Personalization in Personalized Marketing - Trends and Ways Forward

Received: 22 September 2021 | Accepted: 12 April 2022
DOI: 10.1002/mar.21670
REVIEW ARTICLE
Personalization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways

forward
Shobhana Chandra1 | Sanjeev Verma1 | Weng Marc Lim2,5 |

3,5 4
Satish Kumar | Naveen Donthu
1
National Institute of Industrial Engineering,
Mumbai, India Abstract
2
Swinburne University of Technology, In marketing, personalization is the action of designing and producing in ways that
Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
resonate with customer preferences. Content and products that are personalized
3
Malaviya National Institute of Technology
Jaipur, Jaipur, India according to customer preferences can reduce customer fatigue and time in making
4
Georgia State University, Atlanta, choices, thereby decreasing their cognitive load. Despite its importance, the
Georgia, USA literature on personalized marketing remains fragmented due to the absence of a
5
Swinburne University of Technology,
comprehensive review that consolidates the intellectual structure of the field. This
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
study bridges this knowledge gap through a bibliometric review using performance
Correspondence analysis and science mapping. Through a comprehensive review of 383 publications,
Weng Marc Lim, Swinburne University of
Technology, Australia and Malaysia. this study reveals the publication and citation trends, the most prolific authors,
Email: lim@wengmarc.com; marclim@swin. journals, and publications, and six major themes (i.e., personalized recommendation,
edu.au; wlim@swinburne.edu.my
personalized relationship, personalization–privacy paradox, personalized advertising,
personalization concept and discourse in marketing, and customer insights in
personalized marketing) that characterize the body of knowledge of personalized
marketing. The study concludes with future research directions as ways forward for
personalized marketing, wherein a focus on new‐age technologies involving artificial
intelligence, big data, blockchain, internet of things, and wearables is encouraged to
explore new ways to curate personalized experiences across online and offline
channels.
KEYWORDS
advertising, bibliometric, customer insight, paradox, personalization, personalized marketing,
privacy, recommendation, relationship, review, trends, ways forward
1 | INTRODUCTION conspicuous. Marketers discovered this latent need and the concept
of personalization germinated with the proliferation of technological
Customer expectations have changed since the mid‐20th century, advancement. The definition of the word “personalization,” according
when accessibility of product was the key to capturing markets. to the Oxford dictionary, is “the action of designing or producing
Today, customers want to stand out while being a part of a crowd. something that meets someone's individual requirement.” In this
The desire to own a product that carries personal signature is regard, personalization is a way to acknowledge the uniqueness of
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Psychology & Marketing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Psychol Mark. 2022;39:1529–1562. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar | 1529

15206793, 2022, 8, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mar.21670 by Tunisia Hinari NPL, Wiley Online Library on [22/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1530 | CHANDRA ET AL.
each customer by satisfying them with products that are tailored role of personalization in shaping customer attitude, intention, and
according to their preference (Suprenant & Solomon, 1987). In brand use, while other researchers suggested that personalized
practice, personalization is regarded as a process that is designed to offering fails to elicit a response from target customers because of
curate a relevant, individualized interaction to enhance customer acclimatization to personalized marketing (Pfiffelmann et al., 2020).
experience (Polk et al., 2020). Specifically, personalization uses The mixed results of these studies call for further research to
insight based on each customer's personal and behavioral data to delineate the conditions in which personalization can and cannot
deliver a superior experience. More often than not, personalization work as well as new ways to make personalization work. However,
requires customer engagement to cocreate a personalized experi- such work can only be pursued when researchers can identify the
ence, which can occur through customer reviews, purchase data, and extant gaps and position prospective novelty against a synthesized
social media interactions, among others (Lim et al., 2022). understanding of prior literature in the field (Lim & Zhang, 2022; Paul
The rising importance of personalization is evident from the fact et al., 2021), which this study endeavors to deliver through a
that an increase of 5%–15% in revenue is directly attributed to comprehensive review that will support future research efforts.
successful implementation of personalization, with an improvement Previous reviews have been delimited to a specific area of
of 10%–30% in marketing efficiency within a single channel (Boudet personalization rather than the field in its entirety (Table 1). For
et al., 2019). The concept of personalization is central to the example, previous reviews have focused on customers' need for
discipline of marketing, but remains multidisciplinary in nature as it privacy and trust in the personalization effort (Evans, 2003; Fowler
intersects with domains such as business management, computer et al., 2013; Konstan & Riedl, 2012; Pitta et al., 2003; Salonen &
science, decision science, information system (IS), and psychology. Karjaluoto, 2016; Seele et al., 2021; Smith, 2006). Several reviews
According to Zanker et al. (2019), personalization embeds the have also highlighted the pivotal role of big data in the proliferation
application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in of the personalization concept (Anshari et al., 2019; Fowler et al.,
cognitive and social psychology. In the recent past, there has been 2013; Samara et al., 2020), and studied personalization in customer
rapid growth in the literature on personalization research and the relationship management (Anshari et al., 2019; Evans, 2003;
field is continuing to gain momentum due to its multidisciplinary Fowler et al., 2013; Pitta et al., 2003; Smith, 2006).
nature. Although personalization research is growing exponentially, Though existing reviews of the extant literature on personaliza-
there is dearth of comprehensive review to consolidate the tion research reveal diverse perspectives on personalization, their
fragmented literature. Moreover, mixed findings on the impact of scope is narrowly defined and the nature of review is qualitative (e.g.,
personalization limit the generalizability and holistic view of the basic content and thematic analysis), which can be resolved using a
research domain. For example, one group of researchers such as Jain review method that is capable of handling a large corpus and uses a
et al. (2021), Smink et al. (2020), and Tran et al. (2020) highlighted the combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques to provide a
TABLE 1 Past reviews on personalization research.
Author(s) (year) Review type Review focus
Seele et al. (2021) Systematic review Ethical issues of algorithmic pricing.
Samara et al. (2020) Systematic review Impact of adopting big data and artificial intelligence strategy in personalization of tourism
services.
Anshari et al. (2019) Systematic review Role of big data and CRM strategies to generate personalized services.
Turow and Couldry (2018) Critical review Role of data extraction technologies on transformation of communications field.
Salonen and Karjaluoto (2016) Systematic review Implementation and theoretical foundations of web personalization from the user‐centric
perspective.
Fowler et al. (2013) Critical review Impact of technology trends on the concept and implementation of one‐to‐one marketing.
Krishnaraju and Mathew (2013) Systematic review Present status and future research scope of web personalization from the information
science perspective.
Konstan and Riedl (2012) Critical review Metrics to measure the impact of personalized recommendations on user experience.
Vesanen (2007) Systematic review Frameworks for personalization.
Smith (2006) Critical review Impact of e‐personalization on online consumer behavior.
Pitta et al. (2003) Critical review Personalization and customization based on exchange value of information to avoid privacy
issues.
Evans (2003) Critical review Personalized interaction for trust building.
Kalyanam and McIntyre (2002) Critical review Personalization as an important element of e‐marketing mix.
CHANDRA ET AL. | 1531
holistic and informed overview of the field, that is, bibliometric deployment of triangulation techniques for science mapping herein is
review (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Goyal & Kumar, line with Lim & Zhang (2022) recommendation for rigorous analysis and
2020). As the body of knowledge of personalization is varied, reporting in a bibliometric review. More importantly, given that the extant
fragmented, and multidisciplinary, a bibliometric review of personal- literature is growing rapidly with an increasing number of publications
ization can offer a comprehensive map of the present landscape and every year, it is therefore important and urgent to develop a state‐of‐the‐
future possibilities of the field. Noteworthily, bibliometric studies art understanding of the field so that future research is cognizant of the
offer a bird's eye view of the extant literature, and thus, they are state of the field and the novel directions that they can pursue. In this
helpful to decipher and map scientific knowledge, identify knowledge regard, the comprehensive bibliometric review endeavor herein is poised
gaps, and derive research ideas (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., to make a significant and pioneering contribution in consolidating the
2021). Bibliometric reviews are also highly objective as they rely on literature on personalized marketing and the ways in which the field can
statistical methods for review, which overcomes the subjective bias be enriched by future research.
from manual reviews relying on qualitative judgment only (Donthu, The rest of the study is organized as follows. The next sections
Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021). In the absence of a comprehensive explain the field's theoretical background based on a review of prior
review that examines the extant literature on personalization in its reviews on personalization research enlisted in Table 1, the
entirety as evident from the aforementioned gaps of existing reviews methodology for this study's comprehensive bibliometric review of
listed in Table 1, and the widely acknowledged role that marketing personalized marketing research, and the ensuing findings of that
plays as a lynchpin in multidisciplinary research (Lim, 2021), the comprehensive bibliometric review. Finally, this study concludes with
following research questions have remained largely unanswered, and a conceptual framework and suggestions for future research to
thus, take center stage for inquiry in the present review: fertilize the field of personalized marketing.
RQ1. What is the publication and citation performance of
personalized marketing research?
RQ2. Which are the most prolific authors, journals, and 2 | CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
publications in personalized marketing research?
RQ3. Which are the major themes in personalized marketing Personalization is a strategy to gain a competitive advantage, encom-
research? passing learning, matching, and delivering products and services to
RQ4. What are the future research opportunities for personal- customers. Customers benefit from personalization as it reduces
ized marketing research? disorientation by focusing on the options that meet their requirements
Given the aforementioned research questions, the research (Murthi & Sarkar, 2003). Personalization aims to improve customer
objectives of this study are: satisfaction by improving decision quality, thereby inducing loyalty. If
RO1. To examine the publication and citation performance of thoughtfully implemented, personalized marketing can improve customer
personalized marketing research. value by extending the relationship breadth (Peppers & Rogers, 1997).
RO2. To identify the most prolific authors, journals, and According to Blom (2000), personalization eases information access,
publications in personalized marketing research. accomplishes work goals, and accommodates individual differences.
RO3. To investigate the major themes in personalized marketing The availability of prior reviews on personalization research
research. enlisted in Table 1 enables this study to develop a structured
RO4. To propose future research opportunities for personalized literature review of existing knowledge synthesis. The review of prior
marketing research. reviews is an established methodology to discern the known and
The present study contributes to addressing the aforementioned unpack the unknown (Lim & Weissmann, 2021). A review of prior
research gap in two major ways. First, the present study pioneers the studies enabled the conceptualization of personalization, customiza-
evaluation of the field's performance through a performance analysis, tion, and personalized marketing.
thereby contributing to a comprehensive stocktake of the productivity and
impact of personalized marketing research. Second, the present study also
pursues the seminal consolidation of the field's body of knowledge 2.1 | Definition of personalization
through a science mapping using bibliographic coupling and co‐word
analysis, thereby contributing to a triangulated and rigorous understanding Personalization is defined as offering the right product and service to the
of the major streams of research on personalized marketing. The right customer at the right time and the right place (Sunikka & Bragge,
combination of performance analysis and science mapping in a single 2012). Different terms such as “individualization” (Riemer & Totz, 2001),
review is in line with the coverage of past bibliometric reviews (Donthu, “segmentation” (Smith, 1956), “one‐to‐one marketing” (Peppers & Rogers,
Gremler, et al., 2020; Donthu, Kumar, et al., 2020; Donthu, Kumar, 1997), and “customization” (Davis, 1987) are used interchangeably with
Pattnaik, et al., 2021; Donthu, Kumar, Pandey, et al., 2021; Kumar, Lim, personalization for customer‐centric tailored offerings.
et al., 2021; Kumar, Pandey, et al., 2021; Kumar, Sureka, et al., 2021), as Personalization has been defined from numerous perspectives
well as the recommendation of Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. (2021) (Table 2). Pepper & Rogers, (1997) explained personalization from the
for curating a comprehensive bibliometric review. Moreover, the point of view of purpose and highlighted the role of personalization in
TABLE 2 Definitions of personalization.
| 1532
Author(s) (year) Definition Dimensionality/theme Context
Peppers and Rogers (1997) Personalization is customizing some features of a product or service to enjoy more • Product/service customization • One‐to‐one marketing
convenience, lower cost, or some other benefit. Personalization can be initiated by • User/firm initiated
the customer or by the firm. • Convenience
• Lower cost
Instone (2000) Personalization is a two‐dimensional construct including customer profile and content. • Customer information • Information systems
Riemer and Totz (2001) Personalization, in general, means matching one object's nature with one subject's needs • Product/services/content/ • Marketing mix
(i.e., customize products, services, content, and communications to the needs of communications customization • One‐to‐one marketing
single customers or customer groups). Mass customization is the individualization of • Individualization
products and services at the cost of “one size fits all.” • Mass customization
Imhoff et al. (2001) Personalization is the ability of a company to recognize and treat its customers as • Firm capability • Customer relationship management
individuals through personal messaging, targeted banner ads, special offers on bills, • Promotions and transactions • Information systems
or other personal transactions.
Berg et al. (2001) Personalization is a strategy designed to tailor customer interactions across all customer‐ • Strategy • Online
facing functions like sales, marketing, and customer service. • Customer‐facing functions
McCarthy (2001) Personalization is a four‐dimensional construct involving content, content layout, • Content • Online
delivery mechanisms (system or user initiated), and delivery vehicles (web, mobile, or • Layout
any other form). • Delivery mechanisms
• Delivery vehicles
Murthi and Sarkar (2003) Personalization is a process of learning customer preferences, matching offerings to • Learning • Firm strategy
customer preferences, and evaluating firms' efforts to match customer preferences. • Matching
• Evaluating
Roberts (2003) Personalization is the process of preparing an individualized communication for a specific • Individualized communications • Online marketing communications
person based on stated or implied preferences. • Customer preferences
Blom and Monk (2003) Personalization is a process that changes the functionality, interface, information • Personalization as process • Human–computer interaction
content, or distinctiveness of a system to increase its personal relevance to the • Human–system interaction
individual.
Treiblmaier et al. (2004) Personalization can be classified based on user involvement as explicit (user initiated) and • User involvement • Ethics
implicit (system generated). • Privacy
Chellappa and Sin (2005) Personalization refers to the tailoring of products and purchases/experiences to the • Tailoring product and purchase • Online
tastes of individual customers based upon their personal and preference information. experience
Therefore, personalization is critically dependent on vendors' ability to acquire and • Vendor ability
process customer information and customers' willingness to share information and • Customer privacy
use personalization services.
Huang and Lin (2005) Personalization is a differentiation strategy that cannot be easily replicated by • Strategy • Financial services
competitors.
CHANDRA
ET AL.
TABLE 2 (Continued)

CHANDRA
Krishnaraju and Web‐based personalization is any action that makes the web experience of the user • User experience • Online
ET AL.
Mathew (2005) personalized to the user's taste.
Fan and Poole (2006) Personalization revolves around three fundamental questions, namely, who does it, to • Customer driven • E‐commerce
whom it is targeted, and what is personalized. The person who initiates the process of • System driven
personalization can be explicit (customer driven) or implicit (system driven), whereas • Individual
the target for whom it is done could be an individual or a group, and what is • Group
personalized can involve functionality, content, user interface, channel, or
information access, among others.
Tam and Ho (2006) There are three types of personalization. User‐driven personalization is when the user • User driven • Online
specifies in advance the desired web layout and content that matches his/her • Transaction driven
interests and preferences with the tools and options provided. In transaction‐driven • Context driven
personalization, an online merchant generates the personalized layout and content,
and thus, personalization is driven by previous transactions. Context‐driven
personalization employs an adaptive mechanism to personalize the content and
layout for each user based on the context and inference of the user's processing
objectives in real time (e.g., product inspection vs. random browsing).
Arora et al. (2008) Personalization is a firm's decision on the marketing mix suitable for the individual that is • Firm strategy • One‐to‐one marketing
based on previously collected customer data. • Marketing mix
• Customer data
Kumar (2007) Personalization is a limiting case of mass customization. Mass customization aims at a • Mass customization • Business strategy
market segment of a few, whereas mass personalization aims at a market segment of • Mass personalization • Operation strategy
one. The degree of transformation from mass customization to mass personalization
depends on the extent to which the product of a company is soft and produced
electronically.
Frias‐Martinz et al. (2009) There are two major approaches to personalization; adaptability enables users to adapt Approaches: • Digital libraries
the content layout and navigation support to their preferences by themselves, while • Automatic adaptivity
adaptivity entails automatic adaptation for users. • User driven
Montgomery and Personalization is the adaptation of products and services by the producer for the • Customer behavior/transaction • Marketing
Smith (2009) customer using information that has been inferred from the customer's behavior or • Producer driven
transactions.
Sunnikka and Bragge (2012) Personalization is offering the right product and service to the right customer at the right • Product/service • Literature review
time and the right place. • Right time
• Right place
Dawn (2014) Personalization is the use of technology and customer information to tailor a particular • Technology enabled • Information systems
product to the specific needs of an individual customer. • Customer information
• Tailoring products
|
Aksoy et al. (2021) The personalization concept entails presenting and using customer information to create • Individualized customer • Literature review
an individualized customer experience. experience
• Customer information
1533
building customer relationship. Personalization also entails under- 2021). Personalization is a firm‐initiated concept to alter the
standing and delivering relevant offerings to match customer needs marketing mix to suit an individual taste based on customer data,
at the right time (Albert et al., 2004; Ho, 2006). Instone (2000) used a while customization is a customer‐initiated concept to tailor the
two‐dimensional construct including customer profile and content to marketing mix for customer satisfaction (Montgomery & Smith,
conceptualize personalization, whereas McCarthy (2001) described 2009). Personalization and customization are two extremes of the
personalization as a four‐dimensional construct involving content, continuum to tailor the offering according to the relevance of the
content layout, delivery mechanisms (system or user initiated), and customer (Arora, Dreze, Ghose, Hess, Iyengar, Jing, Kumar,
delivery vehicles (web, mobile, or any other form). In contrast, Fan et al., 2008).
and Poole (2006) conceptualized personalization from the implemen- Davis (1987) introduced the concept of mass customization, and
tation perspective, revolving around three fundamental questions, Pine (1993) offered the practical underpinnings to use mass
namely, who does it, to whom it is targeted, and what is personalized. customization for building business strategies. Personalization is firm
The person who initiates the process of personalization can be driven and based on customer insights (i.e., the firm develops
explicit (customer driven) or implicit (system driven), whereas the personalized offerings), while customization is customer driven (i.e.,
target for whom it is done could be an individual or a group, and what the customer decides on the aspects of the offering—e.g., color,
is personalized can involve functionality, content, user interface, feature, size; Arora, Dreze, Ghose, Hess, Iyengar, Jing, Kumar, et al.,
channel, or information access, among others. This corroborates the 2008). Simply put, marketers personalize the offering as desired by
definitions of other researchers, such as Treiblmaier et al. (2004), who customers based on customer data (i.e., personalization), while
classified personalization based on user involvement as explicit (user customers themselves can customize the offering according to their
initiated) and implicit (system generated), and Tam and Ho (2006), own needs and preferences (i.e., customization; Montgomery &
who defined personalization as being user, transaction, and context Smith, 2009). Customization can be adaptive, cosmetic, transparent,
driven. and collaborative (Gilmore & Pine, 1997). Firms collaborate with
The personalization concept also entails presenting and using customers to understand their needs in collaborative customization.
customer information to create an individualized customer experi- In adaptive customization, standard products come with customiz-
ence (Aksoy et al., 2021). Personalization is a process of learning able options, and customers can customize the standard offerings per
customer preferences, matching offerings to customer preferences, their choice. When the standard product is presented differently to
and evaluating firms' efforts to match customer preferences (Murthi different customers, this is categorized as cosmetic customization,
& Sarkar, 2003). Blom and Monk (2003) further elucidated whereas transparent customization entails offering unique products
personalization as a process that alters functionality, content or and services to customers.
distinctiveness, interface, and information access to the relevance of
individual customers. Moreover, personalization can leverage the use
of technology and customer information to tailor products to the 2.3 | Definition of personalized marketing
needs and preferences of individual customers (Dawn, 2014).
Personalization has also been viewed from different perspec- Personalized marketing is defined as designing and delivering tailor‐
tives, such as strategy, firms' capability, process, individualization of made products and services to individual customers. In other words,
marketing mix, human–system interaction, user involvement, and personalized marketing involves differentiated offerings for individual
user experience. Personalization is adopted by firms as a strategy to customers, and thus, it has often been described as one‐to‐one
lower cost, improve convenience, and customize products, prices, marketing and customerization. Pepper and Rogers (1997) defined
promotion, and distribution to improve customer experience one‐to‐one marketing as a process of delivering targeted offerings
(Krishnaraju & Mathew, 2013; McCarthy, 2001; Peppers & Rogers, according to the needs of individual customers. Further, personalized
1997). Moreover, to realize the benefits of personalization, firms marketing is an important component of the marketing mix, wherein
need to build capability to ensure user involvement and access to each customer is served using customized marketing strategies
customer data (Imhoff et al., 2001). Customers, on the other hand, (Dawn, 2014). This is used in conjunction with customer relationship
should be willing to share information and utilize the personalized management. A firm has access to a customer database and can tailor
information to make choices. products and services according to customer tastes and preferences
to deliver better customer value than the traditional marketing
approach of a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy. Table 3 presents the different
2.2 | Difference between personalization and versions of personalized marketing definitions.
customization Personalized marketing also entails adapting firms' behavior as
per the individual requirement to alter the marketing mix to maintain
Personalization is often confused with customization, and at times, customer relationships (Dawn, 2014; Goldsmith & Frieden, 2004;
these two are used interchangeably (Miceli et al., 2007; Peppers & Pepper et al., 1999). Past researchers have mentioned that
Rogers, 1997). However, personalization and customization differ at personalized marketing helps firms gain knowledge about their
the conceptual level based on the ownership of control (Aksoy et al., customers and manage relationships to achieve a competitive
CHANDRA
ET AL.
TABLE 3 Definitions of personalized marketing.
Pepper et al. (1999) One‐to‐one marketing (also known as relationship marketing or customer relationship management) • Firm behavior • Marketing
means being willing and able to change your behavior toward an individual customer based on what • Relationship marketing
the customer tells you and what else you know about the customer.
O'Fallon and Sullivan (2004) Personalized marketing is used to describe a program aimed at changing people's travel behavior by a • Customer behavior • Travel behavior
combination of education, persuasion, and provision of personalized information to either individual • Customer knowledge
households or individual people. • Group/individual
Goldsmith and Frieden (2004) Personalized marketing is a comprehensive concept involving database marketing, relationship • Database marketing • Marketing
marketing, and mass customization. It could involve tailoring all or some aspects of the • Relationship marketing
marketing mix. • Mass customization
• Marketing mix
Changchien et al. (2004) A personalized promotion system can provide individualized products at customized prices for each • Personalized • Marketing communication
customer. promotions • Pricing
• Customized prices
Tang et al. (2013) Personalized marketing via mobile devices (mobile personalized marketing or MPM) has become an • Marketing tool • Marketing communication
increasingly important marketing tool because the ubiquity, interactivity, and localization of mobile • Customer information • Mobile commerce
devices offer great potential for collecting customers' information, understanding their preferences, • Ubiquity
and quickly advertising customized products. • Interactivity
• Localization
Dawn (2014) Personalized marketing is an essential element of the marketing mix, and our innovative system • Marketing mix • Marketing
pinpoints prospective and existing customers by focusing on the individual customer using a • Information systems
combination of marketing activities.
Tong et al. (2020) Mobile devices have empowered marketers to design more personalized marketing by leveraging hyper‐ • Hyper‐context insights • Mobile commerce
context insights: at which locations customers are using their mobile devices (where), what times
they are looking for products (when), how they search for information and complete purchases
(how), and whether they are alone or with someone else when using mobile devices (with whom).
Aksoy et al. (2021) Personalized marketing is a practice that presents and uses personal‐level information to individualize • Customer experience • Marketing effectiveness
interactions and transactions to enhance customer experience and marketing effectiveness to gain a • Competitive
competitive advantage in a knowledge‐driven world. advantage
• Customer information
| 1535
advantage (Aksoy et al., 2021). In recent years, mobile devices have intangibles), the target of personalization (individual/groups), and the
emerged as an important tool for marketers to design hyper‐ source of personalization (user initiated/system initiated). Furthering
contextual personalized marketing programs (Tang et al., 2013; Tong the personalization classification, Kwon and Kim (2012) classified
et al., 2020). personalization based on the level of personalization as one‐to‐all/
market‐level, one‐to‐n/segment‐level, and one‐to‐one/individual‐
level personalization.
2.4 | Process of personalization Other researchers such as Aksoy et al. (2011) offered a typology
of personalization based on a comprehensive literature review. The
Personalization is an iterative process and entails navigating through personalization method and personalization form are strategic‐level
different stages (Adomavicius & Tuzhilin, 2005). Peppers and Rogers decisions focused on user experience. Based on the personalization
(1997) were forerunners in conceptualizing personalization as a four‐ method and modes of communication, personalization methods are
stage process that involves customer identification, need identifica- classified as the self‐reference method, the anthropomorphism
tion, customer interaction, and product customization. Adomavicius method, and the system‐characteristics method (Aksoy et al.,
and Tuzhilin (2005) furthered the personalization process by 2011). In the self‐reference method, individualistic communication
condensing the initial steps into two stages (i.e., understanding the with individual names and salutations reinforces personal touch. In
customer and delivering the personalized offerings) and adding a anthropomorphism, humanlike communication and behavior such as
third stage as a measurement of the impact of personalization. The voices, gestures, and emotions are used to augment bonding with
personalization process can be generalized at a broader level as a customers (Epley et al., 2007; Puzakova et al., 2013). Intelligent
value co‐creation process for both marketers and customers systems and algorithms offer personalized information (recommen-
(Vesanen & Raulas, 2006). Accounting for customer heterogeneity dation system) to individuals' system‐based personalization (Akter &
through value, knowledge, orientation, and relationships increases Wamba, 2016).
the role of personalization in marketing. According to Dawn (2014), Based on the type of information shared with customers,
personalization has transformed the traditional four “Ps” (i.e., product, personalization can be classified as individual‐level personalization,
price, place, and promotion) into five “Is,” namely, identification, social‐level personalization, and situation‐based personalization
individualization, interaction, integration, and integrity. (Aksoy et al., 2011). Successful personalization depends on customer
insights (Li, 2019) and individual digital behavior (past purchases,
reviews, ratings, comments, etc.) to form the basis for individual‐level
2.5 | Types of personalization personalization. Individual‐level personalization can operate as link
personalization (Rossi et al., 2001), transaction‐driven personalization
Different schools of thought discern the different types of (Tam & Ho, 2006), and behavioral personalization (Kingsnorth, 2019).
personalization. The core of personalization revolves around the six Personalization based on social network analysis (Arazy et al., 2010)
most prominent questions to cue the classification of personalization and collaborative filtering (Ochi et al., 2010) is categorized under
based on the following: (1) what is personalized; (2) how the social‐level personalization. Whereas, personalization based on the
personalized design is communicated to the customer; (3) who does surrounding environment (e.g., location and time) falls under
the personalization; (4) what kinds of data are used; and (5) where the situation‐based personalization (Fan & Poole, 2006; Schilke
data comes from; and (6) how it is personalized (Aksoy et al., 2021). et al., 2004).
According to Fan and Poole (2006), personalization can be classified
based on what is personalized (functionality, content, interface,
channel), for whom it is personalized (individual or group), and who 3 | METHODOL OGY
does the personalization (customer initiated or firm initiated). Based
on the motivation behind personalization and the objective of The present study adopts a bibliometric approach to conduct its
personalization, this process can be architectural, relational, instru- review of personalized marketing research. In essence, the biblio-
mental, and commercial (Fan & Poole, 2006). Architectural personal- metric approach is a quantitative method to analyze the performance
ization uses the cognitive, affective, and sociocultural aspects of and science of literature in a given field (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee,
customers to create an engaging environment for self‐expression. et al., 2021). This approach is considered to be more objective than
Instrumental personalization uses the situated needs of customers to alternative methods that are subjective in nature (e.g., thematic
create systems for enhanced user efficiency and productivity. reviews using qualitative thematic analysis; Donthu, Kumar,
Commercial personalization uses the customers' demographic and Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Lim & Zhang, 2022). As a variant of
psychographic data for designing personalized offerings to increase systematic literature reviews, bibliometric reviews are required to
sales. Relational personalization uses the social and relational aspects adopt, implement, and report a rigorous and transparent review
of customers to fulfill their emotional and socialization needs. protocol (Lim & Zhang, 2022; Paul et al., 2021). In this regard, the
Responding to the dimensions of personalization, Sunikka and decisions and steps in data collection, filtration, and analysis strategy
Bragge (2008) classified the objects of personalization (tangibles/ are guided by the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic
F I G U R E 1 Review procedure using the

SPAR‐4‐SLR protocol.
Literature Reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR) protocol (Paul et al., 2021). (RQ3/RQ4) (research questions) of the extant literature on
Specifically, the SPAR‐4‐SLR protocol consists of three main stages, personalized marketing (domain) published in journals (source
namely assembling, arranging, and assessing, whose details are type) indexed in Scopus (source quality). The focus on literature
summarized in Figure 1 and discussed in the next sections. published in journals is warranted because they typically receive a
higher‐level of peer‐review scrutiny that is often absent in
alternative sources such as books, book chapters, and conference
3.1 | Assembling proceedings (Paul et al., 2021), whereas the use of Scopus is
strategic because (1) the journals that can be found in Scopus has
The assembling stage reports how documents for review are met a stringent set of criteria for indexation (Paul et al., 2021), (2)
identified and acquired. the bibliometric information and full text of publications available
In terms of document identification, this study sets out to on Scopus can be easily downloaded and used for review
review the performance (RQ1/RQ2) and intellectual structure (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021), and (3) the coverage
of scientific publications on Scopus is relatively large (e.g., more documents on personalized marketing that were retained for review.
than 26,400 titles by over 5000 publishers; Fahimnia et al., 2015). In essence, bibliometric analysis relies on the use of quantitative or
In terms of document acquisition, this study retrieves bibliometric statistical techniques to analyze a specific corpus of documents
information and full text of journal publications through Scopus representing a field of study in the scholarly literature (Donthu,
(search mechanism and material acquisition) up until June 2021 (search Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Pritchard, 1969). Unlike alternative
period) using a string of wildcard keywords (i.e., “personali?ation”, review methods (e.g., critical and systematic reviews) that often
“customi?ation”, “individuali?ation”, “one‐to‐one marketing”, and consider a small corpus of documents (e.g., tens to low hundreds)
“customeri?ation”, wherein “?” is a wildcard to accommodate using qualitative techniques (e.g., content and thematic analysis; Paul
American and British English spelling of keywords) (search keywords) et al., 2021), the bibliometric review method overcomes the
that were developed based on brainstorming and reading of past subjective bias that tends to avail in other review methods because
reviews on personalization by experts, which is in line with the the quantitative techniques employed in bibliometric reviews can
recommendations by Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. (2021) and provide objectivity in the analysis and findings emerging from a large
Paul et al. (2021). corpus of documents (e.g., hundreds to thousands; Byington et al.,
In total, 4823 documents were returned from the search in the 2019; Donthu, Gremler, et al., 2020; Donthu, Kumar,
assembling stage. et al., 2020; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Donthu, Kumar,
Pattnaik, et al., 2021; Donthu, Kumar, Pandey, et al., 2021; Nerur
et al., 2008). Specifically, this study employs a performance analysis to
3.2 | Arranging describe the metrics characterizing the publication and citation
trends (RQ1), as well as the most prolific authors, journals, and
The arranging stage reports how documents for review are organized documents (RQ2) in personalized marketing research. This study also
and purified. performs science mapping using bibliographic coupling, which clusters
The study relied on the “refine results” codes (or filters) assigned documents based on similarities in shared references (Andersen,
by Scopus to organize the documents returned from the search (e.g., 2021; Boyack & Klavans, 2010; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al.,
language, document type, source type, and subject area). In 2021; Kessler, 1963; Waltman et al., 2010), and co‐word analysis,
particular, the codes act as document characteristics that were used which clusters documents based on the co‐occurrence of keywords
for document purification (or filtration), whereby documents were (Callon et al., 1983; Cobo et al., 2011a, 2011b; Donthu, Kumar,
included or excluded using these codes. Specifically, the review Mukherjee, et al., 2021), to unpack the major themes characterizing
includes “English” (language) “articles” and “reviews” (document type) the intellectual structure of personalized marketing research (RQ3),
published in “journals” (source type) in areas that were deemed whose findings will inform the suggestions for future research
relevant to personalized marketing, namely “business, management (RQ4; agenda proposal method). Noteworthily, the use of bibliographic
and accounting,” “computer science,” “decision sciences,” “psychol- coupling and co‐word analysis to examine the intellectual structure of
ogy,” and “social sciences” (subject area). Other documents such as the field represents a form of triangulation in bibliometric analysis
editorials and notes were not included because they lack scrutiny of (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021). The analyses were
peer review, and non‐English documents were excluded as the conducted using Biblioshiny in R and visualized using VOSviewer
authors are only proficient in English. The exclusion of non‐journal software (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee,
documents was also on the basis of low levels of peer‐review et al., 2021).
scrutiny, whereas the omission of other subject areas such as In terms of reporting, this study reports the findings from the
engineering and medicine is due to the areas' lack of relevance to bibliometric analyses using a combination of figures, tables, and
personalized marketing based on the expert judgment of the authors. words based on the results generated from Biblioshiny and
More importantly, the inclusion and exclusion criteria used to VOSviewer. The inherent limitations and future research directions
organize and purify the search results are consistent with the of this review on personalized marketing are acknowledged and
recommendations of Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al. (2021) and discussed toward the end of this paper.
Paul et al. (2021).
In total, 383 documents were returned following the organiza-
tion and purification of search results in the arranging stage. 4 | PERFORMANCE OF PERSONALIZED
MARKETING RESE ARCH
3.3 | Assessing 4.1 | Publication and citation trends for

personalized marketing research
The assessing stage involves the evaluation and reporting of reviewed
documents. The publication and citation performance for personalized marketing
In terms of evaluation, this study applied a collection of research is presented in Table 4 (RQ1). In terms of publication metrics
bibliometric analysis techniques (analysis method) to review the 383 (Panel A), the table indicates that personalized marketing research
T A B L E 4 Publication and citation metrics for personalized lead author collaborates with an average of 2.82 other authors to
marketing research. contribute publications to the field (CI: NCA/TP).
Statistic The growth and trajectory of personalized marketing research
Panel A. Publication metrics are further elaborated in Table 5 (RQ1). The table indicates that
though the initial publication on personalized marketing first
Total publications (TP) 383
appeared in 1990 (i.e., one document), academic interest in the field
Total cited publications (TCP) 308 only picked up from 1998 onwards (i.e., 382 out of 383 documents),
Article 354 with a noteworthy growth from 3 publications in 1998 to 57
Review 29 publications in 2020. The total number of publications for the first 6
months in 2021 is 30 publications, which suggests that the field
Number of active years (NAY) 31
remains on track to meet or exceed its productivity in the preceding
Productivity per active year (PAY) 12.35 year. Noteworthily, the growth in authorship has been positive each
Panel B. Citation metrics year (GA), with a high degree of collaboration, as indicated by the
Total citations (TC) 15,193 annual collaboration index, which ranges between 2.17 and 4.42
(ACI). The total number of cited publications each year has also been
Average citations per publication (TC/TP) 39.67
on an increasing trend, which may be attributed to the ease of
h‐index 61
publication access today spearheaded by the internet and scientific
g‐index 13 database revolution, as well as the interest in personalized marketing
Panel C. Coauthorship metrics research. The average citation per publication (TC/TP) has also grew
from nine citations to 449 citations per publication from 1998 to
Number of contributing authors (NCA) 1078
2003, though it has remained fairly consistent with double‐digit
Number of unique authors (excluding repetitions) (NUA) 975
average citations up until 2016, but a declining trend thereafter. The
Authors of single‐authored publications (ASA) 60 lower average citations in recent years can be explained by the fact
Authors of co‐authored publications (ACA) 915 that citations are time dependent as older publications tend to have
more citations than newer publications. Yet, the possibility of
Single‐authored publications (SA) 63
generating significant impact in the short run should not be
Co‐authored publications (CA) 320
discounted, and thus, future personalized marketing research should
Collaboration index (CI) 2.82 strive to fertilize the field with fresh and novel ideas that can
substantially advance its theory and practice with immediate impact.
Overall, it is evident that the field of personalized marketing has
manifests through 383 documents (TP) published in 234 journals, of attracted a decent degree of interest among researchers and
which 354 are classified as articles (e.g., conceptual and empirical) publishers, especially over the last decade, with a growing number
and 29 as reviews (e.g., critical and systematic reviews) as per the of publications witnessed each year.
tags assigned by journals indexed in Scopus. The number of cited
publications stands at 308 documents (TCP), which suggests that at
least 80% of publications on personalized marketing research have 4.2 | Most prolific authors for personalized
been cited. The field has been active for 31 years since 1990 (NAY), marketing research
with an average of 12.35 publications every year (PAY). In terms of
citation metrics (Panel B), the table indicates that personalization The most prolific authors for personalized marketing research are
marketing research has amassed 15,193 citations (TC). The average presented in Table 6 (RQ2). The table indicates that R.T. Rust is the
citation per document on personalized marketing indicates that the most productive author with eight publications, followed by A. Tuzhilin
average intellectual contribution of publications to the field is 39.67 and M. Wedel with five and four publications, respectively. All
times the number of documents available (TC/TP). The h‐index (63) publications by the top three most productive authors in the field have
and g‐index (13) measure the impact and influence of scientific also been cited (TCP). Both R.T. Rust and A. Tuzhilin are among the
activity in the field, wherein the h‐index indicates that “h” documents pioneers in the field, having started publishing since 2001, though H.I.
have been cited at least “h” times and the g‐index shows that “g” Chang appears to have the longest run of productivity. Apart from A.D.
documents have received at least “g ” citations. In terms of
2
Smith, who has published the most sole‐authored publications (n = 3), all
Coauthorship metrics (Panel C), a total of 1078 authorship attributions other prolific authors in the field have relied on collaborations (CI > 1) to
have been made to personalized marketing research (NCA), of which contribute co‐authored publications. The table also indicates that R.T.
975 unique author identities were found (NUA). Single‐authored Rust, M. Wedel, and A. Tuzhilin are the top three most influential authors
documents accounted for only 14.4% of total publications (SA), with in the field with 744, 495, and 357 citations in Scopus, respectively. This
the larger majority of 83.6% of documents being co‐authored (CA). corroborates with alternative research impact (h) and influence (g)
The collaboration index of the field is 2.82, which indicates that each measures, which cements the place of these authors as the top three
T A B L E 5 Publication and citation

Year TP SA CA NCA CNUA GA ACI TCP TC TC/TP h g
trends for personalized marketing
1990 1 0 1 2 2 0.00 2.00 1 9 9 1 1 research.
1998 3 2 1 5 7 250.00 3.00 3 220 73.33 3 3
1999 4 2 2 8 15 114.29 3.00 4 450 112.50 3 3
2000 4 2 2 8 23 53.33 3.00 2 154 38.50 2 2
2001 6 0 6 16 39 69.57 2.67 6 988 164.67 6 5
2002 3 1 2 7 46 17.95 3.00 3 167 55.67 3 3
2003 9 2 7 21 66 43.48 2.71 9 4045 449.44 8 5
2004 9 0 9 21 86 30.30 2.33 9 532 59.11 8 6
2005 9 3 6 17 102 18.60 2.33 8 788 87.56 5 4
2006 14 3 11 34 129 26.47 2.82 14 718 51.29 10 6
2007 9 3 6 16 144 11.63 2.17 8 330 36.67 6 3
2008 13 1 12 54 195 35.42 4.42 12 749 57.62 9 5
2009 15 0 15 42 230 17.95 2.80 15 603 40.20 11 6
2010 7 2 5 13 243 5.65 2.20 7 175 25.00 6 3
2011 11 3 8 27 269 10.70 3.00 10 395 35.91 5 3
2012 10 3 7 22 289 7.43 2.71 9 627 62.70 6 4
2013 15 0 15 44 329 13.84 2.93 15 643 42.87 11 5
2014 23 6 17 63 385 17.02 3.35 20 666 28.96 9 5
2015 20 2 18 55 432 12.21 2.94 19 676 33.80 11 5
2016 20 1 19 57 485 12.27 2.95 16 730 36.50 13 6
2017 26 2 24 77 554 14.23 3.13 24 417 16.04 9 5
2018 24 5 19 59 607 9.57 2.84 18 213 8.88 8 4
2019 41 6 35 120 719 18.45 3.26 33 580 14.15 13 6
2020 57 12 45 180 887 23.37 3.73 36 306 5.37 9 4
2021 30 0 30 101 975 9.92 3.37 4 12 0.40 2 2
Abbreviations: ACI, annual collaboration index; CA, co‐authored publication; CNUA, cumulative
number of unique authors (excluding repetitions); g, g‐index; GA, growth in authorship (percentage); h,
h‐index; NCA, number of contributing author; SA, sole‐authored publication; TC, total citation;
TC/TP, average citations per publication; TCP, total cited publication; TP, total publication.
authors in the field. However, in terms of average citations, D. Buhalis 12 and 11 publications, respectively. The table also indicates a mix of
emerges as the top author with an average of 139 citations for two marketing (e.g., Journal of Advertising, Journal of Consumer Research,
publications, followed by M. Wedel with an average of 124 citations for Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing
four publications, and V. Kumar with an average of 98 citations for three Research, Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
publications on personalized marketing in Scopus. Marketing Science), business management (e.g., Harvard Business Review,
Journal of Business Research, and Management Science), and ISs (e.g.,
Computers in Human Behavior, Decision Support Systems, and Expert
4.3 | Most prolific journals for personalized Systems with Applications) journals. All journals that have been found to be
marketing research most productive in the field of personalized marketing have an impact of
more than one and an h‐index of more than 100, with a large majority
The most prolific journals for personalized marketing research in terms of ranked “A*” or “A” by the Australian Business Deans Council and rated
productivity are presented in Table 7 (RQ2). The table indicates that “4*,” “4,” or “3” by the Chartered Association of Business Schools, which
Marketing Science and Expert Systems with Applications are the top two suggest that personalized marketing research is welcomed and published
most productive journals publishing personalized marketing research with by premier journals across disciplines.
T A B L E 6 Most prolific authors for

Author TP SA CA NCA CI TCP TC TC/TP h g Start PY
personalized marketing research.
Rust RT 8 1 7 6 0.9 8 744 93 7 8 2001
Tuzhilin A 5 0 5 6 1.2 5 357 71 5 5 2001
Wedel M 4 0 4 6 1.5 4 495 124 4 4 2009
Chen Y 3 0 3 9 3.0 3 201 67 3 3 2001
Huang MH 3 0 3 2 0.7 3 227 76 3 3 2014
Jiang T 3 0 3 2 0.7 3 86 29 3 3 2006
Kumar V 3 0 3 21 7.0 3 294 98 3 3 2008
Liu Y 3 0 3 9 3.0 2 15 5 3 3 2017
Smith AD 3 3 0 0 0.0 3 18 6 3 3 2006
Xiong H 3 0 3 12 4.0 3 42 14 3 3 2016
Zhang J 3 0 3 4 1.3 3 261 87 3 3 2004
Ahmed Z 2 0 2 4 2.0 2 40 20 2 2 2013
Bala PK 2 0 2 7 3.5 2 17 9 2 2 2020
Blanco‐Fernndez Y 2 0 2 11 5.5 2 25 13 2 2 2009
Bojei J 2 0 2 8 4.0 2 40 20 2 2 2013
Buhalis D 2 0 2 3 1.5 2 278 139 2 2 2015
Chang HI 2 0 2 10 5.0 2 135 68 2 2 2001
Changchien SW 2 0 2 5 2.5 2 99 50 2 2 2004
Abbreviations: CA, co‐authored publication; CI, collaboration index; g, g‐index; h, h‐index; NCA, number of
contributing author; SA, sole‐authored publication; Start PY, start of publication year; TC, total citation;
TC/TP, average citations per publication; TCP, total cited publication; TP, total publication.
TABLE 7 Most prolific journals by productivity for personalized marketing research.
Journal title TP TC CABS rating ABDC rank WOS IF Scopus h‐index
Marketing Science 12 446 4* A* 3.716 134
Expert Systems with Applications 11 93 1 C 6.954 221
Management Science 7 167 NA A* 4.883 302
Decision Support Systems 7 111 3 A* 5.795 162
Computers In Human Behavior 6 203 2 A 6.829 202
Journal of Consumer Research 6 199 4* A* 7.000 189
Journal of Interactive Marketing 5 204 3 A 6.258 112
Journal of Marketing Research 4 333 4* A* 5.000 180
Journal of Retailing 4 175 4 A* 5.245 150
Journal of the Academy of 3 173 4* A* 9.418 192

Marketing Science
Journal of Business Research 3 148 3 A 7.550 220
Journal of Marketing 2 373 4* A* 9.462 252
Journal of Advertising 2 147 3 A 5.522 133
Harvard Business Review 2 82 3 A 6.87 191
Abbreviations: ABDC, journal ranking in the 2020 Journal Quality List by the Australian Business Deans Council; CABS, journal rating in the 2021
Academic Journal Guide by the Chartered Association of Business Schools; Scopus h‐index = h‐index released by Scopus in 2021; TC, total citation; TP,
total publication; WOS IF, Web of Science Impact Factor released by Clarivate Analytics in 2021.
TABLE 8 Most prolific publications by citation impact on personalized marketing.
Publication title Author(s) TC PY C/Y
Amazon.com recommendations: Item‐to‐item collaborative filtering Linden, Smith, and York 3473 2003 192.94
What is personalization? A conceptual framework Vesanen 346 2007 24.71
Customerization: The next revolution in mass customization Wind and Rangaswamy 337 2001 16.85
The influence of personalization in affecting consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising in Xu 301 2006 20.07
China
The role of the management sciences in research on personalization Murthi and Sarkar 212 2003 11.78
Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust‐building Aguirre et al. 183 2015 30.50
strategies on online advertisement effectiveness
Putting one‐to‐one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice Arora et al. 175 2008 13.46
The effectiveness of customized promotions in online and offline stores Zhang and Wedel 129 2009 10.75
Customizing promotions in online stores Zhang and Krishnamurthy 110 2004 6.47
Prospects for personalization on the internet Montgomery and Smith 108 2009 9.00
Abbreviations: C/Y, citations per year; PY, publication year; TC, total citation.
4.4 | Most prolific publications on personalized marketing research is conducted using two bibliometric analysis
marketing techniques, namely bibliographic coupling and co‐word analysis. In
particular, bibliographic coupling creates clusters of publications
The most prolific publications on personalized marketing in terms of based on similarity in references, whereas co‐word analysis develops
citation impact are presented in Table 8 (RQ2). The table indicates that clusters of publications based on the co‐occurrence of keywords,
Linden et al.'s (2003) article on item‐to‐item collaborative filtering in the wherein each cluster reflects a coherent theme (Donthu, Kumar,
context of Amazon.com recommendations is the most‐cited publication Mukherjee, et al., 2021). The use of more than one bibliometric
with a total of 3473 citations, followed by Vesanen's (2007) article that analysis technique for science mapping enables the study to
sought to consolidate prior research insights on personalization into a triangulate the themes characterizing the field derived from different
conceptual framework, and Wind and Rangaswamy's (2001) article on the sources of bibliometric data (i.e., references and keywords).
mass customization revolution called as “customerization,” with a total of
346 and 337 citations, respectively. Apart from Linden et al.'s (2003)
highly influential publication that has garnered an average of 192.94 5.1 | Bibliographic coupling of personalized
citations each year since it was published, Aguirre et al.'s (2015) marketing research
article is the most recent on the list of the most prolific publications
that has garnered the next highest average citation per year at 30.50 Bibliographic coupling discerns the semantic association among publica-
citations. Noteworthily, the most prolific publications on personalized tions to uncover latent research themes to guide future research
marketing have elaborated on the concepts of customerization (Wind & directions (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021). It works on data
Rangaswamy, 2001), one‐to‐one marketing (Arora, Dreze, Ghose, Hess, clustering techniques in which similar publications based on shared
Iyengar, Jing, Kumar, et al., 2008), and personalization (Murthi & Sarkar, characteristics are grouped in the same cluster (Hjørland, 2013; Radicchi
2003; Vesanen, 2007), as well as their prospects (Montgomery & Smith, et al., 2004; Verma & Sharma, Deb, et al., 2021; Verma & Yadav, 2021).
2009), paradoxes (Aguirre et al., 2015), methods (Linden et al., 2003; Nodes represent publications, while edges represent the connections
Zhang & Krishnamurthy, 2004), and effectiveness (Xu, 2006; Zhang & among publications. The thickness and density of the edges signify the
Wedel, 2009). degree of homogeneity among these publications (Clauset et al., 2004;
Leydesdorff, 2011; Radicchi et al., 2004; Verma & Sharma, Deb, et al.,
2021; Verma & Yadav, 2021). Algorithms such as the edges among
5 | I N T E L L E C T U A L S T R U C T U R E OF algorithms, the Louvain algorithm, leading eigenvalues, the spinglass
P E R S O N A L I Z E D M A R K E T I N G RE S E A R CH algorithm, and the walk trap algorithm instrumentalize the calculation of
the modularity index to showcase the strength of the relationships among
The intellectual structure encapsulates the major themes that publications. The Louvain algorithm optimizes the modularity index in this
characterize the body of knowledge of a research field, and in this study, and the between‐centrality calculations discern prominent
case, the field of personalized marketing research. To unpack the publications in different clusters. The clusters are named using inter‐
intellectual structure of the field, a science mapping of personalized coder agreement, as suggested by Tinsley and Weiss (2000).
The bibliographic coupling analysis reveals six distinct biblio- sheds light on the role of personalization in fostering and maintaining
graphic (thematic) clusters consisting of 248 out of 383 documents customer relationships (Steinhoff et al., 2019) and how different
(64.8%) that characterize the body of knowledge of personalized aspects of personalized marketing can contribute to personalized
marketing, namely personalized recommendation, personalized rela- relationships between brands and their target customers (Buhalis &
tionship, personalization–privacy paradox, personalized advertising, Sinarta, 2019; Kosinski et al., 2014). Upon detailed scrutiny, this
personalization concept and discourse in marketing, and customer study observes that the most prolific publications in this cluster focus
behavior and loyalty toward personalized marketing (RQ3). The major on developing personalized relationship through online social net-
topics explored and the top‐cited publications in each bibliographic works (Kosinski et al., 2014), real‐time co‐creation and nowness
(thematic) cluster emerging from bibliographic coupling are presented service (Buhalis & Sinarta, 2019), online relationship marketing
in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. (Steinhoff et al., 2019), big data‐enabled customer relationship
management (Anshari et al., 2019), intelligent recommender systems
(Wang et al., 2015), mobile marketing (Tong et al., 2020), item‐level
5.1.1 | Bibliographic cluster 1: Personalized RFID (Choi et al., 2015), context cues (Xiao et al., 2019), and
recommendation treatment models (Guelman et al., 2014), wherein big data (Anshari
et al., 2019) of customer personality (Kosinski et al., 2014), media
The first cluster concentrates on personalized recommendation usage (Turow & Couldry, 2018), product preference (Wang et al.,
through 35 publications (TP) that have accumulated a total of 1338 2015), and product purchase (Choi et al., 2015) play prominent roles
citations and an average of 38.23 citations per publication (TC/TP) (Table 10).
(Table 9). About 28% of publications in this cluster were published in
the last 2 years, with the oldest publication appearing in 2002.
Noteworthily, the cluster sheds light on how to improve the 5.1.3 | Bibliographic cluster 3:
prediction power of recommendations and data mining methods, Personalization–privacy paradox
such as by introducing new algorithms (Kazienko & Adamski, 2007),
and including or improving quality data for better prediction of The third cluster, which is the most productive cluster, focuses on the
customer choice (Cheung et al., 2003). The cluster also indicates that personalization–privacy paradox through 56 publications (TP) that have
the key barriers in improving the performance of recommender amassed a total of 1772 citations (TC) and an average of 31.64 citations
systems are scalability, the availability of user‐generated web data, per publication (TC/TP) (Table 9). About 29% of publications in this
and the absence of universal standards and infrastructure to measure cluster have been published in the last 3 years, with the oldest article
the efficiency of recommender systems (Konstan & Riedl, 2012). appearing in 2008. The studies in this cluster have found that
Upon detailed scrutiny, this study finds that the most prolific personalization effectiveness is enhanced by customer data, though
publications in this cluster concentrate on developing personalized several researchers observed that target customers hesitate to share
recommendations using algorithmic recommender systems (Konstan their personal information, as the sharing of personal information
& Riedl, 2012), customer product ratings (Cheung et al., 2003), increased the sense of vulnerability and risk perception among target
adaptive personalization (Kazienko & Adamski, 2007), semantic customers. One of the solutions proposed is to overtly seek information
expansion (Liang et al., 2008), product taxonomy (Hung, 2005), to reduce the uncanny effect of personalization (Aguirre et al., 2015; Xu
feature‐based recommendation agents (Murray & Häubl, 2009), et al., 2011), as well as to seek out strategies to promote personalization
transaction data mining (Hsu et al., 2004), lifestyle‐based approach in ways that motivate target customers to share their information with
(Lekakos & Giaglis, 2004), and technology‐mediated personalization marketers (Guo et al., 2016; Ho & Bodoff, 2014; Shareef et al., 2017).
(Shen & Ball, 2009) across myriad contexts such as digital interactive Upon detailed scrutinity, this study finds that the most prolific
television advertising (Lekakos & Giaglis, 2004), e‐commerce sales publications in this cluster concentrate on the issue of privacy
promotions (Changchien et al., 2004), one‐to‐one online marketing as a barrier to personalization and how to navigate the
(Hung, 2005), service relationships (Shen & Ball, 2009), and web personalization–privacy paradox through the decision‐making process
advertising (Kazienko & Adamski, 2007; Table 10). (Xu et al., 2011), trust‐building strategies (Aguirre et al., 2015),
elaboration likelihood model (Ho & Bodoff, 2014), content design
(Shareef et al., 2017), visual attention and response tracking (Bang &
5.1.2 | Bibliographic cluster 2: Personalized Wojdynski, 2016), and user experience design (Pappas, 2018) across
relationship various contexts such as location‐aware marketing (Xu et al., 2011),
online advertising (Aguirre et al., 2015), value co‐creation (Zhang &
The second cluster encapsulates research on personalized relationship Chen, 2008), web personalization (Ho & Bodoff, 2014), mHealth (Guo
through 53 publications (TP) that have acquired a total of 569 et al., 2016), short messaging service (Shareef et al., 2017), personalized
citations (TC) and an average 10.74 citations per publication (TC/TP; advertising (Bang & Wojdynski, 2016), online shopping (Pappas, 2018),
Table 9). About 54% of publications in this cluster were published in chatbot e‐service (M. Chung et al., 2020), and online viral marketing
the last 3 years, with the oldest article appearing in 2014. The cluster campaigns (Koch & Benlian, 2015; Table 10).
| 1544
TABLE 9 Major bibliographic (thematic) clusters on personalized marketing.
Cluster Theme Topic(s) TP TC TC/TP Centrality Impact
Bibliographic cluster 1 Personalized recommendation Algorithmic recommender systems, customer product ratings, adaptive personalization, 35 1338 38.23 0.2948 1.183
semantic expansion, product taxonomy, feature‐based recommendation agents,
transaction data mining, lifestyle‐based approach, and technology‐mediated
personalization across myriad contexts such as digital interactive television
advertising, e‐commerce sales promotions, one‐to‐one online marketing, service
relationships, and web advertising.
Bibliographic cluster 2 Personalized relationship Online social networks, real‐time co‐creation and nowness service, online relationship 53 569 10.74 0.3986 1.13
marketing, big data‐enabled customer relationship management, intelligent
recommender systems, mobile marketing, item‐level RFID, context cues, and
treatment models, as well as the prominent role of big data of customer personality,
media usage, product preference, and product purchase.
Bibliographic cluster 3 Personalization–privacy paradox The issue of privacy as a barrier to personalization and how to navigate the 56 1772 31.64 0.5092 2.562
personalization–privacy paradox through the decision‐making process, trust‐building
strategies, elaboration likelihood model, content design, visual attention and
response tracking, and user experience design across various contexts such as
location‐aware marketing, online advertising, value co‐creation, web personalization,
mHealth, short messaging service, personalized advertising, online shopping, chatbot
e‐service, and online viral marketing campaigns.
Bibliographic cluster 4 Personalized advertising Personalization of advertising through value co‐creation, location‐based mobile 26 665 25.58 0.4639 1.751
advertising system, and cloud‐based personalization, as well as the effects of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation and the personalized aspects of advertising (e.g., tailoring
source, locational congruity, and product involvement) on customer attitude,
avoidance, and purchase intention toward brands using personalized advertising.
Bibliographic cluster 5 Personalization concept and discourse in Application and discourse of personalization in e‐service, marketing analytics and data‐ 41 3064 74.73 0.3841 2.924
marketing rich environments, marketing management, retargeting in online advertising, mobile
marketing, one‐to‐one marketing, individual marketing with imperfect targetability,
and online and offline store promotions.
Bibliographic cluster 6 Customer behavior and personalization Customer response, involvement, and loyalty to brands that engage in customized offers, 37 1553 41.97 0.3139 1.733
service personalization, personalized relationship, personalized marketplace, dynamic
customer management, collaborative filtering of product recommendation, and one‐
to‐one customer interaction across contexts such as the world wide web and
internet retailing.
Abbreviations: TC, total citation; TC/TP, average citations per publication; TP, total publication.
CHANDRA
ET AL.
T A B L E 10 Most prolific publications in the major bibliographic (thematic) clusters on personalized marketing.
Cluster Publication title Author(s) (year) TC C/Y

CHANDRA
Bibliographic cluster 1. Personalized Recommender systems: From algorithms to user experience Konstan and Riedl (2012) 406 45.11
ET AL.
recommendation
Mining customer product ratings for personalized marketing Cheung et al. (2003) 185 10.28
AdROSA – Adaptive personalization of web advertising Kazienko and Adamski (2007) 125 8.93
A semantic‐expansion approach to personalized knowledge recommendation Liang et al. (2008) 113 8.69
A personalized recommendation system based on product taxonomy for one‐to‐one marketing online Hung (2005) 77 4.81
On‐line personalized sales promotion in electronic commerce Changchien et al. (2004) 63 3.71
Personalization without interrogation: Toward more effective interactions between consumers and Murray and Häubl (2009) 43 3.58
feature‐based recommendation agents
Mining skewed and sparse transaction data for personalized shopping recommendation Hsu et al. (2004) 42 2.47
A lifestyle‐based approach for delivering personalized advertisements in digital interactive television Lekakos and Giaglis (2004) 38 2.24
Is personalization of services always a good thing? Exploring the role of technology‐mediated Shen and Ball (2009) 37 3.08
personalization (TMP) in service relationships
Bibliographic cluster 2. Manifestations of user personality in website choice and behavior on online social networks Kosinski et al. (2014) 114 16.29
Personalized relationship
Real‐time co‐creation and nowness service: Lessons from tourism and hospitality Buhalis and Sinarta (2019) 103 51.50
Online relationship marketing Steinhoff et al. (2019) 60 30.00
Customer relationship management and big data enabled: Personalization and customization of services Anshari et al. (2019) 48 24.00
Intelligent fashion recommender system: Fuzzy logic in personalized garment design Wang et al. (2015) 36 6.00
Personalized mobile marketing strategies Tong et al. (2020) 25 25.00
Item‐level RFID for enhancement of customer shopping experience in apparel retail Choi et al. (2015) 23 3.83
Media as data extraction: Toward a new map of a transformed communications field Turow and Couldry (2018) 21 7.00
The effects of online shopping context cues on consumers' purchase intention for cross‐border e‐ Xiao et al. (2019) 18 9.00
commerce sustainability
A survey of personalized treatment models for pricing strategies in insurance Guelman et al. (2014) 18 2.57
Cluster Publication title Author(s) ()ar) TC C/Y
Bibliographic cluster 3. The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision‐making process for location‐aware Xu et al. (2011) 301 30.10
Personalization–privacy paradox marketing
Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and trust‐building strategies Aguirre et al. (2015) 185 30.83
on online advertisement effectiveness
|
Examining the mechanism of the value co‐creation with customers Zhang and Chen (2008) 138 10.62
(Continues)
1545
TABLE 10 (Continued)
| 1546
Cluster Publication title Author(s) ()ar) TC C/Y
The effects of web personalization on user attitude and behavior: An integration of the elaboration Ho and Bodoff (2014) 135 19.29
likelihood model and consumer search theory
The privacy‐personalization paradox in mHealth services acceptance of different age groups Guo et al. (2016) 84 16.80
Content design of advertisement for consumer exposure: Mobile marketing through short messaging Shareef et al. (2017) 75 18.75
service
Tracking users' visual attention and responses to personalized advertising based on task cognitive Bang et al. (2016) 59 11.80
demand
User experience in personalized online shopping: A fuzzy‐set analysis Pappas (2018) 55 18.33
Chatbot e‐service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands M. Chung et al. (2020) 48 48.00
Promotional tactics for online viral marketing campaigns: How scarcity and personalization affect seed‐ Koch and Benlian (2015) 47 7.83
stage referrals
Bibliographic cluster 4. SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co‐creation of value Buhalis and Foerste (2015) 175 29.17
Personalized advertising
The influence of personalization in affecting consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising in China Xu (2006) 147 9.80
Building a targeted mobile advertising system for location‐based services Li and Du (2012) 85 9.44
Customization in location‐based advertising: Effects of tailoring source, locational congruity, and product Lee et al. (2015) 63 10.50
involvement on ad attitudes
Determinants of consumers' attitudes toward mobile advertising: The mediating roles of intrinsic and Feng et al. (2016) 28 5.60
extrinsic motivations
Effectiveness of mobile advertising: The Indian scenario Tripathi and Siddiqui (2008) 22 1.69
Predictors of avoidance toward personalization of restaurant smartphone advertising: A study from the Nyheim et al. (2015) 18 3.00
millennials' perspective
The influences of advertisement attitude and brand attitude on purchase intention of smartphone Lee et al. (2017) 17 4.25
advertising
Cloud‐based personalization of new advertising and e‐commerce models for video consumption López‐Nores et al. (2013) 14 1.75
Consumer attitude toward m‐advertising acceptance: A cross‐sectional study Mir (2011) 12 1.20
Mobile marketing and consumer perceptions of brand equity Smutkupt et al. (2012) 11 1.22
Bibliographic cluster 5. E‐service and the consumer Rust and Lemon (2001) 249 12.45
Personalization concept and discourse
Marketing analytics for data‐rich environments Wedel and Kannan (2016) 244 48.80
in marketing
CHANDRA
The role of the management sciences in research on personalization Murthi and Sarkar (2003) 212 11.78
ET AL.
TABLE 10 (Continued)

CHANDRA
When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online advertising Lambrecht and Tucker (2013) 209 26.13
ET AL.
Addressing the personalization–privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a field experiment on Sutanto et al. (2013) 183 22.88
smartphone users
Putting one‐to‐one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice Arora et al. (2008) 175 13.46
The service revolution and the transformation of marketing science Rust and Huang (2014) 171 24.43
Individual marketing with imperfect targetability Chen et al. (2001) 154 7.70
The effectiveness of customized promotions in online and offline stores Zhang and Wedel (2009) 130 10.83
Bibliographic cluster 6. Determinants of customers' responses to customized offers: Conceptual framework and research Simonson (2005) 286 17.88
Customer behavior and loyalty toward propositions
personalized marketing
Service personalization and loyalty Ball et al. (2006) 164 10.93
Review and analysis of commercial user modeling servers for personalization on the World Wide Web Fink and Kobsa (2000) 145 6.90
Relationship marketing effectiveness: The role of involvement Gordon et al. (1998) 123 5.35
Internet retailing: The past, the present, and the future Doherty and 98 8.91
Ellis‐Chadwick (2010)
The personalized marketplace: Beyond the 4Ps Goldsmith (1999) 66 3.00
Dynamic customer management and the value of one‐to‐one marketing Khan et al. (2009) 63 5.25
Product recommendation approaches: Collaborative filtering via customer lifetime value and customer Shih and Liu (2008) 61 4.69
demands
Managing information technology (IT) for one‐to‐one customer interaction Wells et al. (1999) 55 2.50
Segmenting customers from population to individuals: Does 1‐to‐1 keep your customers forever? Jiang and Tuzhilin (2006) 51 3.40
Abbreviations: C/Y, average citations per year; TC, total citation.

| 1547
5.1.4 | Bibliographic cluster 4: Personalized 5.1.6 | Bibliographic cluster 6: Customer behavior

advertising and loyalty toward personalized marketing
The fourth cluster, which is the least productive cluster, The sixth and final cluster concentrates on customer behavior and loyalty
concentrates on personalized advertising through 26 publications toward personalized marketing through 37 publications (TP) that have
(TP) that have garnered a total of 665 citations (TC) and an received a total of 1,553 citations (TC) and an average of 41.97 citations
average of 25.58 citations per publication (TC/TP; Table 9). per publication (TC/TP; Table 9). The oldest publication in this cluster
About 11.53% of publications in this cluster have been published appeared in 1998 while the most recent publication was published in
in the last 3 years, with the oldest article appearing in 2006. The 2016, which suggests that this cluster is on a declining path. Upon
cluster sheds light on the creation of personalized content detailed scrutiny, this study observes that the cluster and its most prolific
through advertising, with location‐based and mobile advertising publications focus on customer response, involvement, and loyalty to
being highly prominent (Buhalis & Forreste, 2015; Li & Du, 2012), brands that engage in customized offers (Simonson, 2005), service
as well as the attitudinal and behavioral reactions toward personalization (Ball et al., 2006), personalized relationship (Gordon et al.,
personalized advertising (Feng et al., 2016; Xu, 2006). Upon 1998), personalized marketplace (Goldsmith, 1999), dynamic customer
detailed scrutiny, this study observes that the most prolific management (Khan et al., 2009), collaborative filtering of product
publications in this cluster focus on the personalization of recommendation (Shih & Liu, 2008), and one‐to‐one customer interaction
advertising through value co‐creation (Buhalis & Foerste, 2015), (Jiang & Tuzhilin, 2006; Wells et al., 1999) across contexts such as the
location‐based mobile advertising system (Li & Du, 2012), and world wide web (Fink & Kobsa, 2000) and internet retailing (Doherty &
cloud‐based personalization (López‐Nores et al., 2013), as well as Ellis‐Chadwick, 2010; Table 10).
the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Feng et al., 2016)
and the personalized aspects of advertising (e.g., tailoring source,
locational congruity, product involvement) (S. Lee et al., 2015) on 5.2 | Co‐word analysis of personalized marketing
customer attitude (Smutkupt et al., 2012; Tripathi & Siddiqui, research
2008; Xu, 2006), avoidance (Nyheim et al., 2015), and purchase
intention (E. B. Lee et al., 2017) toward brands using personalized The co‐word analysis of keywords that authors enlist in their
advertising (Table 10). publications reveals six distinct co‐word (thematic) clusters
consisting of 40 keywords that characterize the body of
knowledge of personalized marketing, namely personalized
5.1.5 | Bibliographic cluster 5: Personalization recommendation, personalized relationship, customer insights
concept and discourse in marketing in personalized marketing, personalization–privacy paradox,
personalization concept and discourse in marketing, and person-
The fifth cluster, which is the most impactful cluster, focuses on alized advertising (RQ3). The network and metrics of keywords
personalization concept and discourse in marketing through 41 representing the major topics explored in each co‐word
publications (TP) that have garnered the highest total of (thematic) cluster emerging from the co‐word analysis are
3064 citations (TC) and the highest average of 74.73 citations presented in Figure 2 and Table 12, respectively. Seven network
per publication (TC/TP; Table 9). About 19.51% of publications in metrics are reported to enrich the results generated by the
this cluster have been published in the last 3 years, with the co‐word analysis, namely:
oldest article appearing in 2001. The cluster sheds light
on the nature of personalization and the discourse surrounding • average publication year(APY), which indicates the degree of
its application and prospects for marketing. In this regard, hotness (more recent) or coldness (least recent) of the keyword;
the studies in this cluster often lay the foundation for personal- • average citation(AC), which indicates the average citation received
ization in marketing, as evidenced through the highest citation by documents that enlist the keyword;
impact entailing the cluster. Upon detailed scrutiny, this • occurrence(OC), which indicates the frequency of keyword
study finds that the most prolific publications in this cluster appearance in the corpus;
concentrate on the application and discourse of personalization • degree of centrality(DG), which indicates the number of relational
in e‐service (Rust & Lemon, 2001), marketing analytics and data‐ ties associated to the keyword;
rich environments (Wedel & Kannan, 2016), marketing manage- • closeness centrality(CC), which indicates the reciprocal summation of
ment (Murthi & Sarkar, 2003), retargeting in online advertising the shortest route between the keyword and its neighboring
(Lambrecht & Tucker, 2013), mobile marketing (Sutanto et al., keywords;
2013), one‐to‐one marketing (Rust & Huang, 2014), individual • betweenness centrality(BC), which indicates the knowledge dis-
marketing with imperfect targetability (Chen et al., 2001), semination potential of the keyword in the cluster; and
and online and offline store promotions (Zhang & Wedel, 2009; • PageRank(PR), which indicates the importance of the keyword to
Table 10). the cluster based on the quality and number of links directed
FIGURE 2 Co‐word network of personalized marketing research.
toward the keyword (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, et al., 2021; Brin 5.2.2 | Co‐word cluster 2: Personalized relationship
& Page, 1998). (Green network)
The second cluster contains keywords that reflect personalized relation-

5.2.1 | Co‐word cluster 1: Personalized ship. The keywords and PageRank relating to “e‐commerce” (OC: 21; PR:
recommendation (red network) 0.0300) or “electronic commerce” (OC: 11; PR: 0.0153) or “internet” (OC:
6; PR: 0.0113) and “relationship marketing” (OC: 9: PR: 0.0159) or
The first cluster comprises keywords that reflect personalized recommen- “customer relationship management” (OC: 6; PR: 0.0115) are among the
dation. “Personalization” (OC: 19) and “recommender systems” (OC: 11) most popular in this cluster. The average citations garnered by “customer
are the most popular keywords in this cluster. The PageRank for loyalty” is the highest (AC: 76.40), which highlights the goal of
“personalization” (PR: 0.0199) and “recommender systems” (PR: 0.0173) personalized relationship in marketing. The context of “e‐commerce” is
are also the highest in the cluster, which signify the importance of these very much central to personalized relationship in today's digital market-
keywords (topics) in personalized recommendation research. In terms of place (BC: 417; CC: 0.0035), with “online shopping” being the hottest
impact, the keyword with the highest average citation is “internet topic to study personalized relationship (APY: 2019). The publications in
marketing” (AC: 104.67 citations), which may be attributed to the this cluster add to the body of knowledge through the scrutiny of
keyword's lowest average publication year (APY: 2009), indicating that it constructs that influence personalized relationship efforts such as
is one of the oldest and well‐researched topics in the cluster. The average emotions, experience, privacy, and trust (Pappas, 2018), as well as the
publication year is highest for “social media marketing” (APY: 2018), contributions of technologies such AI, ML, augmented reality, and social
indicating that the topic receives research attention more recently than media in creating seamless relational exchanges with target customers
the other topics in the cluster. The publications with the most popular (Steinhoff et al., 2019).
keywords in this cluster describe the different types of recommendation
systems, shedding light on how user interests are matched with product
attributes and collaborative users with similar interests are matched to 5.2.3 | Co‐word cluster 3: Customer insights in
generate the most relevant selection of products (Cheung et al., 2003), as personalized marketing (blue network)
well as how to improve prediction and recommendation by using
different sources of data and algorithms (Kazienko & Adamski, 2007; The third cluster consists of keywords that reflect customer insights in
Liang et al., 2008). personalized marketing. The most popular keywords in this cluster are
“machine learning” (OC: 16; DG: 12; CC: 0.0034; BC: 262; PR: as the ways in which customers and marketers can overcome the
0.0303) and “marketing” (OC: 15; DG: 12; CC: 0.0034; BC: 154; PR: privacy‐personalization paradox (Acquisti & Varian, 2005).
0.0226), which also have the highest degree of centrality, closeness
centrality, betweenness centrality, and PageRank in the cluster. The
keywords with the highest average citation in this cluster are “big 5.2.5 | Co‐word cluster 5: Personalization concept
data” (AC: 59) and “mass customization” (AC: 55), whereas the most and discourse in marketing (purple network)
recent keyword in this cluster is “artificial intelligence” (APY: 2019),
which is a manifestation of ML. These keywords indicate that The fifth cluster contains keywords that focus on the personalization
customer insights for personalized marketing are acquired through concept and discourse in marketing. This is seen prominently through
the application of AI using ML. Noteworthily, studies in this cluster the omnipresent occurrence, centrality, and importance of “personal-
explore the contribution of AI in the evolution of personalization ization” (OC: 82; DG: 27; CC: 0.0041; BC: 2169; PR: 0.0985) across
technologies for customer engagement in personalized marketing studies in this cluster, as well as its similar manifestations such as
(Kumar et al., 2019) and the role it enacts to decipher the massive “customization” (OC: 14; DG: 12; CC: 0.0034; BC: 232; PR: 0.0229)
amount of data to generate customer insights for marketers (Rust, and “one‐to‐one marketing” (OC: 12; DG: 6; CC: 0.0033; BC: 109; PR:
2020; Varian, 2014). 0.0193). The average citations garnered by publications with these
keywords are also relatively high (AC: 40.13–72.50) Nonetheless,
research in this cluster appears to be dated, as seen through the low
5.2.4 | Co‐word cluster 4: Privacy–personalization average publication years (2009–2013). Noteworthily, studies in this
paradox (yellow network) cluster indicate that the idea of personalization was emerge in
marketing as one‐to‐one marketing before it was bifurcated into
The fourth cluster comprises keywords that speak to the privacy‐ customization and personalization based on the initiator (Arora,
personalization paradox. The central keyword in this cluster is Dreze, Ghose, Hess, Iyengar, Jing, Kumar, et al., 2008; Peppers &
“privacy,” which records the highest average citations (AC: 42.16), Rogers, 1997), with customer characteristics (Munz et al., 2020) for
occurrence (OC: 19), degree of centrality (DG: 20), closeness personalized marketing and the corresponding contributions to
centrality (CC: 0.0036), betweenness centrality (BC: 530), and profitability (Nguyen et al., 2019) being exemplars of discourses
PageRank (0.0344). However, the low average publication years being curated and explored in this cluster.
(2012–2015) suggest that research on the privacy–personalization
paradox is least recent as compared to the other clusters.
Noteworthily, the privacy‐personalization paradox has been studied 5.2.6 | Co‐word cluster 6: Personalized advertising
in the context of “advertising,” particularly in “mobile advertis- (light blue network)
ing,” “mobile marketing,” and “targeted advertising” where sensitive
personal information is collected and used for personalized market- The sixth and final cluster, which is a relatively new cluster, consists
ing. Specifically, the publications in this cluster focus on under- of publications that pertain to personalized advertising. The cluster
standing the role played by customers' need for privacy and the began with research on “online advertising” (APY: 2013) before
impact of personal similarities and differences in influencing transitioning to “personalized advertising” (APY: 2017), “social media”
the adoption of location‐based marketing (Xu et al., 2011), as well (APY: 2018), and “digital marketing” (APY: 2019) in recent years. The
F I G U R E 3 Alluvial diagram on the

evolution of personalized marketing research.
average citation for publications on “online advertising” (AC: 67.29) is

the highest, but the occurrence, centrality, and importance of “social
media” for personalized advertising is the most prominent today (OC:
13; DG: 15; CC: 0.0034; BC: 161; PR: 0.0213). Noteworthily,
publications in this cluster are cognizant of the fact that social media
holds the potential to reach out to a mass market albeit in a
personalized way, wherein advertisements can be targeted to
intended customers in the advent of big data and new‐age
technologies such as AI and ML. This has led to new frontiers for
personalized advertising, which involves understanding the impact of
personalized advertising on social media, as well as user roles in
personalization and the co‐creation of personalized experiences
(Buhalis & Foerste, 2015; Buhalis & Sinarta, 2019).
5.3 | Evolution of personalized marketing research
Personalization is not new and can be traced back to the nineteenth

century. Ross (1992) found that the earliest use of personalized direct
marketing letters dates back to 1870. Marketers had observed that
personalized salutation increased the response rate by six times in an
experiment by Time magazine in 1940 (Reed, 1949), but the novelty
wore off by 1960. Also, it became difficult and expensive to execute
personalization until the advent of present computing power
(Petrison et al., 1997). Conceptually, the idea of personalization
originated when researchers started to acknowledge the heteroge-
neity of markets consisting of homogeneous customer groups
according to their needs and wants (Smith, 1956). The interest in
research on personalization is mapped on the alluvial diagram
showing the topical evolution of personalization in Figures 3 and 4
and summarized in Table 11.
The topical evolution map has been captured using the
Biblioshiny software. The period of the data span was divided into
four time zones: 1990–2000, 2001–2010, 2011–2020, and the
present time (2021 onwards). Each time zone has been captured in
the strategic diagrams below. These diagrams categorize the topics
into four quadrants based on the centrality and impact (density) of
the occurrence of keywords in line with the typology defined by
Cahlik (2000). The topics in the upper right‐hand quadrant are known
as the motor topics. They are characterized by high centrality and high
impact, and hence, they are significant to the field. The topics on the
lower right corner are transversal topics. They have high centrality but
low impact. These topics are general or transversal to the field. The
topics on the lower left‐hand corner have low centrality and impact
and thus represent emerging topics. These topics appear to be
marginal, but they should be carefully evaluated as they might hold
the key to the future development of research areas. The topics on
the upper left corner have low centrality but high impact and thus
represent niche topics, which suggests that these topics have a
concentrated focus on specific aspects of the field.
FIGURE 4 Evolution of personalized marketing research across 1990–2000. In the 1980s, personalization was mostly seen as a
periods. tool to increase the response rates of mail surveys. Researchers were
T A B L E 11 Evolution of personalization.
| 1552
Author(s) (year) Title Context Insight
1991–2000
Hornik et al. (1991) Increasing compliance in costly telephone interviews: A test of four inducement Telephone interviews Response rate
techniques
Singh (1991) Understanding the structure of consumers' satisfaction evaluations of service Service delivery Customer satisfaction
delivery
Grove and Fisk (1992) Observational data collection methods for services marketing: An overview Service delivery Service quality
Iacobucci and Ostrom (1993) Gender differences in the impact of core and relational services on the Service encounters Customer satisfaction
evaluation of service encounters
Varaldo and Marbach (1995) The changing consumer in Italy Customer change Impact of personalization on consumption
Price and Arnould (1999) Commercial friendships: Service provider–client relationships in context Relationship marketing Impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty
Bitner et al. (2000) Technology infusion in service encounters Technology Impact on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and word of
mouth
2001–2010
Brady and Cronin (2001) Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical Service encounters Service quality
approach
Kalyanam and McIntyre (2002) The e‐marketing mix: A contribution of the e‐tailing wars Marketing mix Personalization is one of the components of the
marketing mix
Moon (2000) Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self‐disclosure from consumers Self‐disclosure for Implications for data collection for personalization
personalization
Senecal and Nantel (2004) The influence of online product recommendations on consumers' online choices Recommender system Personalization in online retailing
Ana et al. (2009) Contingent response to self‐customization procedures: Customization process The subjective experience of difficulty in
Implications for decision satisfaction and choice customization
Kwortnik et al. (2009) Buyer monitoring: A means to ensure personalized service Service delivery Impact of incentives of the buyer on personalization
Zhang and Wedel (2009) The effectiveness of customized promotions in online and offline stores Promotions Personalized promotions are more effective in online
scenarios
2011–2020
Acquisti et al. (2012) The impact of relative standards on the propensity to disclose Privacy Personalization–privacy paradox
Hennig‐Thurau et al. (2012) Can automated group recommender systems help: Do consumers make better Recommender system Group personalization
choices?
Coker and Nagpal (2013) Building‐up versus paring‐down: Consumer responses to recommendations Recommendations Personalized recommendations
when customizing
Lambrecht and Tucker (2013) When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online advertising Advertising Personalized retargeting ads to customers
CHANDRA
ET AL.
mostly looking at ways to improve the response rates either

qualitatively or quantitatively. In the later decade, 1990–2000, the
focus shifted to personalization on service delivery and service
encounters. The outcomes also changed from mere response rates to
Use of social networking information for

customer satisfaction and service delivery (Bitner et al., 2000; Grove
& Fisk, 1992; Hornik et al., 1991; Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1993; Price &
Personalization–privacy paradox
Personalization–privacy paradox
Arnould, 1999; Varaldo & Marbach, 1995). These studies came under
Analytics for personalization

the ambit of customer relationship management, as seen from the
Personalization context
alluvial diagram. The strategic diagram indicates that customer
Online personalization
Personalized pricing
relationship management was central to the development of the

personalization
concept of personalization and had attracted a decent amount of the
researchers' attention, though it had not been sufficiently developed
to be fully in the motor quadrant.
Insight
2001–2010. In the decade that followed, personalized marketing

was studied from the perspective of online channels. The evolution of
e‐marketing mix, service delivery, the use of technology, and
Relationship marketing
relationship marketing in the online scenario furthered the concept

Marketing analytics
of customer focus and centricity (Kwortnik et al., 2009; Moon, 2002;

Marketing mix
Zhang & Wedel, 2009). The alluvial diagram shows the emergence of
Advertising
Advertising
Marketing
technologies (such as decision support systems and recommender

Context
News
systems) that helped customer profiling for e‐commerce and mobile

advertising applications to enhance customer satisfaction. As is
evident from the strategic map of the period, techniques and
Unraveling the personalization paradox: The effect of information collection and
Personalized online advertising effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and
technologies such as customer prolifing, decision support systems,

recommender systems, and neural networks took center stage by
becoming the most researched topics of the domain and became the
The market value for product attribute improvements under‐prices
trust‐building strategies on online advertisement effectiveness
motor topics in the field. Mobile advertising was an emerging topic

that received increasing attention among researchers.
2011–2020. In the period from 2011 to 2020, marketers
emphasized the heightened use of information technology to build
data‐driven personalization. Trend analysis based on customers'
Marketing analytics for data‐rich environments
Adaptive personalization using social networks
historical data offers customer insights to develop personalized

offerings and communications experiences (Lambrecht & Tucker,
2013). Better personalization leads to improved service quality and
The role of data privacy in marketing
customer experience, but paradoxically, it also increases customer

vulnerability to compromised data privacy (Aguirre et al., 2015). The
Online relationship marketing
trade‐off between personal information sharing and personalized

advantages is a moot point (Acquisti et al., 2012).
The last decade has also witnessed unprecedented growth in using
personalization
customer analytics for personalization. Both structured and unstructured

customer data within or outside the firm offered unparalleled opportuni-
where
ties for supporting marketing decisions (Wedel & Kannan, 2016). Data has
Title
become the new oil of the digital economy and made individualized
personalization possible. Customer analytics reveals customer behavior
and customer experience with products and services (Verma, 2014, 2020;
Bleier and Eisenbeiss (2015)
Wedel & Kannan, 2016). Exponential growth in information technology‐

(Continued)
Martin and Murphy (2017)

Wedel and Kannan (2016)
based applications (e.g., big data, AI, and augmented reality) offered new
Steinhoff et al. (2019)
Aguirre et al. (2015)
avenues for electronic customer relationship management (Steinhoff

Chung et al. (2016)
et al., 2019). This decade coincides with the different contexts shown in
Author(s) (year)
Sonnier (2014)
the alluvial diagram, namely, e‐commerce, advertising, promotions, and

TABLE 11
applications of information technology. Hence, researchers redirected

their attention to study personalization from the mobile advertising,
e‐commerce, marketing, and retailing perspectives.
T A B L E 12 Major co‐word (thematic)

Cluster APY AC OC DG CC BC PR
clusters on personalized marketing.
Co‐word cluster 1. Personalized recommendation (red network)
Personalization 2016 15.32 19 12 0.0034 174 0.0199
Recommender systems 2013 75.27 11 13 0.0034 102 0.0173
Retailing 2014 43.17 6 10 0.0033 87 0.0124
Internet marketing 2009 104.67 6 7 0.0031 39 0.0121
Collaborative filtering 2014 66.00 10 8 0.0032 34 0.0107
Social networks 2017 31.75 8 10 0.0033 32 0.0121
Social media marketing 2018 32.33 6 5 0.0029 18 0.0072
Recommendation systems 2012 47.17 6 6 0.0031 16 0.0093
Personalized marketing 2009 96.67 6 6 0.0032 14 0.0087
Web personalization 2013 31.29 7 4 0.0029 6 0.0065
Co‐word cluster 2. Personalized relationship (green network)
E‐commerce 2015 13.10 21 17 0.0035 417 0.0300
Trust 2015 36.80 5 5 0.0030 112 0.0098
Relationship marketing 2008 38.00 9 8 0.0033 93 0.0159
Electronic commerce 2007 45.55 11 12 0.0033 39 0.0153
Customer relationship management 2014 32.17 6 6 0.0030 35 0.0115
Customer loyalty 2011 76.40 5 5 0.0029 34 0.0099
Recommender system 2015 24.63 8 7 0.0032 28 0.0086
Internet 2012 30.00 6 10 0.0033 13 0.0113
Online shopping 2019 27.00 5 5 0.0031 2 0.0072
Co‐word cluster 3: Customer insights in personalized marketing (blue network)
Machine learning 2018 19.88 16 12 0.0034 262 0.0303
Marketing 2017 17.87 15 12 0.0034 154 0.0226
Artificial intelligence 2019 11.80 10 9 0.0033 85 0.0201
Big data 2017 59.00 9 11 0.0033 62 0.0171
Tourism 2016 22.20 5 4 0.0029 12 0.0057
Mass customization 2009 55.00 6 3 0.0031 5 0.0072
Co‐word cluster 4: Privacy‐personalization paradox (yellow network)
Privacy 2013 42.16 19 20 0.0036 530 0.0344
Consumer behavior 2012 24.14 7 7 0.0032 264 0.0136
Advertising 2015 18.85 13 12 0.0034 236 0.0201
Mobile advertising 2013 41.62 13 9 0.0033 210 0.0185
Mobile marketing 2012 30.00 5 4 0.0029 7 0.0062
Targeted advertising 2015 25.00 5 3 0.0031 2 0.0050
Co‐word cluster 5: Personalization concept and discourse in marketing (purple network)
Personalization 2013 40.13 82 27 0.0041 2,169 0.0985
Customization 2011 72.50 14 12 0.0034 232 0.0229
One‐to‐one marketing 2009 65.92 12 6 0.0033 109 0.0193
Customer segmentation 2013 25.50 6 4 0.0031 3 0.0077
Data mining 2012 58.00 6 6 0.0031 1 0.0055

Cluster APY AC OC DG CC BC PR
Co‐word cluster 6: Personalized advertising (light blue network)
Social media 2018 21.85 13 15 0.0034 161 0.0213
Digital marketing 2019 9.90 10 10 0.0033 99 0.0138
Personalized advertising 2017 13.60 5 3 0.0029 46 0.0084
Online advertising 2013 67.29 7 9 0.0033 37 0.0128
Abbreviations: AC, average citation; APY, average publication year; BC, betweenness centrality; CC,
closeness centrality; DG, degree of centrality; OC, occurrence; PR, PageRank.
T A B L E 13 Triangulation of thematic
Theme Bibliographic coupling Co‐word analysis
clusters on personalized marketing.
Personalized recommendation Bibliographic cluster 1: Co‐word cluster 1:
Personalized recommendation Personalized recommendation
Personalized relationship Bibliographic cluster 2: Co‐word cluster 2:

Personalized relationship Personalized relationship
Personalization–privacy Bibliographic cluster 3: Co‐word cluster 4:

paradox Personalization–privacy Personalization–privacy
paradox paradox
Personalized advertising Bibliographic cluster 4: Co‐word cluster 6:

Personalized advertising Personalized advertising
Personalization concept and Bibliographic cluster 5: Co‐word cluster 5:

discourse in marketing Personalization concept and Personalization concept and
discourse in marketing discourse in marketing
Customer insights in Bibliographic cluster 6: Co‐word cluster 3:

personalized marketing Customer behavior and Customer insights in
loyalty toward personalized marketing
personalization
Notes: The thematic name for co‐word cluster 3 is chosen over bibliographic cluster 6 because the
authors collectively agreed that the thematic name of the former better reflects the current evolution
of related research as compared to the thematic name of the latter, which may be attributed to the
former's use of keywords representing current research as opposed to the latter's use of references of
past research as bibliometric information input for analysis.
2021 (or present). The strategic map of the period suggests that thereby establishing the reliability and validity of the major themes
customer relationship management is a transversal topic that underpinning the intellectual structure of personalized marketing
connects different branches of research on personalized marketing research that were unpacked and reported herein this review
and that the focus is on sales. This also leads to the inference that (Table 13).
researchers are probably looking at the return on investment of To gain a better understanding on the ways forward for
personalized marketing. An extension of the field could be to personalized marketing research, this study use author keywords as
leverage on algorithms available through new‐age technologies to inputs to generate a strategic diagram with impact and centrality as
garner customer loyalty and repurchase frequency to improve the its y‐axis and x‐axis (Cobo et al., 2011a, 2011b) using the simple
customer lifetime value from personalized marketing. center algorithm in Biblioshiny in R (Coulter et al., 1998; RQ4).
Centrality reflects the importance of topics, whereas impact signifies
the development and influence of topics in the field. The graphical
5.4 | Ways forward for personalized marketing representation of the strategic diagram is divided into four quadrants
research using the typology defined by Cahlik (2000) in Figure 5.
The keywords in the upper‐right quadrant are known as motor
The thematic clusters from bibliographic coupling and co‐word topics with high centrality and high impact. The keywords in this
analysis indicate clear convergence and successful triangulation, quadrant—that is, “relationship marketing and mass customization”
FIGURE 5 Strategic diagram of personalized marketing research.
and “personalization and mobile advertising”—are well developed and (e.g., Journal of Advertising, Journal of Customer Marketing) journals
serve as foundational insights for personalized marketing. They also that welcome niche insights on personalized marketing.
correspond to the thematic cluster on personalized relationship in the The keywords in the lower‐left quadrant are known as emerging
bibliographic coupling and co‐word analysis, which highlights the topics due to their low centrality and low impact. The keywords in this
fundamental importance of customer relationship management in quadrant—that is, “personalization paradox and vulnerability” and
personalized marketing, transcending beyond context and time. “social networks and data mining”—represent potential areas of
Therefore, future research on personalized marketing should always research that would benefit from fresh and novel ideas. Noteworth-
remain cognizant about the impact that any suggested solution for ily, the personalization paradox and vulnerability concern from
personalization will have on the relationship between brands and personal information disclosure and privacy remain highly relevant
their target customers. in the age of AI and ML where customer activity is being tracked
The keywords in the bottom‐right quadrant are known as without their explicit awareness, though they may have simply
transversal topics with high centrality but low impact. The keywords agreed to it when consent requests pop up in the midst of their
in this quadrant—that is, “personalization and customization,” activity. The same can be said about social networks and data mining,
“e‐commerce and social media,” “internet marketing and personalized which can be readily exploited by new‐age technologies in the fourth
marketing,” and “machine learning and marketing”—are central to industrial revolution (IR4.0). This corroborates with the emergence of
personalized marketing, though they can only exert low impact on customer analytics (e.g., algorithms) and the growth of interest in its
the field on its own. Therefore, future research is likely to be better returns (e.g., customer relationships and sales) in recent times, as
off using the concepts represented by these keywords to empower noted through the evolution of personalized marketing research
new research across the thematic clusters revealed herein in this discussed previously.
review as opposed to pursuing new research focusing on these
concepts independent of the thematic clusters.
The keywords in the upper‐left quadrant are known as niche topics 6 | CONCLUSION
with low centrality but high impact. The keywords in this quadrant—
that is, “dynamic pricing and personalized pricing,” “customer The field of personalization is complex and multifaceted. While a
relationship management or CRM,” and “privacy advertising”— basic understanding about personalization exists, the concept was
represent topics that are well developed and have high impact on not as well‐established or fortified as other marketing concepts.
the field, though they remain as niche rather than mainstream topics. More often than not, personalization is treated as a subset of
Future research in these areas is likely to be fruitful due to the high segmentation, where the segment is taken as a whole, which does
impact that they can potentially contribute to the field, and they are not embody the true meaning of personalization. The comprehensive
likely to be in demand by both mainstream (e.g., Journal of Marketing, review herein makes clear that personalization considers the aspects
Journal of Marketing Research, and Marketing Science) and specialty of purpose and context in its conceptualization, and the drivers,
parties involved, and context in its operationalization, thereby making path of knowledge to develop a personalization continuum
personalization unique to the individual customer rather than to the involving offline and online channels, forging a new stream of
entire customer segment. research called omnichannel personalized marketing. Second, the
The performance analysis of personalized marketing research literature on personalized marketing appears to be skewed
indicates that the publication productivity and citation impact of the toward the application of AI and ML, while other new‐age
field continues to grow steadily over the years, boding well for the technologies such as big data analytics, blockchain, the internet
future. The analysis also indicates that R.T. Rust, M. Wedel, and A. of things, and wearables have received little attention, as
Tuzhilin are among the most productive and influential authors; indicated through the co‐word analysis. Therefore, future
Marketing Science and Expert Systems with Applications are among the research is encouraged to explore the application and utility of
most productive journals; and Linden et al.'s (2003) item‐to‐item alternative new‐age technologies in addition to existing ones
collaborative filtering, Vesanen's (2007) conceptual framework on such as AI and ML for personalized marketing. Third, personaliza-
personalization, and Wind and Rangaswamy's (2001) customerization tion depends on the accessibility and quality of customer data,
are among the most influential publications in the field of but the sharing of personal data can raise vulnerability concerns
personalized marketing. among customers, which is known as the personalization–privacy
The science mapping of personalized marketing research was paradox. Past researchers have recommended the explicit rather
conducted using bibliographic coupling and co‐word analysis, than implicit collection of customer data alongside trust‐building
resulting in six themes that underpin the field's intellectual structure, strategies and the promotion of personalization usefulness to
namely personalized recommendation, personalized relationship, instill customer confidence and improve their perception toward
personalization–privacy paradox, personalized advertising, personal- data sharing (Aguirre et al., 2015; Aiolfi et al., 2021; Kang &
ization concept and discourse in marketing, and customer insights in Namkung, 2019). To extend this emerging and important line of
personalized marketing. Noteworthily, all themes were triangulated inquiry, future research is encouraged to explore new ways to
using alternative sources of bibliometric information (e.g., references promote self‐disclosure and the sharing of personal data to
for bibliographic coupling and keywords for co‐word analysis), customers for personalized marketing. Finally, though the idea of
thereby establishing the reliability and validity of the themes universal recommendation is contentious yet potentially feasible,
discovered and reported herein in this review. further evidence is required for it to materialize. In this regard,
Moving forward, the review also lends support to future research future research is encouraged to examine personalized marketing
on personalized marketing. Specifically, a strategic diagram was practices across cultures, generations, and product categories,
curated using keywords to map the most prominent topics in the field among others, to identify potential lines of convergence for
across four quadrants on the criteria of centrality and impact. The personalized marketing.
diagram indicated that topics related to personalized relationships
(e.g., relationship marketing and mass customization as well as DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
personalization and mobile advertising) are fundamental to personal- Data available on request from the authors.
ized marketing as customer–brand relationships are formed and
influenced through marketing activities. The diagram also revealed ORC I D
that topics such as personalization and customization, e‐commerce Shobhana Chandra https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2769-4113
and social media, internet marketing and personalized marketing, and Weng Marc Lim https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7196-1923
ML and marketing should not be studied independently but rather be Satish Kumar https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5200-1476
researched across the six themes as they can provide empowering Naveen Donthu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8525-3159
perspectives to enrich thematic research in the field. Other topics
that are niche but worthy of further investigation given their high RE F ER EN CES
impact on the field include dynamic pricing and personalized pricing, Acquisti, A., John, L. K., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). The impact of relative
customer relationship management, and privacy advertising, whereas standards on the propensity to disclose. Journal of Marketing
Research, 49(2), 160–174.
topics revolving around the personalization paradox and vulnerability
Acquisti, A., & Varian, H. R. (2005). Conditioning prices on purchase
as well as social networks and data mining are emerging in the age of history. Marketing Science, 24(3), 367–381.
AI and ML and thus warrant future research scrutiny. Adomavicius, G., & Tuzhilin, A. (2005). Personalization technologies: A
process‐oriented perspective. Communications of the ACM, 48(10),
Last but not least, a reflection of the comprehensive
83–90.
bibliometric review herein reveals several noteworthy knowledge Aguirre, E., Mahr, D., Grewal, D., De Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2015).
gaps that can be explored and addressed in future research. First, Unravelling the personalization paradox: The effect of information
the literature on personalized marketing appears to be replete collection and trust‐building strategies on online advertisement
effectiveness. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 34–49.
with studies in the online context, though several researchers
Aiolfi, S., Bellini, S., & Pellegrini, D. (2021). Data‐driven digital
have begun to explore and replicate the effect of personalized advertising: Benefits and risks of online behavioral advertising.
marketing in offline environments (Kang et al., 2020; Reigger International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(7),
et al., 2021). Thus, future research is encouraged to explore this 1089–1110.
Aksoy, L., Cooil, B., & Lurie, N. H. (2011). Decision quality measures in Buhalis, D., & Sinarta, Y. (2019). Real‐time co‐creation and nowness
recommendation agent's research. Journal of Interactive Marketing, service: Lessons from tourism and hospitality. Journal of Travel &
25(2), 110–122. Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 563–582.
Aksoy, N. C., Kabadayi, E. T., Yilmaz, C., & Alan, A. K. (2021). A typology of Byington, E. K., Felps, W., & Baruch, Y. (2019). Mapping the Journal of
personalisation practices in marketing in the digital age. Journal of Vocational Behaviour: A 23‐year review. Journal of Vocational
Marketing Management, 37(11–12), 1091–1122. Behavior, 110, 229–244.
Akter, S., & Wamba, S. F. (2016). Big data analytics in e‐commerce: A Cahlik, T. (2000). Search for fundamental articles in economics.
systematic review and agenda for future research. Electronic Scientometrics, 49(3), 389–402.
Markets, 26(2), 173–194. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From
Albert, T. C., Goes, P. B., & Gupta, A. (2004). GIST: A model for design and translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co‐word
management of content and interactivity of customer‐centric web analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.
sites. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 161–182. Changchien, S. W., Lee, C. F., & Hsu, Y. J. (2004). On‐line personalized
Andersen, N. (2021). Mapping the expatriate literature: A bibliometric sales promotion in electronic commerce. Expert Systems with
review of the field from 1998 to 2017 and identification of current Applications, 27(1), 35–52.
research fronts. International Journal of Human Resource Chellappa, R. K., & Sin, R. G. (2005). Personalization versus privacy: An
Management, 32(22), 4687–4724. https://doi.org/10.1080/ empirical examination of the online consumer's dilemma. Information
09585192.2019.1661267 Technology and Management, 6(2), 181–202.
Anshari, M., Almunawar, M. N., Lim, S. A., & Al‐Mudimigh, A. (2019). Chen, Y., Narasimhan, C., & Zhang, Z. J. (2001). Individual marketing with
Customer relationship management and big data enabled: imperfect targetability. Marketing Science, 20(1), 23–41.
Personalization & customization of services. Applied. Computing Cheung, K. W., Kwok, J. T., Law, M. H., & Tsui, K. C. (2003). Mining
and Informatics, 15(2), 94–101. customer product ratings for personalized marketing. Decision
Arazy, O., Kumar, N., & Shapira, B. (2010). A theory‐driven design Support Systems, 35(2), 231–243.
framework for social recommender systems. Journal of the Choi, S. H., Yang, Y. X., Yang, B., & Cheung, H. H. (2015). Item‐level RFID
Association for Information Systems, 11(9), 2–232. for enhancement of customer shopping experience in apparel retail.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R‐tool for Computers in Industry, 71, 10–23.
comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, Chung, M., Ko, E., Joung, H., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Chatbot e‐service and
11(4), 959–975. customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business
Arora, N., Dreze, X., Ghose, A., Hess, J. D., Iyengar, R., Jing, B., Kumar, V., Research, 117, 587–595.
Lurie, N., Neslin, S., & Zhang, Z. J. (2008). Putting one‐to‐one Chung, T. S., Wedel, M., & Rust, R. T. (2016). Adaptive personalization
marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice. using social networks. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Marketing Letters, 19(3), 305–321. 44(1), 66–87.
Ball, D., Coelho, P. S., & Vilares, M. J. (2006). Service personalization and Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community
loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 391–403. structure in very large networks. Physical Review, 70(6), 1–6.
Bang, H., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). Tracking users' visual attention and Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F.
responses to personalized advertising based on task cognitive (2011a). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and
demand. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 867–876. cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for
Berg, T., Janowski, W., & Sarner, A. (2001). Personalization: Customer value Information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402.
beyond the web. Stamford: Gartner. Cobo, M. J., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F.
Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in (2011b). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the
service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets
28(1), 138–149. theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.
Bleier, A., & Eisenbeiss, M. (2015). Personalized online advertising Coker, B., & Nagpal, A. (2013). Building‐up versus paring‐down: Consumer
effectiveness: The interplay of what, when, and where. Marketing responses to recommendations when customizing. Journal of
Science, 34(5), 669–688. Retailing, 89(2), 190–206.
Blom, J. (2000). Personalization: A taxonomy. CHI'00 extended abstracts on Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen
human factors in computing systems, 313–314. through its research literature: A study in co‐word analysis. Journal
Blom, J. O., & Monk, A. F. (2003). Theory of personalization of of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13), 1206–1223.
appearance: Why users personalize their PCs and mobile phones. Davis, S. (1987). Future perfect. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.
Human–Computer Interaction, 18(3), 193–228. Dawn, S. K. (2014). Personalized marketing: Concepts and framework.
Boudet, J., Gregg, B., Rathje, K., Stein, E., & Vollhardt, K. (2019). The future Productivity, 54(4), 370–377.
of personalization—And how to get ready for it. McKinsey & Company. Doherty, N. F., & Ellis‐Chadwick, F. (2010). Internet retailing: The past, the
Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2010). Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic present and the future. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the Management, 38(11/12), 943–965.
research front most accurately? Journal of the American Society for Donthu, N., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Forty‐five years of Journal of
Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2389–2404. Business Research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business
Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J., Jr. (2001). Some new thoughts on Research, 109, 1–14.
conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. Donthu, N., Gremler, D. D., Kumar, S., & Pattnaik, D. (2020). Mapping of
Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 34–49. Journal of Service Research themes: A 22‐year review. Journal of
Brin, S., & Page, L. (1998). The anatomy of a large‐scale hypertextual web Service Research, 25(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/
search engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1–7), 1094670520977672
107–117. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pattnaik, D., & Lim, W. M. (2021). A bibliometric
Buhalis, D., & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and retrospection of marketing from the lens of psychology: Insights
tourism: Empowering co‐creation of value. Journal of Destination from Psychology & Marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 38(5),
Marketing & Management, 4(3), 151–161. 834–865.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Research Ho, S. Y. (2006). The attraction of internet personalization to web users.
constituents, intellectual structure, and collaboration patterns in Electronic Markets, 16(1), 41–50.
Journal of International Marketing: An analytical retrospective. Ho, S. Y., & Bodoff, D. (2014). The effects of web personalization on user
Journal of International Marketing, 29(2), 1–25. attitude and behavior. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 497–510.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). Hornik, J., Zaig, T., & Shadmon, D. (1991). Increasing compliance in costly
How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. telephone interviews: A test of four inducement techniques.
Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(2), 147–153.
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three‐ Hsu, C. N., Chung, H. H., & Huang, H. S. (2004). Mining skewed and sparse
factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), transaction data for personalized shopping recommendation.
864–886. Machine Learning, 57(1), 35–59.
Evans, M. (2003). The relational oxymoron and personalisation Huang, E. Y., & Lin, C. Y. (2005). Customer‐oriented financial service
pragmatism. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(7), 665–685. personalization. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(1),
Fowler, D., Pitta, D., & Leventhal, R. C. (2013). Technological 26–44.
advancements and social challenges for one‐to‐one marketing. Hung, L. P. (2005). A personalized recommendation system based on
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(6), 509–516. product taxonomy for one‐to‐one marketing online. Expert Systems
Fan, H., & Poole, M. S. (2006). What is personalization? Perspectives on with Applications, 29(2), 383–392.
the design and implementation of personalization in information Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1993). Gender differences in the impact of
systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic core and relational aspects of services on the evaluation of service
Commerce, 16(3–4), 179–202. encounters. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 257–286.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain Imhoff, C., Loftis, L., & Geiger, J. (2001). Building the customer‐centric
management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International enterprise: Data warehousing techniques for supporting customer
Journal of Production Economics, 162, 101–114. relationship management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fan, H., & Poole, M. S. (2006). What is personalization? Perspectives on Instone, K. (2000). Information architecture and personalization.Los
the design and implementation of personalization in information Angeles. CA: Argus Associates.
systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Jain, G., Paul, J., & Shrivastava, A. (2021). Hyper‐personalization, co‐
Commerce, 16(3–4), 179–202. creation, digital clienteling and transformation. Journal of Business
Feng, X., Fu, S., & Qin, J. (2016). Determinants of consumers' attitudes Research, 124, 12–23.
toward mobile advertising: The mediating roles of intrinsic and Jiang, T., & Tuzhilin, A. (2006). Segmenting customers from population to
extrinsic motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, individuals: Does 1‐to‐1 keep your customers forever? IEEE
334–341. Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 18(10), 1297–1311.
Fink, J., & Kobsa, A. (2000). A review and analysis of commercial user Kalyanam, K., & McIntyre, S. (2002). The e‐marketing mix: A contribution
modeling servers for personalization on the world wide web. User of the e‐tailing wars. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Modeling and User‐Adapted Interaction, 10(2), 209–249. 30(4), 487–499.
Frias‐Martinez, E., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X. (2009). Evaluation of a Kang, J. W., & Namkung, Y. (2019). The role of personalization on
personalized digital library based on cognitive styles: Adaptivity vs. continuance intention in food service mobile apps: A privacy calculus
adaptability. International Journal of Information Management, 29(1), perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
48–56. Management, 31(2), 734–752.
Gilmore, J. H., & Pine, J. (1997). The four faces of mass customization. Kang, H. J., Shin, J. H., & Ponto, K. (2020). How 3D virtual reality stores
Harvard Business Review, 75, 91–101. can shape consumer purchase decisions: The roles of
Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). The personalised marketplace: Beyond the 4Ps. informativeness and playfulness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17(4), 178–185. 70–85.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Frieden, J. B. (2004). Have it your way: Consumer Kazienko, P., & Adamski, M. (2007). AdROSA—Adaptive personalization of
attitudes toward personalized marketing. Marketing Intelligence & web advertising. Information Sciences, 177(11), 2269–2295.
Planning, 22(2), 228–239. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers.
Gordon, M. E., McKeage, K., & Fox, M. A. (1998). Relationship marketing American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25.
effectiveness: The role of involvement. Psychology & Marketing, Khan, R., Lewis, M., & Singh, V. (2009). Dynamic customer management
15(5), 443–459. and the value of one‐to‐one marketing. Marketing Science, 28(6),
Goyal, K., & Kumar, S. (2021). Financial literacy: A systematic review and 1063–1079.
bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(1), Kingsnorth, S. (2019). Digital marketing strategy: An integrated approach to
80–105. online marketing. Kogan Page.
Grove, S. J., & Fisk, R. P. (1992). Observational data collection methods for Koch, O. F., & Benlian, A. (2015). Promotional tactics for online viral
services marketing: An overview. Journal of the Academy of marketing campaigns: How scarcity and personalization affect seed
Marketing Science, 20(3), 217–224. stage referrals. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 32, 37–52.
Guelman, L., Guillén, M., & Perez‐Marin, A. M. (2014). A survey of Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2012). Recommender systems: From algorithms
personalized treatment models for pricing strategies in insurance. to user experience. User Modeling and User‐Adapted Interaction,
Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 58, 68–76. 22(1), 101–123.
Guo, X., Zhang, X., & Sun, Y. (2016). The privacy–personalization paradox Kosinski, M., Bachrach, Y., Kohli, P., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2014).
in mHealth services acceptance of different age groups. Electronic Manifestations of user personality in website choice and behaviour
Commerce Research and Applications, 16, 55–65. on online social networks. Machine Learning, 95(3), 357–380.
Hennig‐Thurau, T., Marchand, A., & Marx, P. (2012). Can automated group Krishnaraju, V., & Mathew, S. K. (2013). Web personalization research: An
recommender systems help consumers make better choices? Journal information systems perspective. Journal of Systems and Information
of Marketing, 76(5), 89–109. Technology, 15(3), 254–268.
Hjørland, B. (2013). Citation analysis: Asocial and dynamic approach to Kumar, A. (2007). From mass customization to mass personalization: A
knowledge organization. Information Processing Management, 49(6), strategic transformation. International Journal of Flexible
1313–1325. Manufacturing Systems, 19(4), 533–547.
Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Pandey, N., & Westland, J. C. (2021). 20 years of Miceli, G. N., Ricotta, F., & Costabile, M. (2007). Customizing
Electronic Commerce Research. Electronic Commerce Research, 21(1), customization: A conceptual framework for interactive
1–40. personalization. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 6–25.
Kumar, S., Sureka, R., Lim, W. M., Kumar, M. S., & Goyal, N. (2021). What Mir, I. (2011). Consumer attitude towards m‐advertising acceptance: A
do we know about business strategy and environmental research? cross‐sectional study. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,
Insights from Business Strategy and the Environment. Business 16(1), 1–22.
Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3454–3469. https://doi.org/10. Montgomery, A. L., & Smith, M. D. (2009). Prospects for personalization
1002/bse.2813 on the Internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 130–137.
Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Lim, W. M., Chatterjee, A. N., & Pandey, N. (2021). Moon, Y. (2000). Intimate exchanges: Using computers to elicit self‐
What do we know about transfer pricing? Insights from bibliometric disclosure from consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4),
analysis. Journal of Business Research, 134, 275–287. 323–339.
Kwon, K., & Kim, C. (2012). How to design personalization in a context of Moon, Y. (2002). Personalization and personality: Some effects of
customer retention: Who personalizes what and to what extent? customizing message style based on consumer personality. Journal
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(2), 101–116. of Consumer Psychology, 12(4), 313–325.
Kwortnik, Jr., R. J., Lynn, W. M., & Ross, Jr., W. T. (2009). Buyer Munz, K. P., Jung, M. H., & Alter, A. L. (2020). Name similarity encourages
monitoring: A means to insure personalized service. Journal of generosity: A field experiment in email personalization. Marketing
Marketing Research, 46(5), 573–583. Science, 39(6), 1071–1091.
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2013). When does retargeting work? Murray, K. B., & Häubl, G. (2009). Personalization without interrogation:
Information specificity in online advertising. Journal of Marketing Towards more effective interactions between consumers and
Research, 50(5), 561–576. feature‐based recommendation agents. Journal of Interactive
Lee, E. B., Lee, S. G., & Yang, C. G. (2017). The influences of advertisement Marketing, 23(2), 138–146.
attitude and brand attitude on purchase intention of smartphone Murthi, B. P. S., & Sarkar, S. (2003). The role of the management sciences
advertising. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(6), in research on personalization. Management Science, 49(10),
1011–1036. 1344–1362.
Lee, S., Kim, K. J., & Sundar, S. S. (2015). Customization in location‐based Nerur, S. P., Rasheed, A. A., & Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual
advertising: Effects of tailoring source, locational congruity, and structure of the strategic management field: An author co‐citation
product involvement on ad attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 319–336.
51, 336–343. Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. C. & Hemsley‐Brown, J., (Eds.). (2019). Strategic
Lekakos, G., & Giaglis, G. M. (2004). A lifestyle‐based approach for brand management in higher education. New York: Routledge.
delivering personalized advertisements in digital interactive Nguyen, B., “Phil” Klaus, P., & Simkin, L. (2014). It's just not fair: exploring
television. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 9(2), the effects of firm customization on unfairness perceptions, trust
JCMC921. and loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(6), 484–497.
Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Bibliometrics/citation networks. In G. A. Barnett Nyheim, P., Xu, S., Zhang, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). Predictors of
(Ed.), Encyclopaedia of social networks. SAGE Publications Inc. avoidance towards personalization of restaurant smartphone
Li, C. (2019). The placebo effect in web‐based personalization. Telematics advertising: A study from the millennials' perspective. Journal of
and Informatics, 44, 101267. Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 6(2), 145–159.
Li, K., & Du, T. C. (2012). Building a targeted mobile advertising system for O'Fallon, C., & Sullivan, C. (2004). Personalised marketing‐improving
location‐based services. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 1–8. evaluation. Transport Engineering in Australia, 9(2), 85–101.
Liang, T. P., Yang, Y. F., Chen, D. N., & Ku, Y. C. (2008). A semantic‐ Pappas, I. O. (2018). User experience in personalized online shopping: A
expansion approach to personalized knowledge recommendation. fuzzy‐set analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52(7/8),
Decision Support Systems, 45(3), 401–412. 1679–1703.
Lim, W. M. (2021). A marketing mix typology for integrated care: The 10 Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O′Cass, A., Hao, A. W., & Bresciani, S. (2021).
Ps. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 29(5), 453–469. Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews
Lim, W. M., & Weissmann, M. A. (2021). Toward a theory of behavioral (SPAR‐4‐SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4),
control. Journal of Strategic Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/ O1–O16.
0965254X.2021.1890190 Peppers, D., & Rogers, M. (1997). The one‐to‐one future. Double Day
Lim, W. M., Rasul, T., Kumar, S., & Ala, M. (2022). Past, present, and future Publications.
of customer engagement. Journal of Business Research, 140, Peppers, D., Rogers, M., & Dorf, B. (1999). Is your company ready for one‐
439–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.014 to‐one marketing. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 151–160.
Lim, J. S., & Zhang, J. (2022). Adoption of AI‐driven personalization in Petrison, L., Blattberg, R., & Wang, P. (1997). Database marketing – Past,
digital news platforms: An integrative model of technology present and future. Journal of Direct Marketing, 11(4), 109–125.
acceptance and perceived contingency. Technology in Society, 69, Pfiffelmann, J., Dens, N., & Soulez, S. (2020). Personalized advertisements
1–10. with integration of names and photographs: An eye‐tracking
Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003). Amazon.com recommendations: experiment. Journal of Business Research, 111, 196–207.
Item‐to‐item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(1), Pine, B. J. (1993). Mass customizing products and services. Planning
76–80. Review, 21(4), 6–55.
López‐Nores, M., Blanco‐Fernández, Y., & Pazos‐Arias, J. J. (2013). Cloud‐ Pitta, D. A., Franzak, F., & Laric, M. (2003). Privacy and one‐to‐one
based personalization of new advertising and e‐commerce models marketing: resolving the conflict. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
for video consumption. The Computer Journal, 56(5), 573–592. 20(7), 616–628.
Martin, K. D., & Murphy, P. E. (2017). The role of data privacy in Polk, J., McNellis, J., & Tassin, C. (2020). Gartner magic quadrant for
marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(2), personalization engines. Gartner.
135–155. Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999). Commercial friendships: Service
McCarthy, J. F. (2001). The virtual world gets physical: Perspectives on provider–client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63(4),
personalization. IEEE Internet Computing, 5(6), 48–53. 38–56.
Puzakova, M., Rocereto, J. F., & Kwak, H. (2013). Ads are watching me: A Sonnier, G. P. (2014). The market value for product attribute
view from the interplay between anthropomorphism and improvements under‐price personalization. International Journal of
customisation. International Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 513–538. Research in Marketing, 31(2), 168–177.
Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Cecconi, F., Loreto, V., & Parisi, D. (2004). Steinhoff, L., Arli, D., Weaven, S., & Kozlenkova, I. V. (2019). Online
Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proceedings of the relationship marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(9), 47(3), 369–393.
2658–2663. Sunikka, A., & Bragge, J. (2012). Applying text‐mining to personalization
Reed, O. (1949). Some random thoughts. on personalizing. The reporter of and customization research literature–Who, what and where? Expert
direct mail advertising, April. Systems with Applications, 39(11), pp. 10049–10058.
Riemer, K., & Totz, C. (2003). The many faces of personalization, In The Suprenant, C. F., & Solomon, M. R. (1987). Predictability and
customer centric enterprise (pp. 35–50). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. personalization in the service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 51(2),
Ross, N. (1992). A history of direct marketing. Direct Marketing Association. 86–96.
Rossi, G., Schwabe, D., & Guimarães, R. (2001). Designing personalized Sutanto, J., Palme, E., Tan, C. H., & Phang, C. W. (2013). Addressing the
web applications. Proceedings of the Tenth international world wide personalization‐privacy paradox: An empirical assessment from a
web conference, Hong Kong. field experiment on smartphone users. MIS Quarterly, 37(4),
Rust, R. T., & Lemon, K. N. (2001). E‐service and the consumer. 1141–1164.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5(3), 85–101. Tam, K. Y., & Ho, S. Y. (2006). Understanding the impact of web
Rust, R. T., & Huang, M. H. (2014). The service revolution and the personalization on user information processing and decision
transformation of marketing science. Marketing Science, 33(2), outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 865–890.
206–221. Tang, H., Liao, S. S., & Sun, S. X. (2013). A prediction framework based on
Salonen, V., & Karjaluoto, H. (2016). Web personalization: The state of the contextual data to support mobile personalized marketing. Decision
art and future avenues for research and practice. Telematics and Support Systems, 56, 234–246.
Informatics, 33(4), 1088–1104. Tong, S., Luo, X., & Xu, B. (2020). Personalized mobile marketing
Samara, D., Magnisalis, I., & Peristeras, V. (2020). Artificial intelligence and strategies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(1),
big data in tourism: A systematic literature review. Journal of 64–78.
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 11(2), 343–367. Tran, T. P., Lin, C. W., Baalbaki, S., & Guzmán, F. (2020). How
Schilke, S. W., Bleimann, U., Furnell, S. M., & Phippen, A. D. (2004). Multi‐ personalized advertising affects equity of brands advertised on
dimensional personalisation for location and interest‐based Facebook? A mediation mechanism. Journal of Business Research,
recommendation. Internet Research, 14(5), 379–385. 120, 1–15.
Seele, P., Dierksmeier, C., Hofstetter, R., & Schultz, M. D. (2021). Mapping Treiblmaier, H., Madlberger, M., Knotzer, N., & Pollach, I. (2004).
the ethicality of algorithmic pricing: A review of dynamic and Evaluating personalization and customization from an ethical point
personalized pricing. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(4), 697–719. of view: An empirical study. In 37th Annual Hawaii International
Senecal, S., & Nantel, J. (2004). The influence of online product Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.
recommendations on consumers' online choices. Journal of Tinsley, H. E. A., & Weiss, D. J. (2000). Interrater reliability and agreement.
Retailing, 80(2), 159–169. In Tinsley, H. E. A. & Brown, S. D.(Eds.), Handbook of applied
Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Kumar, V., & Kumar, U. (2017). Content multivariate statistics and mathematical modelling.(pp. 95–124). San
design of advertisement for consumer exposure: Mobile marketing Diego, CA: Academic Press
through short messaging service. International Journal of Information Tripathi, S. N., & Siddiqui, M. H. (2008). Effectiveness of mobile
Management, 37(4), 257–268. advertising: The Indian scenario. Vikalpa, 33(4), 47–60.
Shen, A., & Ball, A. D. (2009). Is personalization of services always a good Turow, J., & Couldry, N. (2018). Media as data extraction: Towards a new
thing? Exploring the role of technology‐mediated personalization map of a transformed communications field. Journal of
(TMP) in service relationships. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(2), Communication, 68(2), 415–423.
79–91. Varaldo, R., & Marbach, G. (1995). The changing consumer in Italy.
Shih, Y. Y., & Liu, D. R. (2008). Product recommendation approaches: International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(5), 467–483.
Collaborative filtering via customer lifetime value and customer Verma, S. (2014). Online customer engagement through blogs in India.
demands. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(1–2), 350–360. Journal of Internet Commerce, 13(3–4), 282–301.
Simonson, I. (2005). Determinants of customers' responses to customized Verma, S. (2020). Value co‐creation through value‐in‐use experience: A
offers: Conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of netnographic approach. South Asian Journal of Management, 27(3),
Marketing, 69(1), 32–45. 156–173.
Singh, J. (1991). Understanding the structure of consumers' satisfaction Verma, S., & Yadav, N. (2021). Past, present, and future of electronic
evaluations of service delivery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing word of mouth (EWOM). Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53,
Science, 19(3), 223–244. 111–128.
Smink, A. R., van Reijmersdal, E. A., van Noort, G., & Neijens, P. C. (2020). Verma, S., Sharma, R., Deb, S., & Maitra, D. (2021). Artificial intelligence in
Shopping in augmented reality: The effects of spatial presence, marketing: Systematic review and future research direction.
personalization and intrusiveness on app and brand responses. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 9,
Journal of Business Research, 118, 474–485. 100002–100302.
Smith, A. D. (2006). Exploring m‐commerce in terms of viability, growth, Vesanen, J. (2007). What is personalization? A conceptual framework.
and challenges. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 4(6), European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 409–418.
682–703. Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to
Smith, W. R. (1956). Product differentiation and market segmentation as mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of
alternative marketing strategies. Journal of Marketing, 21(1), 3–8. Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635.
Smutkupt, P., Krairit, D., & Khang, D. B. (2012). Mobile marketing and Wang, W., Zhang, G., & Lu, J. (2015). Collaborative filtering with entropy‐
consumer perceptions of brand equity. Asia Pacific Journal of driven user similarity in recommender systems. International Journal
Marketing and Logistics, 24(4), 539–560. of Intelligent Systems, 30(8), 854–870.
Wedel, M., & Kannan, P. K. (2016). Marketing analytics for data‐rich Zanker, M., Rook, L., & Jannach, D. (2019). Measuring the impact of online
environments. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 97–121. personalisation: Past, present, and future. International Journal of
Wells, J. D., Fuerst, W. L., & Choobineh, J. (1999). Managing information Human‐Computer Studies, 131, 160–168.
technology (IT) for one‐to‐one customer interaction. Information & Zhang, J., & Wedel, M. (2009). The effectiveness of customized
Management, 35(1), 53–62. promotions in online and offline stores. Journal of Marketing
Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization: The next Research, 46(2), 190–206.
revolution in mass customization. Journal of Interactive Zhang, X., & Chen, R. (2008). Examining the mechanism of the value co‐
Marketing, 15(1), 13–32. creation with customers. International Journal of Production
Xiao, L., Guo, F., Yu, F., & Liu, S. (2019). The effects of online shopping Economics, 116(2), 242–250.
context cues on consumers' purchase intention for cross‐border
e‐commerce sustainability. Sustainability, 11(10):2777.
Xu, D. J. (2006). The influence of personalization in affecting consumer
attitudes toward mobile advertising in China. Journal of Computer How to cite this article: Chandra, S., Verma, S., Lim, W. M.,
Information Systems, 47(2), 9–19. Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Personalization in
Xu, H., Luo, X. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The
personalized marketing: Trends and ways forward. Psychology
personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of decision‐
making process for location‐aware marketing. Decision Support & Marketing, 39, 1529–1562.
Systems, 51(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21670

Personalization in Personalized Marketing - Trends and Ways Forward

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Personalization in Personalized Marketing - Trends and Ways Forward

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personalization in Personalized Marketing - Trends and Ways Forward

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 22 September 2021 | Accepted: 12 April 2022

Personalization in personalized marketing: Trends and ways

Shobhana Chandra1 | Sanjeev Verma1 | Weng Marc Lim2,5 |

Psychol Mark. 2022;39:1529–1562. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar | 1529

TABLE 1 Past reviews on personalization research.

Author(s) (year) Review type Review focus

Seele et al. (2021) Systematic review Ethical issues of algorithmic pricing.

Vesanen (2007) Systematic review Frameworks for personalization.

Smith (2006) Critical review Impact of e‐personalization on online consumer behavior.

Evans (2003) Critical review Personalized interaction for trust building.

Author(s) (year) Definition Dimensionality/theme Context

Author(s) (year) Definition Dimensionality/theme Context

Mathew (2005) personalized to the user's taste.

TABLE 3 Definitions of personalized marketing.

Author(s) (year) Definition Dimensionality/theme Context

F I G U R E 1 Review procedure using the

3.3 | Assessing 4.1 | Publication and citation trends for

T A B L E 5 Publication and citation

1999 4 2 2 8 15 114.29 3.00 4 450 112.50 3 3

2000 4 2 2 8 23 53.33 3.00 2 154 38.50 2 2

2001 6 0 6 16 39 69.57 2.67 6 988 164.67 6 5

2002 3 1 2 7 46 17.95 3.00 3 167 55.67 3 3

2003 9 2 7 21 66 43.48 2.71 9 4045 449.44 8 5

2004 9 0 9 21 86 30.30 2.33 9 532 59.11 8 6

2005 9 3 6 17 102 18.60 2.33 8 788 87.56 5 4

2006 14 3 11 34 129 26.47 2.82 14 718 51.29 10 6

2007 9 3 6 16 144 11.63 2.17 8 330 36.67 6 3

2008 13 1 12 54 195 35.42 4.42 12 749 57.62 9 5

2009 15 0 15 42 230 17.95 2.80 15 603 40.20 11 6

2010 7 2 5 13 243 5.65 2.20 7 175 25.00 6 3

2011 11 3 8 27 269 10.70 3.00 10 395 35.91 5 3

2012 10 3 7 22 289 7.43 2.71 9 627 62.70 6 4

2013 15 0 15 44 329 13.84 2.93 15 643 42.87 11 5

2014 23 6 17 63 385 17.02 3.35 20 666 28.96 9 5

2015 20 2 18 55 432 12.21 2.94 19 676 33.80 11 5

2016 20 1 19 57 485 12.27 2.95 16 730 36.50 13 6

2017 26 2 24 77 554 14.23 3.13 24 417 16.04 9 5

2018 24 5 19 59 607 9.57 2.84 18 213 8.88 8 4

2019 41 6 35 120 719 18.45 3.26 33 580 14.15 13 6

2020 57 12 45 180 887 23.37 3.73 36 306 5.37 9 4

2021 30 0 30 101 975 9.92 3.37 4 12 0.40 2 2

T A B L E 6 Most prolific authors for

Tuzhilin A 5 0 5 6 1.2 5 357 71 5 5 2001

Wedel M 4 0 4 6 1.5 4 495 124 4 4 2009

Chen Y 3 0 3 9 3.0 3 201 67 3 3 2001

Huang MH 3 0 3 2 0.7 3 227 76 3 3 2014

Jiang T 3 0 3 2 0.7 3 86 29 3 3 2006

Kumar V 3 0 3 21 7.0 3 294 98 3 3 2008

Liu Y 3 0 3 9 3.0 2 15 5 3 3 2017

Smith AD 3 3 0 0 0.0 3 18 6 3 3 2006

Xiong H 3 0 3 12 4.0 3 42 14 3 3 2016

Zhang J 3 0 3 4 1.3 3 261 87 3 3 2004

Ahmed Z 2 0 2 4 2.0 2 40 20 2 2 2013

Bala PK 2 0 2 7 3.5 2 17 9 2 2 2020

Blanco‐Fernndez Y 2 0 2 11 5.5 2 25 13 2 2 2009

Bojei J 2 0 2 8 4.0 2 40 20 2 2 2013

Buhalis D 2 0 2 3 1.5 2 278 139 2 2 2015