1-s2.0-S0167811621000689-main-6

International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2022) 482–501
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Research in Marketing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar
Digital product innovations for the greater good and digital

marketing innovations in communications and channels:
Evolution, emerging issues, and future research directions
Rajan Varadarajan a, Roman B. Welden b, S. Arunachalam c, Michael Haenlein d,e,
Shaphali Gupta f
a
Mays Business School at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
b
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, USA
c
Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India
d
ESCP Business School, Paris, France
e
University of Liverpool Management School at the University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
f
MICA, Ahmedabad, India
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: During the past quarter-century, digital technologies-based innovations for creating, com-
First received on September 28, 2020 and municating, and delivering products of value to customers have significantly risen in
was under review for 6 months importance to the competitiveness of firms. Digital technologies-based innovations have
Available online 19 October 2021
been transformational in numerous ways, such as their impact on firms’ marketing behav-
Area Editor: V Kumar
iors, consumers’ search and buying behaviors, and the structural characteristics of markets
and industries. Against this backdrop, this article provides a perspective on the evolution of
research and practice in digital product innovations and digital marketing innovations.
Keywords:
Innovation
Specifically, the article focuses on (a) innovations for the greater good in the domain of
Digital innovation the former and (b) direct and mediated communications through social media platforms
Digital innovations for the greater good and omnichannel marketing in the domain of the latter. In respect of each of the above,
Digital marketing innovation the article provides an overview of the evolution and current state of the field, highlights
Digital technology certain current issues and the trajectory of the field, and proposes directions for future
Omnichannel marketing research.
Social media platforms Ó 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Influencer marketing
1. Introduction
During the past quarter-century, digital technologies-based innovations—e.g., digital business model innovations, plat-
form innovations, product innovations, and marketing innovations—have significantly impacted the marketing strategies
of firms in many ways. Digital product innovations and digital marketing innovations (i.e., innovations in the distribution,
promotion, and price elements of the marketing mix) have enabled firms to compete in fundamentally new ways. Digital
product innovations have given rise to the emergence of many highly successful born-digital or digital native firms and
the reinvention of legacy firms worldwide. Due to near zero reproduction and distribution costs of information products
in digital form, born-digital firms in information products’ industries also tend to be born global—i.e., become global within
E-mail addresses: Varadarajan@tamu.edu (R. Varadarajan), rwelden@vols.utk.edu (R.B. Welden), s_arunachalam@isb.edu (S. Arunachalam), haenlein@
escpeurope.eu (M. Haenlein), shaphali.gupta@micamail.in (S. Gupta)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.002
0167-8116/Ó 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Varadarajan, R.B. Welden, S. Arunachalam et al. International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2022) 482–501
a relatively short period following the rapid diffusion and adoption of the innovation—and born inclusive—i.e., serving a large
customer base spanning high-, middle-, and low-income market segments globally. Examples of inclusive digital innovations
include freemium digital information products (e.g., Google search engine, Facebook social media platform, YouTube enter-
tainment platform) and digital information products that are universally affordable (e.g., mobile phone-based banking ser-
vices). In a globally connected environment, unless deliberately constrained by the firm or blocked by a nation’s government,
the served market for a broad array of information products in digital form—e.g., transaction platforms, social media plat-
forms, entertainment platforms, and gaming platforms, to name a few— tend to be global and inclusive. A global and inclu-
sive served market requires firms competing in digital information product-markets to formulate and implement global
marketing strategies.
1.1. Literature overview and objectives
Issues pertaining to digital technologies and digital technologies-based innovations, their adoption by firms and con-
sumers, and their transformative effects are the focus of a growing body of research. Several review articles provide a syn-
thesis and critique of prior research and propose directions for future research on specific digital-related substantive areas,
such as marketing in computer-mediated environments (Yadav & Pavlou, 2014), digital social media and mobile marketing
(Lamberton & Stephen, 2016), digital marketing (Kannan & Li, 2017), digital economics (Goldfarb &Tucker, 2019), and digital
transformation (Verhoef et al., 2021). Among other issues, Lamberton and Stephen (2016) focus on how digital, social media,
and mobile marketing benefit firms and consumers by transforming businesses and consumers’ lives and experiences. They
also point to the growing importance of digital technologies as a source of marketing intelligence. Kannan and Li (2017) focus
on how digital technologies impact marketing process touchpoints and note that firms can build foundational capabilities to
create value for themselves and their customers by leveraging digital technologies. Verhoef et al. (2021) distinguish among
three stages of digital innovation: digitization, digitalization, and digital transformation. They focus on digital transformation
and its ability to create value for firms by impacting their cost structure. Furthermore, they conjecture about (a) robots and
virtual agents performing services performed by humans in firms and (b) artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technolo-
gies assisting firms in optimizing their logistics streams and lowering supply chain costs.
While the review articles focus on broad digital-related substantive areas (e.g., digital economics, digital innovations, dig-
ital marketing, digital technologies), this article explores in greater depth a few substantive topics in the broad categories of
digital product innovations and digital marketing innovations. Specifically, we focus on digital product innovations for the
greater good (i.e., digital product innovations that benefit the innovating firm by creating economic value and society by cre-
ating environmental and social value), digital innovations in direct and mediated communications (specifically, direct and
mediated communications through social media platforms), and digital innovations in marketing channels (specifically,
omnichannel marketing). We address (a) digital product innovations for the greater good in the context of emerging and less
developed markets and (b) digital innovations in the promotion and distribution mix elements more broadly. Corresponding
with the theme of the special issue, in each of the above areas, we provide an overview of the evolution and current state of
the field, highlight certain current issues and the trajectory of the field, and propose directions for future research.
Focusing on the adoption of digital technologies by firms and their effect on firm performance, Chen and Srinivasan
(2019) identify the following as indicators of a firm’s digital activity: analytics, artificial intelligence, autonomous technology,
big data, biometrics, cloud platforms, data science, data mining, deep learning, digitization, digital strategy, digital market-
ing, image recognition, intelligent systems, machine learning, natural language processing, neural network, speech recogni-
tion, sentiment analysis, and virtual reality. It should be noted that the measure of a firm’s digital activity employed by Chen
and Srinivasan in their research is a mix of digital technologies and applications of digital technologies. Goldfarb, Taska and
Teodoridis (2020) refer to the following as digital-data science technologies: artificial intelligence, machine learning, cloud
computing, robotics, the Internet of Things, telecommunications, 3D printing, geographic information systems, blockchain,
virtual reality, RFID, quantum computing, and Web 2.0. Table 1 presents an overview of representative research that provide
insights into digital technologies and digital technologies-based product and marketing innovations. In relation to the focus,
scope, and representative contributions of the studies summarized, the focus, objectives, and intended contributions of this
article are highlighted in the last section of Table 1.
1.2. Motivation and importance
1.2.1. Digital innovations in value creation, communication, and delivery

A major consideration underlying our focus on digital innovations in the product, promotion, and distribution mix ele-
ments is their broad correspondence with the value creation, value communication, and value delivery roles of the market-
ing function in organizations. However, as highlighted in Fig. 1, in addition to their principal roles in value communication
and value delivery, a firm’s marketing innovations implemented as marketing actions also create value. For example, brand
equity and channel equity are among a firm’s key intangible assets impacting its market value. They are outcomes of a firm’s
sustained investments in the promotion and distribution elements of the marketing mix, respectively. The role of marketing
communications (advertising) in value creation also manifests as consumers’ willingness to pay a higher price for a branded
product compared to an equivalent unbranded product. Furthermore, return on marketing investments (e.g., return on a
firm’s investments in marketing communications and marketing channels)—an issue of principal concern to marketing
483
Table 1
R. Varadarajan, R.B. Welden, S. Arunachalam et al.

Digital technologies-based product and marketing innovations: An overview of representative research.
Digital Focus: Technologies, Product Value Focus: Outcome Focus: Firms and/or Customers Outcome Focus: Society Selected Contributions and Remarks
Innovations, and Marketing Innovations Value Creation,
Communication,
and/or Delivery
The role of digital technologies in firms has Yes Yes No Digital, social media, and mobile (DSMM) N/A Digital technologies are tools allowing for
changed over the past 20 years. Their role marketing have increasingly transformed expanded marketing intelligence generation
as a source of marketing intelligence has businesses and consumers’ lives and and analysis for processing customers’
grown in importance (Lamberton & experiences. expressions.
Stephen, 2016).
Touchpoints in the marketing process are Yes Yes No Digital technologies enable firms to build N/A Integrating and leveraging digital
where digital technologies are most likely foundational capabilities to create value for technologies transform a firm’s core product
to have a significant impact (Kannan & Li, their customers and the firm. offerings to create new value for consumers.
2017).
Digital transformation and stages in a firm’s Yes No No New digital technologies can affect a firm’s N/A Digital transformation is a function of a
digital transformation: digitization, cost structure by replacing costlier humans firm’s capabilities.
digitalization, and digital transformation during service delivery with virtual agents,
(Verhoef et al., 2021) optimizing logistic streams, and reducing
supply chain costs through AI and
blockchain.
Digitization of marketing strategies and No Yes Yes Firms can make decisions related to the N/A Technologies impact the development and
their impact on the environment and new extent to which product, price, and implementation of different marketing
strategic possibilities (Kannan, 2020) promotion strategies should be strategies based on the environment.
personalized, depending on
personalization’s costs and benefits for each
484
of the dimensions.
Global and cultural differences impact No Yes Yes Firms can prioritize different elements and N/A Digital innovations are tools that are
digital technologies’ usage, thereby functions of the customer journey drastically impacted by cross-cultural
impacting customers’ journey depending on the journey’s characteristics. factors. Global focus is integrated into the
downstream (Nam & Kannan, 2020). analysis of customer journeys.

Firms’ social media marketing strategies are Yes Yes No Firms can leverage social media usage to As digital technologies increase Conceptualization of social media is a
classified into four types based on their enable customer interactivity/ interconnectedness, co-creation becomes marketing intelligence source for generating
strategic maturity level: social interconnectedness and open up new more common, integrating society deeper competitive advantages.
commerce, social content, social possibilities for product/service co-creation. into the value creation process.
monitoring, and social CRM strategy (Li
et al., 2020).
Inefficiencies are caused by advances in No Yes No Small businesses can target and advertise to N/A Digital technologies are both a source of and
digital technologies that are not local consumers across various advertising a solution to inefficiencies in digital
addressed in digital advertising markets formats, market structures, and levels of advertising.
(Gordon et al., 2021). interactivity.
New technologies provide solutions to firms’ No No Yes Firms need to be cognizant of the tension N/A Digital technologies solve inefficiencies in
omnichannel marketing problems, between obtaining a 360-degree view of omnichannel marketing and allow for new
thereby creating new opportunities for customers (and the challenges therein) and possibilities.
firms (Cui et al., 2021). alleviating concerns about loss of privacy.
This study provides an in-depth review of Yes Yes Yes Economic Outcome. An innovating firm Environmental and Social Outcomes.All of Global Focus.
digital product innovations for the benefits from digital product innovations for society benefits from innovations for the This study provides insights into (a) digital
greater good; direct and mediated the greater good by creating economic value greater good that alleviate environmental innovations and value creation,
communications through social media (a rate of return greater than the cost of problems. communication, and delivery; (b) digital
platforms; and omnichannel marketing capital). Segments of society that are most severely product innovations and digital marketing
in the context of their principal roles in affected by specific social problems (e.g., innovations; and (c) digital innovations for
value creation, communication, and poverty, malnutrition, access to health care) the greater good and economic,
R. Varadarajan, R.B. Welden, S. Arunachalam et al.
Table 1 (continued)
Digital Focus: Technologies, Product Value Focus: Outcome Focus: Firms and/or Customers Outcome Focus: Society Selected Contributions and Remarks
Innovations, and Marketing Innovations Value Creation,
Communication,
and/or Delivery
delivery, respectively. Value creation is are generally the intended beneficiaries of environmental, and social value creation.
explored more broadly, encompassing innovations for the greater good to alleviate Due to the economics of information
economic, environmental, and social social problems. products in digital form, most digital
value creation. innovations tend to be born global and
inclusive (i.e., serve a large customer base
spanning high, middle, and low-income
markets and market segments).
485

Fig. 1. Digital Product Innovations and Marketing Innovations in a Global Marketplace: A Framework. 1Digital innovations shown in italics are discussed in
this article. Additional digital innovations are shown for illustrative purposes. 2In addition to value communication, a firm’s investments in promotion mix
elements also create value for the firm (e.g., market-based relational assets such as brand equity and intellectual assets such as market knowledge and
marketing knowledge). 3In addition to value delivery, a firm’s investments in distribution mix elements also create value for the firm (e.g., market-based
relational assets such as channel equity and intellectual assets such as market knowledge and marketing knowledge).
practitioners and a significant focus of marketing research—also implies value creation through value communication and
value delivery. Hence, in Fig. 1, a firm’s marketing actions in the promotion and distribution mix elements are also shown
as creating value.
As shown in Fig. 1, product innovations for the greater good create value that benefit the innovating firm, society, and
users. Product and marketing innovations for the greater good benefit the firm by creating economic value while benefitting
society by creating environmental and social value. Although issues relating to innovations for the greater good are the focus
of a growing body of research—e.g., innovations for the base of the pyramid markets; innovations for environmental sustain-
ability, there is a dearth of research focusing on digital innovations for the greater good. The promise and potential of digital
technologies-based innovations for the greater good—e.g., the number of people worldwide who are likely to benefit from
specific innovations due to the substantially lower cost of digital technologies-based innovations relative to existing solu-
tions to specific social problems—highlight the need for a focused inquiry.
The annals of business practice are replete with successful marketing innovations (e.g., cause-related marketing, cus-
tomer loyalty programs, dynamic pricing, influencer marketing, internet retailing, multi-channel retailing, and vending
machines). However, compared to the vast body of literature on certain other types of innovations (e.g., product innovation,
process innovation, and business model innovation), the literature on marketing innovations is sparse. Given the wealth of
literature on product innovation and its standing as a distinct field of study in multiple disciplines (e.g., marketing, manage-
ment, economics, and R&D), this article (a) circumscribes the scope of marketing innovations to innovations in the promo-
tion, distribution, and pricing elements of the marketing mix and (b) focuses on digital marketing innovations in the
promotion and distribution mix elements.
Understanding how information flows from firms to potential customers and how customers interpret information has
long been a major focus of marketing research. As digital technologies that allow information to flow rapidly have evolved,
marketers have also had to adapt just as quickly in how they communicate with their stakeholders. Though many areas
within the marketing domain impact this information flow, no innovation has changed marketing communications in recent
decades more than innovations in digital social media. Social media (mainly Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and—
more recently—Twitch) generally focus on transferring information between multiple individuals or parties. However, these
mediated communication channels change with emerging digital technologies that fundamentally alter their purpose and
function in the marketing communications process.
Similar to research focusing on issues related to innovations for the greater good (i.e., innovations resulting in long-term
positive outcomes for both the innovating firm and society), issues related to marketing for the greater good (i.e., marketing for
486
a better world – marketing actions that benefit multiple stakeholders; see Chandy et al., 2021) are the focus of a growing body
of research. Against this backdrop, in the section on digital innovations in marketing communications, we highlight the
potential for leveraging social media platforms and influencer marketing for the greater good. In the section on marketing
channels, we discuss the potential for leveraging omnichannel marketing for the greater good.
2. Digital product innovations for the greater good
2.1. Innovations and digital innovations for the greater good: Definitions
An innovation for the greater good (IGG) is defined as a new product, process, or practice, or improvements in an existing
product, process, or practice, creating economic value for the innovating firm and environmental and social value for society.
A digital innovation for the greater good (digital IGG) is defined as a digital technology-based new product, process, or practice,
or improvements in an existing product, process or practice, creating economic value for the innovating firm and environ-
mental and social value for society. These proposed definitions of IGG and digital IGG are along the lines of Pfitzer, Bockstette
and Stamp’s (2013) conceptualization of shared value innovation as an innovation that creates value for a business and deliv-
ers social benefits. In the proposed definition of digital IGG, digital technologies refer to methods, systems, and devices for
manipulating, processing, reproducing, retrieving, storing, and transmitting information represented in digital form. The pro-
posed definition of digital technologies builds on dictionary definitions of digital and technology.
IGGs create value along multiple dimensions that benefit both the innovating firm and society. The innovating firm ben-
efits from the economic value created (a rate of return exceeding the cost of capital), and society benefits from the environ-
mental value (a reduction in harm to the natural environment compared to products, processes, or practices for which the
innovation is a substitute) and social value (alleviation of a social problem) created. Illustrative of creating social value by
alleviating social problems, are innovations aligned with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
such as: (a) ending poverty in all its forms everywhere, (b) ending hunger and improving nutrition, (c) achieving food secu-
rity and promoting sustainable agriculture, and (d) achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls (United
Nations, 2016). While all of humanity benefits from the environmental benefits of IGGs, the intended beneficiaries of social
benefits are segments of society most severely affected by specific social problems (e.g., poverty, hunger and malnutrition,
and access to affordable health care).
Among the potential avenues for digital product innovations (including digital product innovations for the greater good)
are the following: (a) new information products in digital form as substitutes for existing information products in analog
form, (b) modifications of existing non-information products by converting their information attributes from analog to dig-
ital form, (c) enhancement of non-information products (e.g., physical products) with digital features such as digital infor-
mation content and digital connectivity, (d) new-to-the-world information products in digital form, and (e) new-to-the-
world non-information products with digital features such as digital information content and digital connectivity.
2.2. Evolution and current state of the field
Calls for firms to broaden the scope of their performance focus beyond economic performance to encompass environmen-
tal and social performance span at least a quarter of a century. For instance, the triple bottom line philosophy (Elkington,
1997) espouses that rather than being singularly focused on economic performance (profit), firms also consider the impact
of their activities on the environment (planet) and society (people). Robinson and Tinker (1997) noted that societal progress
toward sustainability requires simultaneously reconciling the ecological imperative (i.e., staying within the planet’s biophys-
ical carrying capacity), economic imperative (i.e., providing an adequate material standard of living for all), and social imper-
ative (i.e., providing systems of governance that propagate the values people want to live by). Robinson and Tinker construe
economic imperative from a societal perspective as providing an adequate material standard of living for all, rather than
merely from a firm’s perspective as economic viability.
Drawing attention to the growing importance of the competitiveness of firms on the social dimension, Porter and Kramer
(2006) note that rather than merely acting on well-intentioned impulses or reacting to outside pressure, firms should set
an affirmative corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda that benefits society as well as them. In a similar vein, Keys,
Malnight, and Graaf (2009) note that in an environment in which CSR is increasingly viewed as important by a firm’s stake-
holders (e.g., customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and society at large), some firms have begun exploring opportuni-
ties to strengthen both their businesses and contributions to society. Porter and Kramer (2011) conceptualize shared value as
a firm’s policies and practices that enhance its competitiveness as well as the economic and social conditions of the commu-
nities in which it operates. The growing number of firms allocating a significant portion of their innovation effort to IGGs
suggests a metamorphosis in business practice.
Among the literature streams that provide insights into issues related to IGGs are the following: innovations for profitably
serving the base of pyramid markets (Prahalad, 2006, 2012); innovations for profitably serving the most people at the lowest
possible price and offering the most value for the price (MLM/inclusive innovations) (Prahalad & Mashelkar, 2010); shared
value innovations that create value for both a firm and society (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2011; Pfitzer,
Bockstette & Stamp, 2013); (d) doing good and doing well innovations/doing well by doing good innovations/corporate social
487
innovations (Varadarajan & Kaul, 2018; Mirvis, Herrera, Googins & Albareda, 2016; Gupta, Kumar & Karam, 2019); and (e)
sustainable innovations (Nidumolu, Prahalad & Rangaswami, 2009; Varadarajan, 2017).
2.3. Current issues and trajectory of the field
2.3.1. Digital technologies-based innovations for social good and the greater good
Tomašev et al. (2020) note that advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) present opportunities to
build better tools and solutions for addressing the social problems outlined in the United Nations’ (UN) 17 Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals (SDGs). Under the auspices of AI for Social Good (AI4SG) movement whose aim is to establish interdisciplinary
partnerships centered around AI applications toward SDGs, the authors propose guidelines for establishing collaborations
between AI researchers and application-domain experts, highlight existing AI4SG projects, and identify new AI4SG applica-
tion opportunities. Among the 10 guidelines (G1 to G10) they propose are the following: ‘‘G1: Expectations of what is pos-
sible with AI need to be well-grounded. G2: There is value in simple solutions. G3: Applications of AI need to be inclusive and
accessible, and reviewed at every stage for ethics and human rights compliance.”
Based on an analysis of 160 cases of AI’s social-impact use, Chui et al. (2018) note that existing AI capabilities can con-
tribute to tackling some of the world’s most challenging social problems outlined in the UN’s SDGs, and thereby potentially
help hundreds of millions of people in both advanced and emerging countries. The social domains of the cases include crisis
response, economic empowerment, educational challenges, equality and inclusion, health and hunger, information verifica-
tion and validation, infrastructure management, public and social-sector management, and security and justice. Although
the above studies focus on innovations for social good (long-term positive outcomes for society), they are also relevant to
innovations for the greater good (long-term positive outcomes for both the innovating firm and society).
2.3.2. Digital innovations for the greater good: Insights from representative empirical research
Emerging and less developed markets are the focus (empirical settings) for a considerable body of research on product
innovations and marketing innovations for the greater good (Anderson, Chandy & Zia, 2018 – South Africa; Anderson
et al., 2021 – Mexico; Suri & Jack, 2016 – Kenya; Arunachalam et al., 2020 – India, Chile; Zhang, Chintagunta & Kalwani,
2021 – rural China). Some of these studies provide insights into randomized field experiments, a method that is relatively
recent to marketing research. Other studies provide insights into measures of IGGs’ social performance at a macro level
(e.g., change in per capita consumption levels; percent of a country’s population lifted out of poverty; percent of a country’s
population that can afford to own a good or subscribe to a service). An overview of representative studies follows.
Mobile phone-based financial services (i.e., mobile money services), a digital IGG, first introduced in Kenya in 2007, have
made rapid inroads in several emerging and less developed markets. These services allow monetary value to be stored in a
mobile phone to withdraw later, send money to others, and pay bills. In many emerging countries markets and less devel-
oped country markets, mobile money service has been a transformative, inclusive innovation that has brought tens of mil-
lions of people who own a mobile phone but do not have a bank account (due to lack of affordability, availability, and
accessibility) into the formal financial system. Suri and Jack (2016) provide insights into the innovation’s social impact
(e.g., the inclusiveness of the innovation -- number of households lifted out of poverty, and increase in per capita consump-
tion levels). Ten years after the mobile money service was launched in Kenya, they report that 96% of the households had one
or more users of the service, and that access to mobile money service allowed individuals to protect themselves against
income and health risks. They further note that the Kenyan mobile money system (M-Pesa) lifted about two percent of Ken-
yan households from poverty and that access to mobile money service positively impacted per capita consumption levels by
driving financial behavior changes (increased saving) and occupational choice (from agriculture to business). They also
report that the impact was more pronounced for households headed be females.
Research in other academic disciplines also provide valuable insights into positive societal outcomes of digital IGGs. Rep-
resentative substantive issues and digital IGGs that are the focus of research studies in other academic disciplines include (a)
modeling the diffusion of low-cost tablet computers as a disruptive innovation for school education (Raman et al., 2014), (b)
barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture (Long, Vincent, & Coninx,
2015), (c) new rules of competition in an era of 3D printing technology-enabled manufacturing economies of one (Petrick
& Simpson, 2013), (d) drone-aided healthcare service provision for people living in rural areas (Kim et al., 2017), (e) assess-
ment of human health and nutrition response to environmental change using satellite remote sensing and household survey
data (Brown et al., 2014), and (6) soil sampling with drones and augmented reality in precision agriculture (Huuskonen &
Oksanen, 2018).
2.3.3. Digital innovations for the greater good: Conceptual insights from real-world examples
As noted earlier, emerging markets and less developed country markets have been employed as empirical settings for a
considerable body of research on digital product and marketing innovations for the greater good. In addition, numerous dig-
ital IGGs also originate from them. The following is a discussion of certain innovations and conceptual insights inferred from
the narratives on them.
GARV Toilets Inc. provides sanitation solutions for base of the pyramid (BOP) communities in India. One of its products, a
sturdy toilet for use in public places, is self-sustainable in terms of energy consumption, waste disposal, and revenue gen-
eration. The long-term vision of the firm is to provide an integrated solution for the water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
488
needs of BOP communities. Its vision for the GARV Smart Sanitation Centre is a hub of smart toilets, bath facilities, laundry
services, Wi-Fi, and kiosks for selling drinking water and hygiene products at affordable prices. The firm’s founder notes, ‘‘We
intend to scale-up, implement a next-generation mobile-money pay-per-use platform, achieve the goal that we have set up
and then also explore opportunities in the waste management sector and waste-water recycling technologies.”1
Insights and issues. Some of the issues discussed in business press articles on the challenges that firms such as GARV Toi-
lets Inc. face provide insights into conceptual issues and research questions in the broader context of profitably serving BOP
markets. Those issues include (a) understanding social issues linked to taboos, stereotypes, biases, and illiteracy; (b) over-
coming community-level prejudices related to sanitation and public toilets; (c) formulating and implementing hygiene
awareness programs for altering users’ behaviors; and (4) formulating and implementing a business model that is econom-
ically viable and socially impactful.1
AI Sowing App is a digital IGG developed by Microsoft (India), a business software-solutions provider, in collaboration with
the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Based on machine learning, AI, cloud computing, and
other digital technologies, the app provides information regarding water requirement, groundwater density, weather
change, and pest-related prediction via a feature on mobile phones capable of receiving text messages to help farmers
enhance their crop yields and profits.
Insights and issues: The AI Sowing App is a collaborative digital IGG by a for-profit firm and a not-for-profit organization
with complementary skills and resources. It illustrates the importance and prevalence of collaboration between for-profit
firms and not-for-profit organizations in the arena of digital IGGs. We elaborate on this issue in the next section. Evidence
also points to alliances among competitors in the realm of IGGs. For example, Coca-Cola Inc., PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr. Pepper
Inc. (competitors in the carbonated beverages, fruit-based beverages, and bottled water businesses) are partners in a multi-
faceted industry-level initiative to address the plastic waste problem in the United States (www.everybottleback.org).
2.4. Directions for future research
2.4.1. Greater good innovation orientation: Antecedents and outcomes

A potential avenue for future research is understanding and explaining differences between firms (e.g., within and across
industries and different types of country markets) in their pre-disposition and resource commitments to IGGs. Greater good
innovation orientation (GGIO) can be conceptualized as the ratio of a firm’s IGGs-related resource expenditures to its total
innovation-related resource expenditures during a specific time frame. Along the lines of research focusing on various orga-
nizational orientation constructs—such as entrepreneurial orientation, learning orientation, market orientation, and strategic
orientation, the following questions concerning a firm’s GGIO merit inquiry:
RQ1: What are the major organizational and environmental antecedents and outcomes of the greater good innovation orien-
tation of firms?
RQ2: What are the key moderators and mediators of the relationships between a firm’s greater good innovation orientation and
its antecedents? What are the key moderators and mediators of the relationships between a firm’s greater good innovation ori-
entation and its outcomes?
Extant literature on the environmental sustainability-related behaviors of firms suggests institutional theory (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983), organizational legitimacy theory, and stakeholder management theory as potential theoretical lenses for
addressing the above questions (Varadarajan, 2017). Berrone and Gomez-Mejia (2009) note that the central thesis of insti-
tutional theory is that organizations protect and enhance their legitimacy by conforming to the expectations of institutions
and stakeholders. They note that legitimacy concerns lead firms to adopt practices that have social value and adhere to insti-
tutional prescriptions that reflect an alignment of corporate and social values. In the extant literature, institutional pressures
originating from a firm’s environment are broadly distinguished as coercive pressure exerted by regulators, policymakers, and
stakeholders (e.g., investors, customers, suppliers, and employees), mimetic pressure to imitate competitors to reduce cogni-
tive uncertainty, and normative pressure arising from social factors such as coverage of social issues by the mass media. Insti-
tutional theory reasoning suggests that when a leading firm in an industry (or leading firms in a cohort such as the Fortune
500 firms) engage in IGGs, other firms may react by engaging in mimetic behavior. Decision-makers in organizations rou-
tinely compare their actions with those of their competitors to gain insights into competitors’ strategies. Actions they per-
ceive as successful and actions by leading firms in an industry are more deeply embedded in their collective cognitions
(DiMaggio and Powell).
Suchman (1995) defines organizational legitimacy as ‘‘a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of a firm are
desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574).
From an organizational legitimacy perspective, a firm’s GGIO can be explained as a legitimacy management tool. Greater
levels of GGIO orientation by firms may be an effort to acquire greater legitimacy in the eyes of the relevant public (stake-
holders). Furthermore, firms that are rated poorly on specific performance dimensions (e.g., environmental, social, and gov-
ernance performance dimensions: ESG dimensions) are likely to initiate actions to close the legitimacy gap.
1
https://thewaternetwork.com/article-FfV/sanitation-entrepreneur-mayank-midha-in-talk-with-twn–DRckzzgs5zpeeqgLQiILQ
489
Freeman (1984) defines a stakeholder as ‘‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the
organization’s objectives” (p. 46). In their synthesis of the literature on stakeholder theory, Laplume, Sonpar, and Litz (2008)
note that stakeholders are more likely to support firms they (a) perceive as more cognitively legitimate, well-liked, reliable,
accountable, and strategically flexible; (b) believe in having fairly considered, treated, and rewarded their stakeholders; and
(3) built trust and avoided treating stakeholders opportunistically. All else being equal, the IGG-related behaviors of firms are
likely to be perceived by their stakeholders as cognitively legitimate and trust engendering.
An alternative theoretical lens that can be employed to gain insights into the GGIO of firms is the theories-in-use
approach. Zeithaml et al. (2020) describe the approach as involving one-on-one conversations with a relatively small number
of study participants (decision makers in organizations faced with the phenomenon of interest) to elicit their theories-in-use
(mental models guiding their deliberate behavior). They note that the conversations are a starting point for theory building
by harvesting an emerging set of interrelated constructs, the relationships between them, and the rationale for the relation-
ships (the decision-maker’s mental models of ‘‘if-then” relationships between actions and outcomes).
2.4.2. Role of collaborations in innovations for the greater good

While in recent years a growing number of for-profit legacy firms have made sizeable resource commitments to IGGs,
social problems are a long-standing and major focus of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). An impetus for collabora-
tion between for-profits firms and NGOs in the IGG arena is the latter’s extensive knowledge of social problems and their
perceived legitimacy in the arena of innovations to alleviate social problems (Arunachalam et al., 2020). Such considerations
highlight issues related to collaborations between for-profit firms and not-for-profit organizations in the IGG arena as a
potential avenue for further research. For example,
RQ3: When do (should) for-profit firms collaborate with not-for-profit organizations to innovate for the greater good?
In addition to collaboration between a for-profit firm and a not-for-profit organization, at an even broader level, a
research question that merits investigation is how do (should) multiple stakeholders (e.g., the focal for-profit firm, a non-
governmental organization, and a governmental agency) pool their resources and capabilities to innovate for the greater
good. The literature suggests that in addition to the complementarity of the resources and capabilities of the collaborating
organizations, the performance of IGGs is also likely to be impacted by the dispositions of the collaborating partners toward
voluntary commitment (Cahill & Mitra, 2008), their interactive contributions (Kelly &Barsade, 2001), ongoing adjustment
(Lawson, 2003), and inclusive cooperation (Baker, 2009) to accomplish a common objective (Wu et al., 2013).
2.5. Social problems that are the focus of innovations for the greater good
All else being equal, firms are likely to focus on IGGs with the potential to alleviate social problems aligned with their
product offerings, served markets, and/or resources (assets and capabilities). Counter-intuitively, it is also conceivable that
firms may pursue IGGs to alleviate social problems not aligned with their product offerings, served markets, or distinctive
resources. These considerations suggest the following research questions:
RQ4. How do (can) firms achieve synergies among their core businesses and related activities and their innovations for the
greater good initiatives?
RQ5. Why do and when do firms pursue innovations for the greater good that are unrelated to their product offerings, served
markets, and/or distinctive resources?
Illustrative of a product IGG by a firm in a product category unrelated to its principal product offerings and distinctive
resources (i.e., RQ5) is the Pureit brand water purifier (an in-home, point-of-use water purifier), which was launched in India
in 2004 by Hindustan Unilever Limited. This product has been hailed as a breakthrough innovation for offering water that
meets the water safety standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at a price affordable for millions of consumers
in India who lacked access to clean drinking water. Rather than employing a ‘‘cost + profit = price” model, product develop-
ment was governed by the price that the target market could afford (i.e., ‘‘cost = price – profit” model). Following Pureit
brand water purifier’s successful launch in India, Unilever launched the product in several other countries in Latin America,
Africa, and Asia (see Rangan & Sinha, 2013). Hindustan Unilever’s core business consists of frequently purchased consumer
non-durable products such as coffee, tea, laundry detergent, soap, shampoo, and toothpaste. However, its Pureit brand water
purifier initiative entailed developing new knowledge and skills to (a) design and manufacture a consumer durable product;
(b) market the product by recruiting and training a different type of salesforce—a direct-to-home salesforce; (c) distribute
the product through a different type of retail outlet—retailers of consumer durable products; and (d) compete against a dif-
ferent set of competitors, to list a few (see Rangan & Sinha, 2013).
Gupta et al. (2019, 2020) provide insights pertinent to RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5. They highlight the role of collaboration (pooling
of complementary skills and resources by organizations that share a common goal), competence (technology-related capabil-
ities that must be established and nurtured at various levels—firm, consumers, and ecosystem levels—for an innovation to be
effective and inclusive), and concurrence (the ability of a firm to achieve synergies between its core business-related activities
and activities related to achieving greater stakeholder engagement and social impact).
490
3. Direct and mediated communications through social media platforms
3.1. Influencer marketing and artificial intelligence: Definitions
Influencer marketing refers to a marketing communication technique relying on the use of individuals who have a dispro-
portional influence on a broad set of other consumers (e.g., through their social status, expert knowledge, or amount of social
connection) to endorse goods and services, usually through social media. Artificial intelligence is defined as ‘‘systems with the
ability to interpret external data correctly, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and
tasks through flexible adaptation” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019).
3.2.1. Online word of mouth

Over the last two decades, social media technologies have changed in their purpose of use: from their use as facilitators of
individual expression through online word of mouth (WOM) to their more recent use as a source of market intelligence to
build the brand experience through increased customer engagement (Brakus, Schmitt, &Zarantonello, 2009; Lamberton &
Stephen, 2016). Emerging digital technologies have continually reduced the barriers to information flow directly from the
firm to potential customers and vice versa, leading to an increased focus on brand engagement (Hewett et al., 2016).
Before the emergence of digital social media, the expansion of marketing communications on the Internet included dis-
play ads and search ads to drive targeted customers to a more direct line of communication with the firm. As social media
grew in popularity, it presented marketers with an economical and efficient way to reach highly targeted customers with
direct marketing communications (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) and to increase online WOM prevalence. Social media’s emer-
gence as a marketing communication tool has led researchers to focus on understanding how this direct interaction between
firms and potential customers impacts the customer experience with a brand (Batra & Keller, 2016; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016)
as well as understanding how WOM impacts customer profitability (Kumar et al., 2007) and customer retention (Haenlein,
2013; Nitzan & Libai, 2011). However, the interactions between firms and consumers are rapidly changing due to two recent
developments in the field: emerging social media platforms designed for purposes outside of information sharing and the
increasing role of influencer marketers as central hubs of WOM exchanges.
3.2.2. Emergence of influencer marketing

In the recent past, research has aimed to understand how increased engagement between firms and consumers can be
leveraged. Some of this research includes understanding multichannel interactions (Hewett et al., 2016; Zhang et al.,
2017), the role of marketer/firm generated content in generating sentiment (Meire et al., 2019), and the impact of scheduling
content as a way to target customers at optimal processing moments (Kanuri, Chen, & Sridhar, 2018). Though early media
tools created an environment that provided easy access to the direct flow of information, emerging digital technologies are
trending away from direct communication to an influencer-mediated model of communication. Platforms such as TikTok and
Twitch create environments that focus on building social influence compared to sharing information (Influencer Marketing
Hub, 2020a, 2020b), preventing most brands from having personal accounts to connect directly with customers. Instead, for
firms to engage with potential customers on these platforms, they must use more traditional promotions communicated
through a chosen influencer, who has developed a following through user-generated content and a unique influencer per-
sonality. Thus, by requiring marketing communications to be mediated by multiple selected influencers instead of a central
AI-driven hub (such as Facebook and Twitter), these new digital technologies reduce direct lines of communication between
firms and customers.
Traditionally, influencer marketing has focused on targeting a small set of individuals (i.e., seeds) to encourage them to
spread WOM, hopefully leading to a cascade of communication within the network. Multiple techniques have traditionally
been used for selecting seeds for influencer marketing. The first option is to focus on people with a disproportionate number
of social connections, usually referred to as hubs (Goldenberg et al., 2009). The central assumption is that an individual with
1000 social connections has 10 times more social influence than an individual with only 100 connections. Although this
assumption is not without criticism, the belief that targeting hubs are beneficial is widely held by managers and researchers
alike.
On the other hand, under certain conditions, targeting high-value customers, so-called revenue leaders, can be preferable
to targeting opinion leaders (Dost et al., 2016; Haenlein & Libai, 2013; Nejad et al., 2015; Nejad et al., 2016). Revenue leaders
are particularly attractive when assortativity is in the network (Haenlein, 2011), implying that high (low) value customers
tend to be connected to other high (low) value customers. Furthermore, if high-value customers are perceived to have
greater expertise, such as their heavy use of the product category (Iyengar et al., 2011; Kumar et al., 2010a), the benefits
of revenue leader seeding are even greater.
Once the appropriate seeds have been selected, the next decision relates to the type of content provided to them. The holy
grail here is to identify content with the potential to go viral which is usually very difficult to predict. Users generally like to
share content associated with positive emotions and dramaturgical elements and are less likely to share content that is
information-focused or heavily centered on the brand. Within this setting, high arousal emotions, both positive (awe) and
491
negative (anger/anxiety), are essential drivers of virality. Therefore, particular attention needs to be paid to the competitive
environment, since the WOM of one brand can spill over to other brands under certain conditions (Sanchez et al., 2020).
Traditionally, research on communications through social media platforms has leveraged two major theoretical perspec-
tives. First, social network theory (Brown & Reingen, 1987) has commonly been used to understand how individuals build
connections with others and how information is transferred. Unlike networks in the non-digital world, networks on social
media platforms frequently centralize around individuals with a disproportionate number of followers than the average
individual, shifting the way information is shared and engaged with (Goldenberg et al., 2009; Barabasi & Albert, 1999). Sec-
ond, researchers have focused on understanding how user-generated content (UGC) and online WOM is used within these
social networks. These phenomena have been analyzed through the lens of social exchange theory (Homans, 1958), which
suggests that reciprocity is the driving force behind creating and sharing content on these platforms (Xia et al., 2012). Brands
have leveraged this reciprocity through UGC to drive deeper customer experiences (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016) and increase
consumer engagement with the brand throughout the customer journey (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016).
In summary, research in marketing communications over the last decade has focused on understanding the brand expe-
rience more deeply as barriers to the direct flow of information from firms to customers have decreased due to advances in
digital technologies. However, some recent technologies have reintroduced barriers to the marketing communications pro-
cess (particularly for communications in B2C markets) in the form of influencer-mediated marketing structures. Thus,
research in marketing is heading toward understanding how these new influencer-mediated communication structures
change, how firms develop the brand experience, how these new structures fundamentally differ from established commu-
nication channels, and how to develop methods for implementing them into omnichannel promotional strategies.
3.3.1. Influencer marketing and experiential platforms

Though researchers in marketing have begun analyzing the rise of influencer marketing, it is essential to investigate how
digital technologies have changed the structures of emerging social media platforms, causing information to flow and be pro-
cessed differently compared to other digital platforms. Understanding what type of information is exchanged through these
technologies and analyzing the incorporation of an experiential dimension that these emerging technologies (e.g., Twitch
and TikTok) implement are the logical next steps in exploring their impact on marketing practices. For example, comparing
Twitch to traditional social media sites, on average, Twitch users are reported to watch 106 minutes of content per day
(Influencer Marketing Hub, 2018). This usage rate is much higher than time spent on other platforms such as Facebook
(58 minutes per day), Instagram (53 minutes per day), and Twitter (3 minutes per day) (Medium, 2019).
Though Twitch is just one of many emerging digital platforms discussed here, it shares many of the same structure and
information flow characteristics as other emerging digital platforms such as TikTok and Instagram Stories. Users of these
emerging digital platforms are not using them to share information with others. Instead, the focus is on creating interactive
content encouraging user participation and helping users become influencers on their own (Influencer Marketing Hub,
2020a, 2020b). The shift from informational to experiential can be noticed in the shift in Instagram’s purpose from timeline
posts to story updates in recent years. Because of this focus on influencers, it is not practical for firms to create their pages on
these platforms. Thus, brands must directly target potential customers for a mediated communication relationship with the
influencer at the center. Instead of using AI to find the optimal group of customers to target, marketers must now use AI to
find the optimal group of influencers to communicate through.
Furthermore, firms must consider the experiential dimension of these emerging platforms. TikTok, Twitch (and, by exten-
sion, online video games), and Instagram Stories all use the influencer’s power to drive engagement with consumers. These
platforms serve as mediums for interactive and immersive entertainment instead of information sharing (Herrman, 2019;
Wang, 2020). If this trend of digital platform-enabled immersive experiential entertainment continues, it is crucial to under-
stand the impact of how potential customers process information. It has been shown that experiences lead to multiple
effects impacting information processing, such as increased happiness (Bhattacharjee & Mogilner, 2014) and relating expe-
riences as extensions of self (Carter & Gilovich, 2012). Marketers must account for this experiential element and address it
with appropriate frameworks, such as affect (Schwarz, 1990) and increased states of flow (Hoffman & Novak, 1996; Hoffman
& Novak, 2009), to understand how these structures lead potential customers to process marketing communications differ-
ently than in earlier digital platforms.
As these platforms become increasingly focused on the experiential exchange compared to informational exchange, the
role of influencers as mediators between firms and consumers becomes more critical (Haenlein, 2017). This increased role is
evidenced by firms’ investments in the industry, about $10 billion in 2020 (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2020a, 2020b). Con-
sequently, a rising share of users who establish a presence on such sites as Instagram or TikTok do so to monetize their pres-
ence in the future. Their behavior is, therefore, not organic but strategic. Most decisions of influencers —from the types of
content to produce to which users to follow or connect with—are for the purpose of monetizing their role as influencers.
These strategic actions challenge the traditional influencer marketing’s assumption that structures in such networks emerge
organically.
A commonly applied strategy to grow an account is to base actions on reciprocity. Users follow other users in hopes that
those users will follow them in return. Instagram tries to decrease this strategy’s efficiency by limiting the number of users
one can follow (currently, this limit is 7500) and using AI tools to detect such behavior. Similarly, users comment and like
492
other users’ posts expecting that such actions will be reciprocated. Also, social media platforms tend to be much more ‘‘scale-
free” than traditional social networks. While the most popular users can have over 100 million followers (e.g., in April 2020,
175 million for Ariana Grande and 200 million for Cristiano Ronaldo), the average user only has 150. The relative difference
in influence is, therefore, orders of magnitude stronger than in traditional social networks.
For companies, this difference implies that selecting potential seeds based on their number of social connections can be
misleading since this measure is subject to strategic manipulation. Therefore, it is common in influencer marketing to select
seeds based on many criteria, such as the geographic spread the followers base, and a user’s average impressions (how many
other users are exposed to an average post), and engagement rate (number of likes/comments on an average post relative to
a user’s total follower base). Also, WOM spread by highly connected seeds may not be comparable in power to the traditional
WOM spread in (offline) social networks. If a user has tens of millions of followers, any message spread by such an influencer
may be more comparable to traditional advertising than to interpersonal communication. For this reason, firms may decide
to collaborate with so-called nano-influencers (users with 1000–5000 followers) or micro-influencers (users with 5000–
100,000 followers).
Similar concerns apply to creating content to be leveraged within a WOM program. To be effective, the content must be
perceived as authentic. Firms, therefore, need to understand the specificities of different platforms in terms of the user base,
content format, and ways to achieve visibility. They also must pay close attention to leaving sufficient flexibility to adapt
content in order to allow influencers to tailor the message to their specific follower base. Content must be integrated, both
within a broader marketing story on the firm’s side and a general branding strategy on the influencer’s side. One way to
achieve this integration is to reuse content generated by influencers in traditional marketing campaigns—an approach
increasingly common in the fast fashion industry.
3.3.2. Digital innovations in marketing communications for the greater good

As digital innovations continue shifting the ways in which firms communicate with consumers, understanding how these
innovations can be leveraged to market for the greater good is important for both marketing research and practice. Specif-
ically, the increasing importance of influencer marketing addresses two areas of importance regarding marketing for the
greater good: developing accurate consumer profiles and understanding differentiated demand patterns across markets.
Two of the biggest challenges that firms face when engaging base of pyramid (BOP) consumers is accurately profiling
their needs and gauging demand for a good or service across differing groups of consumers (Pal & Altay, 2019). As social
media usage continues growing among these groups (Patil, 2020), the corresponding rise of influencer marketing can provide
a solution to these problems. As influencers use content to create a brand, they acquire followers who are similar in many
consumption patterns (Eastin & Lee, 2020). Marketers with the ability to identify influencers who are followed by BOP con-
sumers can both leverage the influencers and analyze the type of content produced by influencers to understand more accu-
rately the consumer groups they are targeting and estimate demand more precisely.
Obviously, many of the same problems that impact marketing communications to BOP consumers, such as lack of public
infrastructure and unorganized governing structures, will influence the growth of influencer marketing to these consumers.
However, marketers must be aware of the role social media, and particularly influencer marketing, can play in addressing
market inefficiencies concerning consumption patterns as these other issues are addressed by introducing additional digital
technologies.
3.4.1. Implications of experiential social media platforms

Marketers can implement strategies to increase their success in increasingly experiential social media platforms. First,
they must recognize that these platforms’ experiential dimensions dramatically change the type of content that is effective
and the time when the content must be presented. Considering that emerging social media platforms create environments
where firm-owned profiles are ineffective, marketers must communicate through influencers their content with more tra-
ditional means of advertising—e.g., video ads before being granted access to a Twitch stream or ads presented between Insta-
gram Stories. Firms must realize that strategies used over the past decade to generate direct brand engagement are not likely
to be effective on these platforms due to the experiential dimension. A major challenge that marketers face regarding emerg-
ing social media platforms is how underexplored some areas are. For example, Twitch has structured itself around the con-
cept of streaming influencers playing video games. However, there is a lack of research on understanding Twitch and video
games as marketing communications tools. Thus, there is a need for research on the following questions:
RQ6: How can emerging digital technologies be applied to new experiential marketing platforms (such as Twitch and video
games) to expand direct marketing
RQ7: What are the implications of the increasingly experiential nature of emerging marketing communication platforms for how
marketers create, communicate, and deliver value to consumers?
As marketing communication platforms become more experiential, marketers may have to readapt traditional forms of
marketing communications. For example, as consumers become immersed in these experiential platforms, they are likely to
enter immersive flow states, impacting how they interpret information. If marketing communications are not presented
493
synergistically with these flow states, consumers may disengage with the platform and potentially form negative impres-
sions of the brand being advertised. Although research is needed in this area to better understand these experiential plat-
forms, one solution to address these platform changes may be to immerse marketing content into the platform’s
experience. One way this immersion can be done is by having a Twitch streamer organically mention a brand each time
an event happens (e.g., Totino’s brand pizza rolls used Twitch by having sponsored streamers eat their product every time
they won a game; DigiDay, 2016). This immersion takes advantage of immersive flow states generated by the experience and
integrates the influencer into the communication process.
4. Research on influencer marketing
Besides research on the impact of experiential social media platforms, research is also needed on successful influencer
marketing strategies. Three strategies are crucial for platforms, firms, and influencers to succeed in emerging digital plat-
forms. First, greater use of AI applications is needed. While the concept of AI has been discussed in the literature for several
decades (Haenlein & Kaplan, 2019), it has recently gained increasing attention among academics and managers alike.
Specifically, platform companies are likely to use AI tools more extensively to combat influencers’ strategic manipulation.
The desire to become influential has given rise to an entire industry of growth services and bots, which automate tasks such as
following and unfollowing other accounts and liking and commenting on pictures. This automation creates substantial traffic,
decreasing the experience of users who want to use these platforms for their initially intended purpose. Instagram already
heavily uses AI to detect fake accounts and block users who use automation tools. It also provides more and more features
in its app that allow users to identify accounts that may not provide relevant content and remove them. Going one step fur-
ther, TikTok has based its discovery algorithm entirely on AI to create a personalized content feed. This implementation of AI
makes it substantially harder to predict which content will go viral, hence combatting strategic manipulation. In this context,
it is essential to emphasize that social media platforms have no interest in discouraging the rise of influencers per se.
However, even influencers generate organic content. Such content is necessary to embed sponsored (advertising) content
into the newsfeed, which serves as a primary revenue source for these firms. Therefore, it is not about discouraging the rise
of organic influencers but about the strategic manipulation through excessive behavior (e.g., posting, liking, and comment-
ing), leading to a general decline in the user experience.
The second strategy relates to the way firms select influencers for possible collaboration. Since quantifiable criteria such
as the number of followers or engagement rates are subject to strategic manipulation and bias, influencers must be chosen
carefully and managed individually. Firms are increasingly establishing long-term collaborations with influencers identified
and judged to be consistent with their brand image. Content (e.g., an Instagram picture) created by such influencers are used
in other media channels (e.g., outdoor advertising, in-store promotions) and preferred to professionally photographed con-
tent provided by media agencies due to its greater authenticity. This collaboration leads to closer integration among different
communication channels. The trend of organizing life events with influencers, such as organizing ‘‘meet and greet” sessions
or inviting them to store openings, is just one reflection of this collaboration
Third, companies need a cross-platform strategy based on the understanding that each social networking site has its
unique user base and culture with a unique way of communicating. Therefore, reposting content from one network to
another is unlikely to be successful even if formats appear similar initially. For example, while Instagram Stories and TikTok
posts are both video-based, these videos are not identically structured. The same applies to influencers, whereby a presence
on multiple platforms allows for building a broader user base and decreases dependency on each site. Such a presence also
enables showing different facets that will enhance the perception of authenticity on the side of followers and, ultimately,
their engagement. Platforms have different features that allow connecting to users in different ways. Furthermore, influ-
encers can leverage the different lifecycle phases of different platforms. A site like Facebook, for example, is highly mature
and generally considered as ‘‘pay-to-play,” implying that it is challenging to create visibility for content organically without
paying for some form of advertising to boost exposure. TikTok, on the other hand, is still in its early stages and therefore
allows much more flexibility. Some have attributed the high success of TikTok to the fact that it provides a new playground
for users to build influence that can then be carried over into other platforms. Given these unique challenges presented by
increased influencer marketing, the following questions need to be further researched:
RQ8: How can digital platforms leverage artificial intelligence to discourage strategic behaviors by users whose primary objec-
tive is to become influential?
RQ9: Which strategies and metrics should firms use to select influencers if traditional social influence measures are susceptible
to bias due to strategic manipulation?
RQ10: How can firms and influencers develop cross-platform strategies that consider each platform’s unique user culture?
4.1. Leveraging influencers for marketing for the greater good
An important area remaining largely unexplored is influencer marketing’s potential value in not-for-profit organizational
settings (e.g., governmental and non-governmental organizations, and social interest groups) that typically may not have
large social media followings. Instead of relying on their own social media followings, which are likely to be relatively small
due to the cost of building a significant following and the types of content produced, these organizations may be able to
494
leverage the wide social networks developed by certain influencers to raise awareness and shape public opinion on societal
issues. A member of the U. S. House of Representatives is using influencers to raise awareness and impact public opinion on
societal issues by integrating her streaming with Twitch influencers to educate the public on the U.S. government’s behind-
the-scenes procedures in order to foster societal change (Huddleston, 2020). The increasing importance of influencer mar-
keting can be expected to lead to structural changes on social media platforms that make societal messaging more effective.
Thus, the following question needs to be researched:
RQ11: How can governmental organizations and not-for-profit non-governmental organizations leverage influencer marketing
to raise awareness and impact public opinion on societal issues?
Another promising avenue for future research is for-profit firms’ use of digital marketing communications for the greater
good. Zhang, Chintagunta, and Kalwani (2021) have investigated online social media’s effectiveness in driving product adop-
tion in rural China. Based on their study of a new ecologically less harmful pesticide, they report that by facilitating learning
about the new product’s features and alleviating uncertainty about product quality and appropriate product usage, a low-
cost social media support platform can effectively promote adopting a new product. From a theoretical perspective, they sug-
gest that social media platforms could allow for spreading referent influence and credibility signaling that may not be easily
available otherwise. Their study also highlights the dearth of research in a related area—how consumers in the base of the
pyramid (BOP) markets interact with social media and influencers. Research providing insight into the following questions
can aid marketers to effectively leverage social media platforms as marketing communication tools for BOP markets:
RQ12: Do consumers in BOP markets engage with social media platforms and influencers differently compared to consumers in
other segments of the market (economic) pyramid?
RQ13: How can consumers in BOP markets be motivated to engage more with firms and society using digital tools? How can dig-
ital influencers be leveraged to motivate consumers in BOP markets to engage more with firms and society using digital tools?
5. Omnichannel marketing
5.1. Definition
As summarized below, a review of conceptualizations and definitions of omnichannel marketing that have been advanced
in literature show some being limited to distribution channels; others encompassing customer touchpoints and distribution
channels; and still others encompassing customer touchpoints, distribution channels, and communication channels. (a)
offering consumers information, products, and support through two or more synchronized distribution channels seamlessly
(Verhoef, Kannan & Inman, 2015); (b) synergistically managing multiple channels and customer touchpoints to optimize
customers’ experiences and firm performance across channels (Verhoef et al., 2015); (c) managing multiple distribution
and communication channels (owned, paid, and earned) for greater alignment with customers’ searching, purchasing, con-
suming, and sharing related experiences (Ailawadi & Farris, 2017); (d) synergistically managing customer touchpoints, dis-
tribution channels (both internal and external to the firm), and communication channels (owned, paid, and earned) to
optimize customers’ experiences and firm performance (Cui et al., 2021). Cui et al. (2021) define omnichannel marketing
as the ‘‘synergistic management of all customer touchpoints and channels both internal and external to the firm to ensure
that the customer experience across channels as well as firm-side marketing activity, including marketing-mix and market-
ing communication (owned, paid, and earned), is optimized for both firms and their customers” (pp. 104).
Building on the above, we define omnichannel marketing as ‘‘the coordination and integration of a firm’s marketing actions
across multiple distribution channels, communication channels, and customer touchpoints to offer customers a seamless
experience in their interactions with the firm, thereby enhancing firm performance.” This definition differs from some of
the definitions of omnichannel marketing advanced in the literature. Rather than explicitly specifying the scope of various
definitional elements in the definition, they are treated as issues belonging in the realm of the definition’s operationalization,
depending on the context. For example, rather than circumscribing the scope of marketing actions in the definition to
‘‘firm-side marketing activities, including marketing-mix and marketing communications (owned, paid and earned)” (Cui
et al., 2021), the scope is viewed as those marketing actions that enable a firm to offer customers a seamless experience
in their interactions with that firm.
Customer-centric omnichannel marketing can enhance customers’ experiences across all channels and customer touch-
points (Venkatesan & Arunachalam, 2020). Scholarly research studies (Sopadjieva, Dholakia, & Benjamin, 2017) and reports
by consulting firms2 (mainly in the context of developed markets such as the United States and Western Europe) suggest that
2 3
Deloitte report 2014 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/consumer-business/unlocking-the-power-of-the-connected-con-
sumer.pdfMcKinsey report 2016 https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/operations/our-insights/more-than-digital-plus-traditional-a-truly-
omnichannel-customer
495
most customers (approximately 70%) purchase from more than one channel across different product categories (goods and ser-
vices). About 95% of the retailers are aware of omnichannel strategy’s positive impact on consumer targeting, acquisition, and
retention (Episerver, 2015). Research on multichannel shopping behavior suggests that retailers consider multi-channel shop-
pers (consumers) as more valuable than single-channel shoppers (Kumar & Venkatesan, 2005). Customers purchasing through
multiple channels tend to be more engaged and active than single-channel customers. They spend more and generate more rev-
enue for the firm. Liu et al. (2018) highlight the need for firms to evaluate individual channels’ performance to ensure effective
resource allocation and to achieve synergies.
Neslin et al. (2006) note several customer and channel management factors for an effective multichannel strategy. They
emphasize the importance of consumer-centric marketing actions (i.e., coordinating and integrating marketing actions
across channels to support consumer acquisition, engagement, and retention) for increasing customer value and firm prof-
itability. Prior research suggests that the channel choice of consumers is primarily driven by their need recognition, infor-
mation search, purchase decisions, and after-sales service (Neslin & Shankar, 2009) and by a firm’s responsiveness to
customers’ privacy concerns (Bilgicer et al., 2015).
Literature on multichannel customer management offers insights into channel choice (Kumar & Venkatesan, 2005), mar-
keting resource allocation (Kushwaha & Shankar, 2013), differences in value between multichannel and single-channel cus-
tomers (Thomas & Sullivan, 2005), and channel migration (Gensler, Dekimpe, & Skiera, 2007). Blattberg, Kim, and Neslin
(2008) list five major actions for firms to adopt in a multichannel setting: customer evaluation, multichannel strategy devel-
opment, channel design, channel implementation, and channel evaluation. Several studies report a positive relationship
between multichannel retailing and customer satisfaction and loyalty (Shankar, Smith, & Rangaswamy, 2003; Campbell &
Frei, 2010). However, some studies suggest that with increased Internet usage, consumer loyalty in other channels decreases
(Wright, 2002).
Despite a dearth of research on channel-design structure, a relevant consideration is cross-channel cannibalization versus
synergy. Pauwels and Neslin (2015) report that in a business-to-consumer (B2C) market environment, there is minimal can-
nibalization between online and traditional offline channels. Although they caution that retail outlets could potentially can-
nibalize catalog channels, their study provides insights into how marketing strategies in one channel can increase sales in
another channel. Information spillovers across third-party websites and blogs can increase price discounts in one channel
while increasing product awareness in other competing sales channels (Gong, Smith, & Telang, 2015).
5.3.1. Omnichannel marketing and customer engagement

Literature on omnichannel marketing suggests that the evolving retail setting supports more showrooming than shop-
ping. To gain more product knowledge, best prices, and available discounts (Rapp et al., 2015), consumers engage in infor-
mation searches across brick-and-mortar stores and web/mobile devices. As traditional advertisements are integrated with
interactive digital channels, customer engagement with firms has taken the front seat (Verhoef et al., 2015). While the
launch of a brick-and-mortar store affects catalog channel sales, its impact on Internet sales is considerably less (Pauwels
& Neslin, 2015). Cao and Li (2015) suggest that integrating multiple channels positively impacts firm performance.
Shankar and Kushwaha (2020) report that for firms implementing omnichannel marketing, cross-channel effects are largely
complementary, though asymmetric under certain conditions.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Herhausen et al. (2015) report that integrating multiple channels supports channel
synergies rather than causing cannibalization. The increasing use of mobile channels significantly affects information
searches and purchase decisions across all available channels (Wang, Malthouse, & Krishnamurthi, 2015). Also, multiple cus-
tomer touchpoints—both direct and indirect—across brands, firms, and retailers significantly impact brand performance and
retailer performance (Baxendale, Macdonald, & Wilson, 2015). In an omnichannel setting, customers purchasing through
online channels become less loyal (Bilgicer et al., 2015), and the launch of a new online channel significantly increases
the purchase volumes of the light shopper segments.
In summary, multichannel consumers spend more time on different channels, buy more, and potentially ensure a longer
and more loyal relationship than single-channel consumers. However, ensuring customer satisfaction across all channels can
pose significant challenges to firms. To engage consumers and optimize their value, firms must formulate and implement
appropriate multichannel strategies focusing on factors such as product assortment, channel design, promotions, and pric-
ing. These factors can increase consumer searches and multichannel shopping, enhancing the firm’s engagement value across
multiple touchpoints.
Rapid advances in digital technologies have enabled firms to reach and serve customers through multiple channels. Dig-
ital innovations—such as the Internet, virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and voice applications—have revolution-
ized retail infrastructure and created novel ways for customers to engage with firms/retailers (Shankar et al., 2020). Smart
devices and AR have enabled retailers and consumers to interact through multiple touchpoints (Brynjolfsson et al., 2013). For
example, retailers use location-based mobile apps to send digital discount coupons to the mobile devices of potential and
existing customers who are proximate to or in a retail outlet in order to increase in-store sales.
496
5.3.2. Omnichannel engagement in healthcare for the greater good

Recent innovations in healthcare suggest that the industry is evolving toward an omnichannel model for providing
healthcare. They include employing a broad range of digital technologies-based healthcare delivery and communication
channels. The outlook for the use of AI-powered apps as a communication channel through which customers can seamlessly
manage their treatments from home using features—such as virtual assistants, symptoms checking tools, alerting tools,
remote monitoring, and drone delivery of medical supplies—portends major transformations. Along the lines of the proposed
definition of omnichannel marketing, we define omnichannel engagement in healthcare as ‘‘the coordination and integration of
a healthcare service provider’s actions across healthcare delivery channels, communication channels, and patient touch-
points to offer patients a seamless experience.” Illustrative of an omnichannel in healthcare for the greater good is the
use of AI algorithm embedded devices for mass screening of population segments at the BOP for early detection of breast
cancer (Cousins, 2018) and diabetic retinopathy (Metz, 2019), speedily and at substantially lower cost. Preliminary screening
for and diagnosis of certain ailments (e.g., breast cancer) are performed off-premises at mass screening camps by teams of
medical technicians who are trained to use specific AI algorithm-embedded devices. For those identified during preliminary
screening and diagnosis as needing follow-up screening, trained specialist physicians provide the services at medical
facilities.
A recent report on innovations that are most likely to transform healthcare suggests that the industry may be evolving
toward an omnichannel healthcare delivery model. Healthcare delivery-related channel innovations highlighted in the
report include (a) tele-healthcare as a channel for providing healthcare to patients at home in lieu of their traveling to a
physician’s office and (b) convenient and timely testing at alternative points of care (e.g., physician office, physician office
on wheels, retail healthcare clinic, hospital, ambulance, or home) for faster and more cohesive care. Healthcare
communication-related channel innovations highlighted in the report include (a) wearable devices that monitor and trans-
mit a patient’s health condition to the healthcare provider and (b) leveraging social media to enhance patient experience.3
Recent research shows that omnichannel engagement leads to increased patient satisfaction and improved efficacy of health-
care delivery at a reduced cost for providers (Swan, Dahl, & Peltier, 2019).
The significant growth in multichannel shopping highlights the need for research that can provide insights into the fol-
lowing issues: (a) impact of multichannel shopping on long-term performance outcomes, such as customer retention and
lifetime value; (b) impact of mobile and online search on multichannel shopping; (c) impact of multichannel shopping
and search on customer referral value, customer influence value, and customer knowledge value; (d) impact of various con-
venience services, such as home delivery, pick-up-at-store, and return pick-up, on consumers’ willingness to pay; and (e)
optimal strategy for product launch through a new channel by leveraging multiple channels for engaging customers. A brief
discussion on potential avenues for future research on three broad issues follows.
5.4.1. Brand management and product returns

An issue of growing importance to firms is developing a deeper understanding of the impact of omnichannel strategies
beyond sales outcomes, and uncovering their effects on customer and brand loyalty. By mapping both offline and online cus-
tomer behavior, big data capabilities can help marketers manage customer experience effectively during the entire purchase
journey (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). A recent development is the use of algorithms based on user-generated content to predict
the stage of a customer’s purchase journey (Vázquez et al., 2014). While much attention is on downstream user experience
management, it is also crucial for marketers to focus on the upstream inventory management and stock allocation chal-
lenges. Although innovations such as POPS (Purchase Online - Pick-up at Store) proliferated during the COVID pandemic,
many firms are faced with increasing product return rates.
Another significant development in omnichannel marketing is the emergence of digital intermediaries’ private labels as
major competitors for manufacturers’ brands. In their attempts to counter this threat, some manufacturers are acquiring dig-
ital shop-in-shop to gain above-the-fold visibility (i.e., gaining presence in first-page search results in digital retail platforms
such as Amazon and Alibaba). Additionally, firms have begun investing in independent brand website building to ensure dig-
ital visibility. In the face of price competition from lower-priced private label brands of digital-intermediaries, managing
prices is another significant issue for manufacturers’ brands. Conceivably, a brand name’s importance as a quality measure
is likely to diminish due to greater digital firm-customer engagement and customer-customer interactions. As online retail-
ers try to enhance customer experience through lower prices and digital promotions, the equity of incumbent brands is likely
to be reduced. These developments highlight the need for research on the implications of competition from digital interme-
diaries for manufacturers’ multichannel, brand, and pricing strategies. Hence, the following research questions are proposed:
RQ14: What brand strategies and brand loyalty management programs employed by incumbent manufacturer brands are likely
to be more effective when competing with digital platforms owned by private label brands and why?
3 4
Deloitte report 2016 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/life-sciences-and-health-care/articles/top-10-health-care-innovations.html
497
RQ15: How do (can) omnichannel retailers profitably manage product returns in an environment where Purchase Online - Pick-
up at Store (POPS) is increasingly becoming the new normal?
5.5. Omnichannel marketing in an era of new-age technologies
In growth markets such as India, Internet penetration is around 50%, and most retailing transactions are through small
retail outlets (referred to as Kirana stores in India). Such market environments provide novel retailing challenges to large
multichannel and online retailers and research opportunities to marketing scholars.
With the growing technology usage by users, firms are likely to leverage virtual and augmented reality to enhance cus-
tomer experience, increase multichannel shopping frequency, and assist in seamless product returns. A well-formulated
pricing strategy is likely to grow in importance for marketers to effectively interact with customers across multiple channels
and promote multichannel shopping. To develop better pricing models, there is a need for research on how discounts interact
with marketing communications to impact consumers’ search and multichannel shopping decisions.
Mobile devices’ network connectivity or Wi-Fi connections can be used more extensively to provide consumers with
access to firms and their products, irrespective of their location and contexts. Also, firms can use location-based technologies
to track and reach consumers at any location and time. Research focusing on mobile technology usage is needed to target
customers in a competitive setting using digital coupons delivered to customers’ smartphones (Dube, Fang, Fong & Luo,
2017) and competitive geo-targeting (Chen, Li & Sun, 2017). Also, future research needs to focus on pricing in the context
of using mobile devices and technologies. The potential for combining voice- and image-based search facilities with digital
technologies to reduce consumer search costs is also a research opportunity. The above considerations suggest the following
research questions:
RQ16: What metrics do (should) firms use to monitor and profitably manage the effect of mobile technologies-enabled market-
ing (e.g., Wi-Fi and geo-tagging) on consumers’ omnichannel engagement behaviors?
RQ17: How do voice-based search and VR- and AR-based customer engagement impact customers’ multichannel behavior and,
in turn, firm performance in terms of outcome measures, such as customer retention, brand loyalty, and profitability?
5.6. Omnichannel marketing in not-for-profit organizational settings
Omnichannel marketing in not-for-profit organizational settings (e.g., governmental organizations and non-
governmental organizations) is a relatively under-researched area. Social objectives such as poverty alleviation, hunger erad-
ication, provision of basic hygiene facilities, and the health and well-being of the poor are the focus of several governmental
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Through omnichannel engagement with multiple stakeholders, such as indus-
try trade associations and societal influencers as sponsors, these organizations can communicate and scale their activities
and attract multiple collaborative partners. Furthermore, data support systems implemented through omnichannel struc-
tural arrangements can help monitor and measure the impact on different stakeholders through different channels. This
can help pivot business models on projects that have greater synergy with social objectives and firm capabilities. 4
Furthermore, recent research suggests that volunteer marketers can have a positive impact on entrepreneurial growth in
emerging and less-developed countries’ markets (Anderson et al., 2021). Also, Viswanathan et al.’s (2021) study highlights
that in emerging markets, marketplace literacy can have a positive impact on consumer wellbeing in low-access market-
places. Governmental organizations and NGOs can effectively use digital channels to enhance marketplace literacy and
marketer-consumer engagement. For example, real-time mobile messaging can help enhance marketplace access for both
micro entrepreneurs and low-income consumers. Hence, the following research question is proposed:
RQ18: How can for-profit firms, governmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations leverage omnichannel mar-
keting to raise awareness of social issues and alleviate social problems?
6. Conclusion
‘‘Marketing is not like Euclidean geometry, a fixed system of concepts, and axioms. Rather, marketing is one of the most
dynamic fields within the management arena. The marketplace continuously throws out fresh challenges, and companies
must respond. Therefore, it is not surprising that new marketing ideas keep surfacing to meet the new marketplace chal-
lenges” (Kotler, 1997, p. xxxii).
During the past quarter-century, new additions to the marketing lexicon— such as (a) e-commerce, Internet marketing,
and interactive marketing (during the 1990s); (b) mobile commerce and mobile marketing (during the 2000s); and (c) social
media marketing and social media strategy (during the 2010s)—attest to Kotler’s (1997) insightful observation concerning
4 5
McKinsey report 2021 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/omnichannel-engagement-in-med-
tech-the-time-is-nowIn the McKinsey report, the term omnichannel engagement is used to refer to the trend toward multichannel engagement between
medical technology companies and healthcare physicians. Borrowing that term, we use the term omnichannel engagement to refer to the trend toward
multichannel engagement between healthcare provider organizations and patients.
498
the dynamic nature of the macro-environment in which firms compete and, by extension, the dynamic nature of marketing
practice and research. In that vein, this article focuses on (a) innovations for the greater good in the domain of digital product
innovations, and (b) direct and mediated communications through social media platforms and omnichannel marketing in
the domain of digital marketing innovations. We provide an overview of the evolution and the state of the field in these
areas, explore current issues and the trajectory of the field, and propose directions for future research. In the Web Appendix,
we present a summary table of the proposed questions for future research in the sections on (a) digital product innovations
for the greater good, (b) digital marketing innovations in communications, and (c) digital marketing innovations in channels,
and brief overviews of the motivation for the questions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.002.
References
Ailawadi, K. L., & Farris, P. W. (2017). Managing multi-and omni-channel distribution: Metrics and research directions. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 120–135.
Anderson, S. J., Chandy, R., & Zia, B. (2018). Pathways to profits: The impact of marketing vs. finance skills on business performance. Management Science, 64
(12), 5559–5583.
Anderson, S. J., Chintagunta, P., Germann, F., & Vilcassim, N. (2021). Do marketers matter for entrepreneurs? Evidence from a field experiment in Uganda.
Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 78–96.
Arunachalam, S., Bahadir, S. C., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Guesalaga, R. (2020). New product introductions for low-income consumers in emerging markets. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(5), 914–940.
Baker, K. (2009). Understanding the dialectic relationship between intra and inter-organizational cooperation. In J. Salmons & L. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of
electronic collaboration and organizational synergy (pp. 695–709). Information Science Reference.
Barabasi, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286 509512.
Batra, R., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Integrating marketing communications: New findings, new lessons, and new ideas. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 122–145.
Baxendale, S., Macdonald, E. K., & Wilson, H. N. (2015). The impact of different touchpoints on brand consideration. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 235–253.
Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126.
Bhattacharjee, A., & Mogilner, C. (2014). Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(1), 1–17.
Bilgicer, T., Jedidi, K., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2015). Social contagion and customer adoption of new sales channels. Journal of Retailing, 91(2),
254–271.
Blattberg, R. C., Byung-Do, K., & Neslin, S. A. (2008). Database marketing: Analyzing and managing customers. Springer.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3),
52–68.
Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. (1987). Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.
Brown, M., Grace, K., Shively, G., Johnson, K., & Carroll, M. (2014). Using satellite remote sensing and household survey data to assess human health and
nutrition response to environmental change. Population and Environment, 36, 8–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-013-0201-0.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2013). Competing in the age of omnichannel retailing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 23.
Cahill, S. M., & Mitra, S. (2008). Forging collaborative relationships to meet the demands of inclusion. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(4), 149–151.
Campbell, D., & Frei, F. (2010). Cost structure, customer profitability, and retention implications of self-service distribution channels: Evidence from
customer behavior in an online banking channel. Management Science, 56(1), 4–24.
Cao, L., & Li, L. (2015). The impact of cross-channel integration on retailers’ sales growth. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 198–216.
Carter, T. J., & Gilovich, T. (2012). I am what I do, not what I have: The differential centrality of experiential and material purchases to the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1304.
Chandy, R. K., Johar, G. V., Moorman, C., & Roberts, J. H. (2021). Better marketing for a better world. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 1–9.
Chen, W., & Srinivasan, S. (2019, May). Going digital: Implications for firm value and performance. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19-117.
(Revised July 2020.)
Chen, Y., Li, X., & Sun, M. (2017). Competitive mobile geo targeting. Marketing Science, 36(5), 666–682.
Chui, M., Harryson, M., Manyika, J., Roberts, R., Chung, R., Nel, P., & van Heteren, A. (2018). Applying artificial intelligence for social good. McKinsey Global
Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/artificial-intelligence/applying-artificial-intelligence-for-social-good.
Cousins, S. (2018, August 8). A new way to detect breast cancer. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/opinion/detect-breast-cancer-
developing-countries-asia.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.
Cui, T. H., Ghose, A., Halaburda, H., Iyengar, R., Pauwels, K., Sriram, S., et al (2021). Informational challenges in Omnichannel marketing: Remedies and future
research. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 103–120.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). April). The iron cage revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Digiday (2016). Totino’s turns to Twitch for its Super Bowl marketing. https://digiday.com/media/warm-delicious-totinos-pizza-rolls/
Dost, F., Sievert, J., & Kassim, D. (2016). Revisiting firm-created word of mouth: High-value versus low-value seed selection. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 33(1), 236–239.
Dubé, J. P., Fang, Z., Fong, N., & Luo, X. (2017). Competitive price targeting with smartphone coupons. Marketing Science, 36(6), 944–975.
Eastin, M. S., & Lee, J. A. (2020). Attitudes toward advertisements and brands. In J. Van Den Bulck (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media psychology.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone.
Episerver (2015). Multichannel digital marketing report 2015. Retrieved October 13, 2017 from http://www.episerver.com/learn/resources/research–
reports/multichannel-digital-marketing-report2015/.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
499
Gensler, S., Dekimpe, M. G., & Skiera, B. (2007). Evaluating channel performance in multi-channel environments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
14(1), 17–23.
Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009). The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 1–13.
Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C. (2019). Digital economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1), 3–43.
Goldfarb, A., Bledi, T. & Florenta, T. (2020, October 23), Could machine learning be a general purpose technology? A comparison of emerging technologies
using data from online job postings. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3468822 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3468822
Gong, J., Smith, M. D., & Telang, R. (2015). Substitution or promotion? The impact of price discounts on cross-channel sales of digital movies. Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 343–357.
Gordon, B., Jerath, K., Katona, Z., Narayanan, S., Shin, J., & Wilbur, K. (2021). Inefficiencies in digital advertising markets. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 7–25.
Gupta, S., Leszkiewicz, A., Kumar, V., Bijmolt, T., & Potapov, D. (2020). Digital analytics: Modeling for insights and new methods. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 51, 26–43.
Gupta, S., Kumar, V., & Karam, E. (2019). New-age technologies-driven social innovation: What, how, where, and why? Industrial Marketing Management, 89,
499–516.
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. W. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management
Review, 61(4), 5–14.
Haenlein, M., & Libai, B. (2013). Targeting revenue leaders for a new product. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 65–80.
Haenlein, M. (2011). A social network analysis of customer-level revenue distribution. Marketing Letters, 22(1), 15–29.
Haenlein, M. (2013). Social interactions in customer churn decisions: The impact of relationship directionality. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
30(3), 236–248.
Haenlein, M. (2017). How to date your clients in the 21st century: Challenges in managing customer relationships in today’s world. Business Horizons, 60(5),
577–586.
Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schoegel, M., & Herrmann, A. (2015). Integrating bricks with clicks: Retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online–offline
channel integration. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 309–325.
Herrman, J. (2019, March 10). How TikTok is rewriting the world. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/style/what-is-tik-tok.html.
Hewett, K., Rand, W., Rust, R. T., & Van Heerde, H. J. (2016). Brand buzz in the echoverse. Journal of Marketing, 80(3), 1–24.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60(3),
50–68.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 23–34.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology., 63(6), 597–606.
Huddleston Jr. T. (2020, October 21). AOC’s ‘get out the vote’ Twitch stream was one of the platform’s biggest ever. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/21/aocs-
twitch-stream-was-one-of-the-platforms-biggest-ever-.html.
Huuskonen, J., & Oksanen, T. (2018). Soil sampling with drones and augmented reality in precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 154,
25–35.
Influencer Marketing Hub (2018). Influencer marketing on twitch – can twitch improve your bottom line? https://www.influencermarketinghub.com/
twitch-influencer-marketing/.
Influencer Marketing Hub (2020a). Changing the game: Influencer marketing for generation Z. https://www.influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-
marketing-for-generation-z/.
Influencer Marketing Hub (2020b). The incredible growth of eSports [+ esports statistics]. https://www.influencermarketinghub.com/growth-of-esports-
stats/.
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & Valente, T. W. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195–212.
Kannan, P. K. (2020). 15 key components of a digital marketing strategy. The Routledge Companion to Strategic Marketing. Routledge.
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.
Kanuri, V. K., Chen, Y., & Sridhar, S. (2018). Scheduling content on social media: Theory, evidence, and application. Journal of Marketing, 82(6), 89–108.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial
intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15–25.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130.
Keys, T., Malnight, T. W. & Graaf, K. V. (2009, December). Making the most of corporate social responsibility. McKinsey Quarterly. http://www.
mckinsey.com/globalthemes/leadership/making-the-most-of-corporate-social-responsibility
Kim, S. J., Lim, G., Cho, J., & Cote, M. (2017). Drone-aided healthcare services for patients with chronic diseases in rural areas. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic
Systems, 88, 163–180.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation and control (9th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Kumar, V., & Venkatesan, R. (2005). Who are the multichannel shoppers and how do they perform? Correlates of multichannel shopping behavior. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 19(2), 44–62.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010a). Undervalued or overvalued customers: Capturing total customer
engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310.
Kumar, V., Petersen, J. A., & Leone, R. P. (2007). How valuable is word-of-mouth? Harvard Business Review, 85(10), 139–146.
Kushwaha, T., & Shankar, V. (2013). Are multichannel customers really more valuable? The moderating role of product category characteristics. Journal of
Marketing, 77(4), 67–85.
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an
agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34, 1152–1189.
Lawson, H. A. (2003). Pursuing and securing collaboration to improve results. In M. Brabeck & M. Walsh (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-
communities professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being (pp. 45–73). University of Chicago Press.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.
Li, F., Larimo, J., & Leonidou, L. (2020). Social media marketing strategy: Definition, conceptualization, taxonomy, validation, and future agenda. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 49, 51–70.
Liu, H., Lobschat, L., & Verhoef, P. C. (2018). Multichannel retailing: A review and research agenda. Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 12(1), 1–79.
Long, T. B., Vincent, B., & Coninx, I. (2015). Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe:
Evidence from The Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 9–21.
Medium (2019). How much time do people spend on social media in 2019? https://www.medium.com/@JBBC/how-much-time-do-people-spend-on-
social-media-in-2019-infographic-cc02c63bede8
Meire, M., Hewett, K., Ballings, M., Kumar, V., & Van den Poel, D. (2019). The role of marketer-generated content in customer engagement marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 83(6), 21–42.
Metz, C. (2019, March 10). India fights diabetic blindness with help from A.I. The New York Times, B1, New York edition.
Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L. (2016). Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. Journal of
Business Research, 69(11), 5014–5021.
Nam, H., & Kannan, P. K. (2020). Digital environment in global markets: Cross-cultural implications for evolving customer journeys. Journal of International
Marketing, 28(1), 28–47.
500
Nejad, M. G., Amini, M., & Babakus, E. (2015). Success factors in product seeding: The role of homophily. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 68–88.
Nejad, M. G., Amini, M., & Sherrell, D. L. (2016). The profit impact of revenue heterogeneity and assortativity in the presence of negative word-of-mouth.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 656–673.
Neslin, S. A., & Shankar, V. (2009). Key issues in multichannel customer management: Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23(1), 70–81.
Neslin, S. A., Grewal, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., et al (2006). Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer
management. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 95–112.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 82, 57–67.
Nitzan, I., & Libai, B. (2011). Social effects on customer retention. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 24–38.
Pal, R., & Altay, N. (2019). Identifying key success factors for social enterprises serving base-of-pyramid markets through analysis of value chain
complexities. Journal of Business Logistics, 40(2), 161–179.
Patil, H., (2020). Social media for the bottom of the pyramid. Cloud Social. https://blog.cloudsocial.io/social-media-for-the-bottom-of-the-pyramid.
Pauwels, K., & Neslin, S. A. (2015). Building with bricks and mortar: The revenue impact of opening physical stores in a multichannel environment. Journal of
Retailing, 91(2), 182–197.
Petrick, I. J., & Simpson, T. W. (2013). 3D Printing disrupts manufacturing: How economies of one create new rules of competition. Research-Technology
Management, 56(6), 12–16.
Pfitzer, M., Bockstette, V., & Stamp, M. (2013). Innovating for shared value. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 100–107.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business
Review, 84, 78–93.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business
Review, 89(1), 62–77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Mashelkar, R. A. (2010). Innovation’s holy grail. Harvard Business Review, 88(4).
Prahalad, C. K. (2006, August 28). The innovation sandbox. strategy+business, Autumn 2006 (44)1-10. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/06306?
gko=0eab4.
Prahalad, C. K. (2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 6–12.
Raman, R., Vachhrajani, H., Shivdas, A., & Nedungadi, P. (2014). Low cost tablets as disruptive educational innovation: Modeling its diffusion within Indian
K12 system. [Paper presentation]. 2014 IEEE Innovations in Technology Conference.
Rangan, V. K., & Sinha, M. (2013). Hindustan Unilever’s’ ‘‘Pureit” water purifier. Harvard Business School. Case No. 9-511-067.
Rapp, A., Baker, T. L., Bachrach, D. G., Ogilvie, J., & Beitelspacher, L. S. (2015). Perceived customer showrooming behavior and the effect on retail salesperson
self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 358–369.
Robinson, J., & Tinker, J. (1997). Reconciling ecological, economic, and social imperatives: A new conceptual framework. In T. Schrecker (Ed.), Surviving
globalism: Social and environmental dimensions (pp. 71–94). St. Martin’s Press.
Sanchez, J., Abril, C., & Haenlein, M. (2020). Competitive spillover elasticities of electronic word of mouth: An application to the soft drink industry. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(2), 270–287.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. The Guildford Press.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 20(2), 153–175.
Shankar, V., & Kushwaha, T. (2020). Omnichannel marketing: Are cross-channel effects symmetric? International Journal of Research in Marketing. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.09.001.
Shankar, V., Kalyanam, K., Setia, P., Golmohammadi, A., Tirunillai, S., Douglass, T., et al (2020). How technology is changing retail. Journal of Retailing, 97(1),
13–27.
Sopadjieva, E., Dholakia, U., & Benjamin, B. (2017). A study of 46,000 shoppers shows that omnichannel retailing works. Harvard Business Review, 3, 1–2.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Suri, T., & Jack, W. (2016). The long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money. Science, 354(6317), 1288–1292.
Swan, E. L., Dahl, A. J., & Peltier, J. W. (2019). Health care marketing in an omni-channel environment: Exploring telemedicine and other digital touchpoints.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(4), 602–618.
Thomas, J. S., & Sullivan, U. Y. (2005). Managing marketing communications with multichannel customers. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 239–251.
Tomašev, N., Cornebise, J., Hutter, F., Mohamed S., Picciarilleo, A., et al. (2020). AI for social good: Unlocking the opportunity for positive impact. Nature
Communications, 11, Article Number: 2468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15871-z
United Nations. (2016). The sustainable development goals report 2016. http://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/
Varadarajan, R. (2017). Innovating for sustainability: A framework for sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations orientation. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 14–36.
Varadarajan, R., & Kaul, R. S. (2018). Doing well by doing good innovations: Alleviation of social problems in emerging markets through corporate social
Innovations. Journal of Business Research, 86(C), 225–233.
Vázquez, S., Muñoz-García, Ó., Campanella, I., Poch, M., Fisas, B., Bel, N., et al (2014). A classification of user-generated content into consumer decision
journey stages. Neural Networks, 58, 68–81.
Venkatesan, R., & Arunachalam, S. (2020). Omnichannel strategy. In B. B. Schlegelmilch & R. S. Winer (Eds.), The Routledge companion to strategic marketing
(pp. 293–308). Routledge.
Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., & Inman, J. J. (2015). From multi-channel retailing to omni-channel retailing: Introduction to the special issue on multi-channel
retailing. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 174–181.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Dong, J. Q., Fabian, N., et al (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and
research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889–901.
Viswanathan, M., Umashankar, N., Sreekumar, A., & Goreczny, A. (2021). Marketplace literacy as a pathway to a better world: Evidence from field
experiments in low-access subsistence marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 113–129.
Wang, R. J. H., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015). On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91(2),
217–234.
Wang, Y. (2020). Influence of camera view on TikTok users’ presence, immersion, and adoption intent. Computers in Human Behavior, 110, 1–9.
Wright, A. (2002). Technology as an enabler of the global branding of retail financial services. Journal of International Marketing, 10(2), 83–98.
Wu, M., Ho, S., Lin, H., Chang, W., & Chen, L. (2013). How do thinking styles influence collaborative dispositions? A study on the relationships between
thinking styles and collaborative dispositions for youngsters in Taiwan. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2059–2070.
Xia, M., Huang, Y., Duan, W., & Whinston, A. B. (2012). Research note: To continue sharing or not to continue sharing? An empirical analysis of user decision
in peer-to-peer sharing networks. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 247–259.
Yadav, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2014). Marketing in computer mediated environments: Research synthesis and new directions. Journal of Marketing, 78(1),
20–40.
Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zalltman, G. (2020). A theories-in-use approach to building marketing theory. Journal of
Marketing., 84(1), 32–51.
Zhang, W., Chintagunta, P. K., & Kalwani, M. U. (2021). EXPRESS: Social-media, influencers, and adoption of an eco-friendly product: Field experiment
evidence from rural China. Journal of Marketing, 85(3), 10–27.
Zhang, Y., Trusov, M., Stephen, A. T., & Jamal, Z. (2017). Online shopping and social media: Friends or foes? Journal of Marketing, 81(6), 24–41.
501

1-s2.0-S0167811621000689-main-6

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

1-s2.0-S0167811621000689-main-6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2022) 482–501

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Research in Marketing

Digital product innovations for the greater good and digital

1.1. Literature overview and objectives

1.2. Motivation and importance

1.2.1. Digital innovations in value creation, communication, and delivery

R. Varadarajan, R.B. Welden, S. Arunachalam et al.

International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2022) 482–501

International Journal of Research in Marketing 39 (2022) 482–501

2. Digital product innovations for the greater good

2.2. Evolution and current state of the field

2.3. Current issues and trajectory of the field

2.4. Directions for future research

2.4.1. Greater good innovation orientation: Antecedents and outcomes

2.4.2. Role of collaborations in innovations for the greater good

3. Direct and mediated communications through social media platforms

3.1. Influencer marketing and artificial intelligence: Definitions

3.2. Evolution and current state of the field

3.2.1. Online word of mouth

3.2.2. Emergence of influencer marketing

3.3. Current issues and trajectory of the field

3.3.1. Influencer marketing and experiential platforms

3.3.2. Digital innovations in marketing communications for the greater good

3.4. Directions for future research

3.4.1. Implications of experiential social media platforms

4. Research on influencer marketing

4.1. Leveraging influencers for marketing for the greater good

5.2. Evolution and current state of the field

5.3. Current issues and trajectory of the field

5.3.1. Omnichannel marketing and customer engagement

5.3.2. Omnichannel engagement in healthcare for the greater good

5.4. Directions for future research

5.4.1. Brand management and product returns

5.5. Omnichannel marketing in an era of new-age technologies

5.6. Omnichannel marketing in not-for-profit organizational settings

Declaration of Competing Interest

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.002.

You might also like