-feedback, willingness to pay and intention to use the services
1570
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
When dividing the data into two groups, adopt-

ers and non-adopters of mobile Internet, we found
that the adopters had a more positive attitude than
non-adopters towards many of the services. This
supports the results of Anckar and D’Incau (2002),
ZKHUHDGRSWHUVRIWKH¿[HG,QWHUQHWH[SUHVVHGD
higher interest in mobile services compared to
non-adopters. The mobile Internet adopters in our
study were younger than non-adopters, indicating
that there is a new generation of customers who
are more positively tuned into this new channel.
However, since all customers expressed a low
LQWHUHVWLQUHFHLYLQJIUHTXHQWÀ\HULQIRUPDWLRQ
through their mobile phone, its use in CRM will
have to be carefully considered. The study also
revealed that customers are not prepared to pay
additional costs for being able to use the mobile
channel, whenever and wherever required. Cus-
tomers expect the same feeless services through
the mobile channel as they have become used to
on the wired Internet. They are also not prepared
to pay for quicker service, but probably see this as
a normal service improvement in a competitive
environment. For example, immediate feedback
attracted customers to some extent but not enough
to be paid for. However, although the new service
would require additional investments from the
companies, they should welcome customers’ com-
plaints as part of a defensive marketing strategy
(Fornell & Wernerfelt, 1987).
Further, customers did not feel that the new

services would have a strong positive effect on
the company’s brand assets in terms of improved
image and retention. One reason might be that
customers view mobile services as a hygiene
factor and not as a motivation factor. Thus in the
same way as customers expect all companies to
have an online presence, they expect them to
offer mobile services. Customers might not use
them regularly, but they expect them to be avail-
able when needed. Moreover, business customers
probably know by experience that successful
services are easily copied by competitors and that
readily available applications do not offer unique
and stable competitive advantages to a company.
Further, customers may be afraid of their phones
being cluttered with unwanted messages and may
prefer companies to communicate with them in
a less obtrusive way.
Since CRM aims to increase customer reten-
WLRQWKH¿QGLQJVRIWKHVXUYH\LQGLFDWHWKDWDW
SUHVHQWWKHVXJJHVWHGPVHUYLFHVWRIUHTXHQWÀ\HUV
would not achieve this aim. The new means of
JHWWLQJÀLJKWLQIRUPDWLRQRUEX\LQJÀLJKWWLFNHWV
G RQ RW V HH P WR E HV X I ¿F LH Q WO \D W W U D FWL YH WR H Q K D QF H
customer loyalty.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
The study has several limitations, which have to be
taken into account when interpreting the results.
In addition to the obvious limitations of study-

ing a small sample of a single company, and the
bias that comes from self-selection among those
who received the survey, other limitations need
to be mentioned. An important limitation is that
customers had to imagine the proposed services
DQG FRXOGQRWH[SHULHQFHWKHP ¿UVW KDQG,WLV
possible that they would have had a more positive
attitude if they had been able to try the service
on a high quality mobile device. Multiple items
in the questionnaire on customers’ current mo-
bile service use and on their loyalty to different
service channels would have provided valuable
information that would have helped in explain-
ing the results. The study was conducted in close
cooperation with the company, which put severe
limitations on the constructs that were used for the
study. Thus, future studies should include more
of the well-established concepts in the consumer
adoption literature. For example, future studies
should include more information on customer
innovation characteristics and behavior, which
would make it possible to categorize customers
LQWRPRUHVSHFL¿FDGRSWHUVHJPHQWV'HVSLWHWKH
limitations of TAM in studying customer inter-
1571
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
face usage of technology (Nysveen, Pedersen,
& Thorbjørnsen, 2005) to explain the adoption
of mobile CRM, measures from the consumer
innovativeness and/or technology acceptance

literature could also be used.
Our study should be seen as exploratory, in
SURYLGLQJVRPHLQLWLDO¿QGLQJVRQFXVWRPHUSHU-
ceptions of mobile CRM services. More studies
are obviously needed, in other companies, on other
services, and on complete customer relationship
programs. Since consumer innovativeness re-
search has concentrated on tangible products (for
a review, see Roehrich, 2004), it would be fruit-
ful to apply this line of research on services and
technologically novel products, and in particular
on a combination of m- and e-services. Further, it
would be of interest to study customers’ reasons
for their choice of channel to contact a company
and to receive communications from it. Research
on bank services has shown that customers use
different channels for different purposes (Patrício,
Fisk, & Falcão e Cunha, 2003), but there is also
evidence that the new generation of customers
make little difference between channels (Lind-
strom, 2003). Finally, our study could be extended
WRH[DPLQHVSHFL¿FXVHFRQWH[WVWKDWPD\LQÀX-
ence the usability of mobile services (Kim, Kim,
& Lee, 2005).
Managerial Implications
MIDlet technologies offer companies the opportu-
nity to develop new, specialized services; bringing
EHQH¿WVDQGWKHUHE\DGGHGYDOXHWRFXVWRPHU
relationships. In the hype and speed of techno-
logical development, it is easy for companies to

be fascinated by technological developments that
may seem to improve both current services and
brand image, but which attract little interest when
WKH\DUH¿UVWLQWURGXFHGRQWKHPDUNHW&XVWRPHUV¶
habits change slowly. Although mobile banking
has enjoyed a remarkable success throughout Eu-
rope, it is in many ways a unique context (Riivari,
2005). In other contexts, such as travel services
(Wang & Cheung, 2004), neither the market, nor
the devices seem to be ready for the complexity of
mobile travel services. Therefore, companies that
consider developing wireless services as part of
WKHLU&50VWUDWHJ\VKRXOG¿UVWWKRURXJKO\LQYHV-
tigate its potential in relation to costs. Our study
showed that most customers expect companies to
offer new CRM mobile services free of charge,
as part of customer relationship maintenance
costs. Companies need to carefully consider
what charges can be claimed for services that are
intended to add value to customer relationships.
Further, companies need to educate customers
LQ WKH XVH DQGEHQH¿WV RI PRELOHVHUYLFHV DQG
provide incentives to encourage trial.
In addition, when developing mobile services,
it is important that the logic of using the service
strongly resembles that which the customers have
grown used to through other channels, or through
other service providers. This is a huge challenge,
since different channels differ considerably in
how the service is presented to customers, and

different applications result in different service
logics and scripts. To give an example from
airlines, customers already have had to learn
different logics for checking in on the Internet
and through an automat at the airport. In addi-
tion, the Internet check-in services and automats
of different airlines have different interfaces and
work in different ways. Thus, it is understandable
if customers are unwilling to learn yet a third way
to check in through their mobile phone. These
types of problems have to be minimized through
service development that gives the customers’
SHUVSHFWLYH¿UVWSULRULW\
From a relationship marketing perspective, it
is important that customers are provided with a
choice of how to interact with the company. Rela-
tionships are not enhanced by forcing customers
to interact with certain channels. Therefore, we
adopt a different standpoint from Winer (2001,
S ZKRVXJJHVWV WKDW ³>WKH@HVVHQFH RI WKH
information technology revolution and, in par-
ticular, the World Wide Web is the opportunity
1572
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
afforded companies to choose how they interact
with their customers.” Instead, we suggest that
the new channels afford customers an opportunity
to choose how to interact with the company, and
that strong customer relationships can be built
only through voluntary use of new technologies.

When designing strategies, all channels need to
be considered from a customer relationship per-
spective, designing the services of each channel
VRWKDWLWPD[LPL]HVLWVEHQH¿WVWRFXVWRPHUV
Concluding Remarks
Our study on mobile CRM contributes to the lit-
H U DW X U H RQ PR EL OHV HU Y LF HV E\ E HL Q JR Q HRI W KH ¿ U VW
empirical investigations of customer attitudes to-
wards loyalty program services provided through
a mobile device. Although the study showed that
loyalty program customers have little interest in
mobile CRM services, it can be concluded that
mobile CRM to some extent enhances the brand
image of a company, which over time may have a
positive effect also on customer retention. In ad-
dition, offering mobile services will demonstrate
that the company is at the forefront of service
technology development. This will attract early
adopters with a strong interest in new technolo-
gies, whose expertise can be used, for example,
by involving them in the service development
process. Thus it is clear that the mobile channel
should be included in companies’ future CRM
strategies, but also that more research is needed
RQWKHEHQH¿WVRIPRELOH&5 0WRERWKFXVWRPHUV
and companies.
REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New
York: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand

leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Adjari, J. (2001). Java 2 mobile information
GHYLFHSUR¿OH0,'3 Retrieved July 22, 2003,
IURP KWWSZZZWPOKXW¿6WXGLHV7LN
2001s/papers/jafar_ajdari.pdf
Akhgar, B., Siddiqi, J., Foster, M., Siddiqi, H., &
Akhgar, A. (2002). Applying customer relation-
ship management (CRM) in the mobile commerce
market. International Conference on Mobile
Computing, Sponsored by EU (IST), Greece.
Anckar, B., & D’Incau, D. (2002). Value creation
in mobile commerce: Findings from a consumer
survey. Journal of Information Technology Theory
and Application, 4(1), 43-64.
Balasubramanian, S., Peterson, R. A., & Jarv-
enpaa, S. L. (2002). Exploring the implications
of m-commerce for markets and marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
30(4), 348-361.
Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L.
(2000). Technology infusion in service encounters.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(1), 138-149.
Chae, M., Kim, J., Kim, H., & Ryu, H. (2002).
Information quality for mobile internet services:
A theoretical model with empirical validation.
Electronic Markets, 12(1), 38-46.
Cho, Y., Im, I., Hiltz, R., & Fjermestad, J. (2002).
The effects of post-purchase evaluation factors on
R Q OL Q HYV RI ÀL Q HF X VW RPH UF R PS OD L Q L QJ E HK DY LRU 

Implications for customer loyalty. Advances in
Consumer Research, 29(1), 318-327.
Crosby, L. A., & Johnson, S. L. (2001). Technol-
ogy: Friend or foe to customer relationships?
Marketing Management, 10(4), 10-11.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predict-
ing e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets
1573
Do Mobile CRM Services Appeal to Loyalty Program Customers?
perspective. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 59, 451-474.
Feinberg, R., & Kadam, R. (2002). E-CRM Web
service attributes as determinants of customer
satisfaction with retail Web sites. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(5),
432-451.
Fjermestad, J., & Romano, N. C., Jr. (2003).
Electronic customer relationship management.
Revisiting the general principles of usability
and resistance—An integrative implementation
framework. Business Process Management Jour-
nal, 9(5), 572-591.
Fornell, C., & Wernerfelt, B. (1987, November).
Defensive marketing strategy by customer com-
plaint management: A theoretical analysis. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 24, 337-346.
Gilbert, A. L., & Han, H. (2005). Understanding

mobile data services adoption: Demography, at-
titudes or needs? Technological Forecasting &
Social Change, 72, 327-337.
Grönroos, C. (2000). Service management and
marketing—A customer relationship management
approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Heinonen, K. (2004). Reconceptualizing customer
perceived value—The value of time and place.
Managing Service Quality, 14(2/3), 205-215.
Heinonen, K. (2006). Temporal and spatial e-
service value. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 17(4), 380-400.
Helenius, J., & Liljander, V. (2005). Developing
brand assets with wireless devices. In I. Clarke
III & T. B. Flatherty (Eds.), Advances in elec-
tronic marketing (pp. 176-192). Hershey PA:
Idea Group.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Lang, K. R., Takeda, Y., &
Tuunanen, V. K. (2003). Mobile commerce at
crossroads. Communications of the ACM, 46(12),
41-44.
Johnston, R., & Mehra, S. (2002). Best-practice
complaint management. Academy of Management
Journal, 16(4), 145-154.
Jukic, N., Sharma, A., Jukic, B., & Parameswaran,
M. (2002, May 19-22). M-commerce: Analysis of
impact on marketing orientation. Information Re-
sources Management Association International
Conference, Seattle, WA.
Kaapu, T. (2005). The concept of information

privacy in e-commerce: A phenomenographical
analysis of consumers’ views. Conference Paper
IRIS’28, Kristiansand, Norway.
Kannan, P. K., Chang, A M., & Whinston, A. B.
(2001) Wireless commerce: Marketing issues and
possibilities. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii.
Kim, H., Kim, J., & Lee, Y. (2005). An empirical
study of use context in the mobile internet, focus-
ing on the usability of information architecture.
Information Systems Frontier, 7(2), 175-186.
Kindberg, T., Sellen, A., & Geelhoed, E. (2004,
July 7). Security and trust in mobile interactions:
A study of users’ perceptions and reasoning. Con-
sumer Applications and Systems Laboratory, HP
Laboratories Bristol, HPL-2004-113. Retrieved
September 29, 2005, from
/>techreports/2004/HPL-2004-113.pdf
Lam, J., & Chan, S. S. (2003). Exploring CRM
implementation on the internet and mobile chan-
nels. Chicago: Seminar, DePaul University, School
of Computer Science, Telecommunication and
Information Systems.
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus J., & van
Riel, A. (2006). Technology readiness and the
evaluation and adoption of self-service technolo-
gies. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
13(3), 177-191.
Lin, H H. & Wang, Y S. (2006). An examination

of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile