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) IRXQGVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVLQLQWHQWLRQVWR 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¿HGVDPSOLQJZDVXVHGWRLQFOXGHFXVWRP- HUVIURPDOOIUHTXHQWÀ\HUOHYHOVUHSUHVHQWLQJD 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]HPHPEHUVPDQ\RIZKRPÀ\LQIUHTXHQWO\ DQGWKXVZRXOGQRWEHWKHSULPHEHQH¿FLDULHVRI the proposed services. 7KHVXUYH\ZDVSRVWHGLQDQRI¿FLDODLUOLQH branded envelope, together with an introductory letter and a prepaid return envelope, to 262 fre- TXHQWÀ\HUVLQFOXGLQJ%URQ]H6LOYHU 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 WKHUHVSRQGHQWVZHUHQRWSUR¿FLHQWLQWKHORFDO 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 QWÀ \H U VD PR QJO R\ DOW\ FD UGPH 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¿JXUHVFRUUHVSRQGZLWKSUHYLRXVVWXGLHV RIWKH¿UP¶VIUHTXHQWÀ\HUVDQGVXJJHVWWKDWWKH 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 ¿QGLQJVLQRWKHUPRELOHVHUYLFHFRQWH[WV0RUW & 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\ZHUHFRQ¿GHQWWKDWWKHLUSKRQHVXS- 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 QRQDGRSWHUV$VSUHYLRXVO\PHQWLRQHGWKH¿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 VHUYLFHVVLJQL¿FDQWO\PRUHDWWUDFWLYHLQWHUPVRI SCU, comfort, and security. Of particular interest from a CRM perspec- WLYHLVWKH¿QGLQJWKDWIUHTXHQWÀ\HUVHYDOXDWHG 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¿WVZRXOGEH3DLUZLVHt tests revealed that the mean for customers’ perceived use of check-in PRELOHVHUYLFHV6&8ZDVVLJQL¿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 tWHVWVVKRZHGWKDWFXVWRPHUVIHOWVLJQL¿FDQWO\ (p<0.01, two-tailed) more comfortable and secure booking (Comfort1 and Secure1) than paying for ÀLJKWV&RPIRUWDQG6HFXUHZLWKWKHLUPRELOH 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 WKHPHDQVRI0)%DQG0)%ZDVVLJQL¿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 QRVLJQL¿FDQWGLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQG 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 0RELOHSKRQHEDVHGÀLJKWVFKHGXOHDQG route information SCU(1) 4.80 3.81 0.004 4.35 1.945 )UHTXHQWÀ\HULQIRUPDWLRQDQGVSHFLDO 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 ÀLJKWWKURXJKDPRELOHSKRQHVHUYLFH Comfort(1) 4.85 3.73 0.001 4.33 1.839 ,ZRXOGIHHOVHFXUHERRNLQJP\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 ÀLJKWWKURXJKDPRELOHSKRQHVHUYLFH Comfort (2) 4.25 3.29 0.006 3.81 1.986 ,ZRXOGIHHOVHFXUHSD\LQJIRUDÀLJKW 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 WWHVWVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQGQRQDGRSWHUVRQHWDLOHGVLJQL¿FDQFHUHSRUWHG 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 WRSD\¼RUPRUHIRUWKHVHUYLFH6LPLODUUHVXOWV were obtained for customers’ willingness to pay IRUÀLJKWERRNLQJVHUYLFHV:LOO3D\)OLJKW2QO\ ZHUHSUHSDUHGWRSD\¼RUPRUHIRUWKH 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 WWHVWVEHWZHHQDGRSWHUVDQGQRQDGRSWHUVRQHWDLOHGVLJQL¿FDQFHUHSRUWHG 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\¿QGLQJRIWKHVWXG\LVWKDWFXVWRPHUVGR 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 SURSRVHGVHUYLFHVFDQEHGHVFULEHGDV³ZDLWDQG VHH´DQG³OHWRWKHUVXVHLW¿UVW´7KLVLVDW\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 ¼RUPRUH 13.7 The price of SMS 54.9 Nothing 31.4 WillPay Flight Total ¼RUPRUH 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), ZKHUHDGRSWHUVRIWKH¿[HG,QWHUQHWH[SUHVVHGD 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 LQWHUHVWLQUHFHLYLQJIUHTXHQWÀ\HULQIRUPDWLRQ 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- WLRQWKH¿QGLQJVRIWKHVXUYH\LQGLFDWHWKDWDW SUHVHQWWKHVXJJHVWHGPVHUYLFHVWRIUHTXHQWÀ\HUV would not achieve this aim. The new means of JHWWLQJÀLJKWLQIRUPDWLRQRUEX\LQJÀLJKWWLFNHWV G RQ RW V HH P WR E HV 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 FRXOGQRWH[SHULHQFHWKHP ¿UVW KDQG,WLV 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 LQWRPRUHVSHFL¿FDGRSWHUVHJPHQWV'HVSLWHWKH 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 SURYLGLQJVRPHLQLWLDO¿QGLQJVRQFXVWRPHUSHU- 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 WRH[DPLQHVSHFL¿FXVHFRQWH[WVWKDWPD\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¿WVDQGWKHUHE\DGGHGYDOXHWRFXVWRPHU 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¿UVWLQWURGXFHGRQWKHPDUNHW&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&50VWUDWHJ\VKRXOG¿UVWWKRURXJKO\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 DQGEHQH¿WV RI PRELOHVHUYLFHV 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¿UVWSULRULW\ 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 ZKRVXJJHVWV 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 VRWKDWLWPD[LPL]HVLWVEHQH¿WVWRFXVWRPHUV Concluding Remarks Our study on mobile CRM contributes to the lit- H U DW X U H RQ PR EL OHV HU Y LF HV E\ E HL Q JR Q HRI 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 RQWKHEHQH¿WVRIPRELOH&5 0WRERWKFXVWRPHUV 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 GHYLFHSUR¿OH0,'3 Retrieved July 22, 2003, IURP KWWSZZZWPOKXW¿6WXGLHV7LN 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 HYV RI ÀL Q HF X VW RPH UF 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 http://www.hpl.hp.com/ 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 . & 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,. 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. 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