Is there more to it than posting a status update?

RM, however, is not a new phenomenon, only the concept of it is moderately young (Bruhn
2003, 12; Berry 1995). According to Gummesson (1988, 395) the phenomenon has been
around since the beginning of all trade, but the term was modified starting only from the
1970’s. Also Bruhn (2003, 12) notes that RM is not a new definition of marketing, but rather
an extension of traditional marketing. Terms like network model, interaction model, long term
interaction relationships, interactive marketing, and database marketing have all meant
something similar to relationship marketing, but perhaps with a different angle to the
phenomenon. No extensive definition of the term seems to exist; different writers understand
it in a different way. (Gummesson, 1988, 395). Nevertheless, it seems that authors agree on
the fact that RM is something that cannot be “added” to the marketing mix, but it is a
comprehensive way of seeing the business of an organization as dependent on the networks
and relationships it holds. (Passebois & Aurier 2004). Also, consensus seems to exist on that
RM consists of both creating new relationships and maintaining the ones that already exist
(Passebois & Aurier 2004; Bruhn, 2003; Bendapudi & Berry 1997, Berry 1995, 236;
Gummesson, 1987, 11). Bruhn (2003, 12) ads reactivation to the list of the stages in RM.
Consequently the four stages of RM are: initiation of relationships, subsequent stabilization
of relationships, their intensification, and reactivation in case the customer terminates the
relationship (Bruhn 2003, 12). Theoretically, the present research agrees on the definition of
Bruhn (2003, 12), but it utilizes terms of building a relationship (instead of initiation and
stabilization), maintaining a relationship (instead of intensification) and the reactivation of
the relationship. The building of a relationship refers to the idea that actual work needs to be
done to build the connection with a customer. Maintaining then again refers to holding on to
the relationship, but it may intensify or weaken in between touch points, as long as it is still
ongoing and maintained.
Passebois and Aurier (2004) point out why RM fits museums so well: art is usually seen as
difficult to access, it is not a simple purchase decision, but a process. The customer needs to
commit to the process in order to be able to receive, and contribute to, the co-creation of value
in the service process. Thus, the entire service process of museums needs to be viewed from a
relational, not transactional, perspective. Also, people are more likely to form relationships
with the staff of a service provider, or with the attributes the service provider represents, than
with tangible items (Bendapudi & Berry 1997) which makes RM more fitted and even easier
for service providers than for other organizations.
28