This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion
may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails.
Au ho (s):
Ti le:
Yea :
Ve sion:
Copy igh :
Righ s:
Righ s u l:
Please ci e he o iginal e sion:
CC BY 4.0
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Digi al con en ma ke ing on social media along he B2B cus ome jou ney : The e ec
o imely con en deli e y on cus ome engagemen
© 2024 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie Inc.
Published e sion
Salonen, Anna; Me o, Joel; Munnukka, Juha; Zimme , Ma cus; Ka jaluo o, Heikki
Salonen, A., Me o, J., Munnukka, J., Zimme , M., & Ka jaluo o, H. (2024). Digi al con en
ma ke ing on social media along he B2B cus ome jou ney : The e ec o imely con en
deli e y on cus ome engagemen . Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 118, 12-26.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.indma man.2024.02.002
2024
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
A ailable online 10 Feb ua y 2024
0019-8501/© 2024 The Au ho s. Published by Else ie Inc. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).
Digi al con en ma ke ing on social media along he B2B cus ome jou ney:
The e ec o imely con en deli e y on cus ome engagemen
Anna Salonen
a
,
*
, Joel Me o
a
, Juha Munnukka
a
, Ma cus Zimme
b
, Heikki Ka jaluo o
c
a
Ma ke ing, Uni e si y o Jy ¨
askyl¨
a, School o Business and Economics, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 Jy ¨
askyl¨
a, Finland
b
ZHAW School o Managemen and Law, Win e hu , Swi ze land
c
Technology Managemen and In o ma ion Sys ems Science, Uni e si y o Jy ¨
askyl¨
a, Finland
ARTICLE INFO
Keywo ds:
Business- o-business
Cus ome jou ney
Digi al ma ke ing
Expe imen
Digi al con en ma ke ing
Social media con en ypes
ABSTRACT
This s udy demons a es he impo ance o con en imeliness as a d i e o engagemen in business ma ke s.
Th ough an expe imen al app oach, we show ha i he cus ome is exposed o i m-gene a ed con en ha he o
she deems ele an in a pa icula jou ney s age, his leads o highe cus ome engagemen wi h he selling i m
and he con en ha i gene a es. We con ibu e o ex an unde s anding o digi al con en ma ke ing esea ch in
a B2B con ex by demons a ing ha he e a e no uni e sally co ec sequences o p esen ing con en o cus-
ome s a di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney in o de o sys ema ically inc ease engagemen . Ins ead, he
indings sugges ha he ypes o con en cus ome s p e e o see in di e en jou ney s ages a ies be ween
indi iduals. Fo manage s hoping o bene i om digi al con en ma ke ing, we ad oca e u he in es men s
in o echnologies ha imp o e he selling i m’s abili y o a ge con en based on he cus ome ’s idiosync a ic
use needs a di e en jou ney s ages.
1. In oduc ion
The ease o access o high-quali y con en in digi al channels has
enabled business buye s o na iga e pu chasing p ocesses mo e inde-
penden ly, o e ing salespeople ewe oppo uni ies o in luence buying
decisions. Fo example, Ga ne (2020) ound ha , when conside ing a
pu chase, he a e age business buye spends only 17% o hei ime on
mee ings wi h po en ial supplie s while 27% o hei ime is spen on
independen online sea ches. The e o e, o ap in o he con empo a y
business- o-business (B2B) buying p ocesses, selle s need o p o ide
con en ha helps he a ge cus ome s o comple e hei buying asks a
di e en s ages o he buying jou ney. As a esul , digi al con en ma -
ke ing (DCM) has eme ged as a key ma ke ing communica ions pa a-
digm in business ma ke s (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; J¨
a inen &
Taiminen, 2016; Te ho, Me o, Siu la, & Jaakkola, 2022).
In he B2B con ex , aluable con en can include whi e pape s ha
explica e key indus y ends, educa ional webina s ha help cus ome s
o ame hei business p oblems, cus ome success s o ies showcasing
how cus ome s ha e sol ed p oblems wi h he help o solu ions o e ed
by selle s, p oduc demos, o how- o- ideos. A he same ime, DCM
schola s (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; J¨
a inen & Taiminen, 2016; Te ho
e al., 2022; Wall & Spinuzzi, 2018) and p ac i ione s (see, e.g., Lin,
2015; Polewa czyk, 2021; Rise ba o, 2021; AICon en y, 2023) alike
emphasize ha ha ing aluable con en is no enough i i is no deli -
e ed in a imely manne o he igh audience.
Timeliness in he B2B con ex ela es c i ically o he abili y o ma ch
ele an con en o he cus ome ’s use needs a di e en jou ney s ages
(Te ho e al., 2022). Howe e , such ma ching is di icul o achie e in
p ac ice. To o e come his p oblem, i ms a e inc easingly elying on
ma ke ing au oma ion echnologies o sequen ially a ge i m-
gene a ed con en a gene ic buye pe sona p o iles in di e en s ages
o he cus ome jou ney (Te ho e al., 2022; Te ho, Salonen, & Y j¨
anen,
2023). The pu pose o doing so is o gene a e engagemen , which is
known o lead o posi i e i m-le el ou comes, such as imp o ed b and
a i udes o sales pe o mance (Taiminen & Ranawee a, 2019; Wang,
Mal house, Calde , & Uzunoglu, 2019).
P io quan i a i e esea ch in he DCM domain has ocused on
message ea u es, s yles, goals, and appeals as he gene alizable d i e s
o con en engagemen (see, e.g., Deng, Wang, Rod, & Ji, 2021; Jun u-
nen, Ismagilo a, & Oika inen, 2021; Mei e, Coussemen , de Caigny, &
Hoo nae , 2022; Co ez, Johns on, & Das ida , 2023). Al hough his
esea ch has unco e ed some cha ac e is ics o engaging con en , he e
* Co esponding au ho .
E-mail add esses: [email p o ec ed] (A. Salonen), [email p o ec ed] (J. Me o), [email p o ec ed] (J. Munnukka), [email p o ec ed] (M. Zimme ), heikki.
[email p o ec ed] (H. Ka jaluo o).
Con en s lis s a ailable a ScienceDi ec
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen
jou nal homepage: www.else ie .com/loca e/indma man
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.indma man.2024.02.002
Recei ed 14 May 2023; Recei ed in e ised o m 30 Janua y 2024; Accep ed 4 Feb ua y 2024
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
13
a e impo an gaps. Fi s , hese s udies only measu e con en engage-
men ia isible con en engagemen me ics (i.e., likes, commen s,
sha es/ e wee s) and a e hus unable o de e mine whe he engagemen
d i es he in ended i m-le el ou comes. Also, hese s udies a e unable
o un eil he ela ionship be ween imely con en deli e y and con en
engagemen .
To add ess hese gaps in he ex an knowledge, we build on he uses
and g a i ica ions (U&G) amewo k (Ka z & Foulkes, 1962) o es he
e ec s o con en imeliness on engagemen . To do so, we p opose he
ollowing esea ch ques ion: Does he cus ome ’s pe cep ion o con en
imeliness in luence he cus ome ’s willingness o engage wi h he selle
and he con en ha i gene a es? To examine his ques ion, we imple-
men ed an online scena io expe imen ha allowed us o expe imen ally
manipula e he iming o con en exposu e along a ic i ious B2B
cus ome jou ney.
This s udy con ibu es o he ex an unde s anding o B2B DCM by
demons a ing ha imely con en deli e y d i es cus ome s’ con en
engagemen , which also has posi i e e ec s on sales- ela ed ou comes.
In doing so, he esul s o his s udy sugges ha he e a e no uni e sally
co ec sequences o p esen ing con en o cus ome s a di e en s ages
o he pu chase jou ney o sys ema ically inc ease engagemen (c .
Te ho e al., 2022). Ins ead, he indings sugges ha he ypes o con en
ha cus ome s p e e o see in di e en jou ney s ages a ies widely
be ween indi iduals. Fo manage s hoping o bene i om DCM, we hus
ad oca e u he in es men s in o echnologies ha allow he mo e ine-
g ained beha io al a ge ing o i m-gene a ed con en . This is needed o
imp o e he ocal i m’s abili y o a ge con en based on he cus ome ’s
idiosync a ic use needs a di e en jou ney s ages.
This pape is s uc u ed as ollows: we i s g ound ou p oposed
esea ch model in he ex an B2B DCM esea ch. We hen explain how
we es ed he model using an expe imen al esea ch design, which is
ollowed by a p esen a ion o he esul s. In he concluding sec ion, we
ou line he heo e ical and p ac ical implica ions o he s udy, discuss i s
po en ial limi a ions, and p o ide sugges ions o u he esea ch.
2. Li e a u e e iew and hypo heses de elopmen
2.1. Ex an esea ch on B2B DCM
Holliman and Rowley (2014) we e he i s schola s o explo e he
DCM concep in business ma ke s. Thei key inding was ha DCM
ep esen s a cul u al shi in ma ke ing, a shi om o e selling o
helping ha is mani es ed by o ganiza ional e o s o engage cus ome s
by c ea ing and sha ing aluable and imely con en in o de o mee
cus ome needs a di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney. Mo e
o mally, DCM e e s o “a digi al ma ke ing communica ion app oach
ha gene a es in elligence abou cus ome jou neys, de elops a aluable
con en po olio ha acili a es p oblem-sol ing o key buye pe sonas
a di e en jou ney s ages, and engages cus ome s by sha ing con en
ma ched o hei imely needs” (Te ho e al., 2022, p. 300).
In e ms o he consequences o B2B DCM, ex an esea ch ecognizes
he ole o DCM as a d i e o sales- ela ed ou comes, and b and and
cus ome ela ionships. Fo ins ance, by compa ing DCM e o s (i.e.,
digi al e en s and digi al websi e con en ) wi h in-pe son e en s, Wang
e al. (2019) ound ha DCM e o s a e a mo e e ec i e means o ac-
qui e sales leads. Taiminen and Ranawee a (2019) ook a ela ional
app oach and iden i ied se e al help ul b and ac ions in a B2B se ing
ha os e b and engagemen , ela ionship alue pe cep ions, and b and
us .
In he con ex o social media, se e al s udies ha e in es iga ed
a ious B2B con en cha ac e is ics (e.g., linguis ic s yles, message ea-
u es, and appeals) and hei e ec s on con en engagemen (e.g., likes,
commen s, sha es/ e wee s) on social ne wo king se ices (see, e.g.,
Cheng, Liu, Qi, & Wan, 2021; Deng e al., 2021; McShane, Pance , &
Poole, 2019; Mei e e al., 2022). This esea ch has p ima ily applied
con en analysis echniques in o de o analyze engagemen , and he
s udied con ex s include Twi e (cu en ly known as X), Facebook, and
LinkedIn (see, e.g., Deng e al., 2021; Jun unen e al., 2021; Mei e e al.,
2022; c . Co ez e al., 2023).
These s udies ha e ad anced ou knowledge o he cha ac e is ics o
engaging B2B social media con en . Fo ins ance, in compa ison o
business- o-cus ome (B2C) i ms, B2B i ms (1) a e mo e p one o using
co po a e b and names, (2) employ mo e unc ional appeals and less
emo ional appeals in social media con en , and (3) embed links and
o he cues o addi ional in o ma ion sea ch, bu (4) a ely use di ec
calls o pu chase o o he ha d selling app oaches (Swani, B own, &
Milne, 2014; Swani, Milne, B own, Assa , & Don hu, 2017; Zhang & Du,
2020).
A he same ime, ex an s udies based on con en analyses and
isible engagemen me ics a e limi ed in h ee impo an ways. Fi s ,
hese s udies canno con ol who is exposed o con en , which means
ha he engaged use s may include, o example, employees, in es o s,
and e en he gene al public. The e o e, he esul s canno be speci ically
ied o B2B buye s. Second, since he engagemen me ics a e based on
agg ega ed da a, he con en analyses a e unable o explain how
indi idual-le el di e ences in luence engagemen wi h i m-gene a ed
con en . This is p oblema ic since we know ha B2B buying is in lu-
enced by he ac ions and opinions o mul iple buying pe sonas wi h
a ying needs and p e e ences a di e en s ages in he cus ome
jou ney (see, e.g., Te ho e al., 2022). Thi d, since he indings de i ed
om con en analyses a e limi ed o isible con en engagemen me ics
(i.e., likes, commen s, sha es/ e wee s), i is di icul o de e mine
whe he con en engagemen a ec s i m-le el ou comes (c . Co ez
e al., 2023). Thus, we do no know i con en engagemen on social
media leads o posi i e i m-le el ou comes, such as, imp o ed b and
a i udes o pu chasing decisions (John, Em ich, Gup a, & No on,
2017).
To sum up, he B2B DCM li e a u e widely pe cei es cus ome
engagemen as he p ima y goal o DCM e o s, which a e conside ed o
ul ima ely lead o posi i e business ou comes, such as imp o ed sales,
b and, and cus ome - ela ionship pe o mance (Co ez e al., 2023;
Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Holliman & Rowley, 2014; Sunds ¨
om, Alm,
La sson, & Dahlin, 2021; Te ho e al., 2022). Howe e , mos quan i a-
i e esea ch on B2B DCM has so a ocused on ac o s ha d i e con en
engagemen (e.g., likes, commen s, sha es, and e wee s; see, e.g., Mei e
e al., 2022) on social media pla o ms (mainly Twi e and Facebook),
while he ela ionship be ween con en engagemen and i m-le el
ou comes emains la gely unexplo ed. Fu he mo e, despi e he e o s
o c ea e con en ypologies ha a e p oposed o sui di e en s ages o
he cus ome jou ney (Te ho e al., 2022), we a e no awa e o any
s udies ha ha e empi ically examined cus ome pe cep ions ega ding
he i o di e en con en ypes o a ious s ages o he B2B cus ome
jou ney, no a e we awa e o any s udies on he e ec s ha hese pe -
cep ions o i ha e on he ou comes pu sued by he selle .
2.2. Rele an B2B con en ypes
Shahbaznezhad, Dolan, and Rashidi ad (2021) a gued ha engaging
con en can be di ided in o h ee majo ca ego ies: a ional, ans-
ac ional, and in e ac ional con en . Ra ional con en p o ides esou ce ul
and help ul in o ma ion, while ansac ional con en p o ides di ec
encou agemen owa ds a sale ( o ins ance, h ough a new p oduc o
se ice announcemen o h ough o e ing online coupons, discoun s,
and con es s). In e ac ional con en emphasizes expe ien ial, emo ional,
and ela ionship-building ypes o con en ha add ess he cus ome ’s
desi e o in eg a ion and social bene i s.
As o he speci ic ypes o con en o be sha ed in di e en s ages o
he cus ome jou ney in o de o gene a e engagemen , p io esea ch
p o ides only limi ed guidance (see Te ho e al., 2022 o an excep ion).
We build on he b oad ca ego iza ion p oposed by Shahbaznezhad e al.
(2021) and ocus on h ee speci ic ypes o con en ha a e expec ed o
be ele an in a B2B se ing: educa ional con en ( a ional con en ),
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
14
p oduc - ela ed con en ( ansac ional con en ), and cause- ela ed con-
en (in e ac ional con en ). This ocus is aligned wi h Co ez e al.
(2023) who ound ha mos sha ed pos s in B2B se ings can be di ided
in o h ee main ca ego ies: echnical pos s (e.g., pos s ha ocus on new
indus y ends and echnologies), sales pos s (e.g., pos s launching a
new o e ing), and social pos s (e.g., pos s suppo ing a cha i y).
2.2.1. Educa ional con en
Educa ional con en cap u es he idea o Te ho e al. (2022) who
highligh ed he impo ance o hough -p o oking con en ha is aimed
a helping cus ome s o ame hei business p oblems in he ea ly s ages
o he pu chase jou ney. Such con en le e ages he p o ide ’s knowl-
edge o eme ging echnologies and he changing needs o he ma ke
(Co ez e al., 2023). As such, his ype o con en does no make a di ec
connec ion o he selle ’s o e ing; ins ead, i is designed o enhance he
cus ome ’s pe cep ion o us in he i m’s compe ences. The p o ision
o educa ional con en is in line wi h obse ed changes in B2B buying
beha io whe eby he ole o selle s is o inc easingly acili a e
cus ome -d i en p oblem-sol ing p ocesses (Ahea ne, A e i, Lam, &
Pou masoudi, 2022). Examples o educa ional con en include whi e
pape s o educa ional webina s.
2.2.2. P oduc - ela ed con en
Unlike educa ional con en , which is ocused on he cus ome ’s
p oblem, p oduc - ela ed con en has clea p omo ional quali ies. I
p o ides cus ome s wi h p oduc - ela ed in o ma ion ha can help he
cus ome o selec he igh solu ion o hei needs. While Ta esse
(2015) did no ind a clea link be ween p oduc - ela ed con en and
cus ome engagemen in a B2C con ex , we expec ha B2B buye s
app ecia e in o ma ion ha allows hem o unde s and an o e ing’s
speci ica ions and make compa isons. Conc e e examples o p oduc -
ela ed con en (which is aligned wi h wha Co ez e al., 2023 e m
sales pos s), include con en on new p oduc /se ice ea u es, new o
upda ed ma ke ing channels, new o upda ed p icing (e.g., discoun s),
alue p oposi ions, and cus ome assessmen s/ e e als.
2.2.3. Cause- ela ed con en
T adi ionally, a ional ac o s (such as p ice, deli e y e ms, and
echnical quali y) ha e been ecognized as impo an ac o s ha d i e
decision-making in B2B ma ke s, aking p ecedence o e he cogni i e
and emo ional ac o s ypical o B2C ma ke s. Howe e , non-economic
ac o s, including social connec edness (Webe , 2008), a e addi ion-
ally an impo an means o cus ome s o assess hei willingness o en e
and main ain ela ionships wi h supplie s (Han & Lee, 2021).
This shi has implied a g owing ocus on disc e iona y o ms o
co po a e social esponsibili y (Ca oll & Shabana, 2010) whe eby i ms
inc easingly embed awa eness o social and poli ical causes in o he
i ms’ ma ke ing communica ions o encou age beha io al and socio-
poli ical change (Ba one, Miyazaki, & Taylo , 2000; Moo man, 2020;
V edenbu g, Kapi an, Sp y, & Kempe , 2020), hus ex ending he each
o hei CSR ac i i ies beyond legal and e hical equi emen s (God ey
e al., 2009). Cause- ela ed con en does no di ec ly help o ame he
cus ome ’s p oblem, no does i p o ide in o ma ion abou he selle ’s
o e ing. Howe e , i p o ides cus ome s wi h in o ma ion abou he
p o ide ’s alues and beha io al disposi ions. Examples o such con en
include a ocus on suppo ing a cha i y o aising awa eness o an
impo an social cause.
2.3. Engaging cus ome s wi h imely con en
In e ac ion wi h social media con en is ypically e e ed o as
con en engagemen . The mo e cus ome s in e ac wi h he i m’s con en ,
he highe he le el o he cus ome engagemen ha is c ea ed (Kuma
& Pansa i, 2016; Mal house, Haenlein, Skie a, Wege, & Zhang, 2013).
The p ocess o de eloping social media ma ke ing s a egies begins wi h
unde s anding he i m’s social media ma ke ing objec i es and he
cus ome ’s social media use mo i a ions (Li, La imo, & Leonidou, 2021).
This unde s anding hen o ms he basis o deciding he ype o con en
ha is sha ed and he choice o app op ia e channels (Ancillai, Te ho,
Ca dinali, & Pascucci, 2019; Leek, Hough on, & Canning, 2019; Yagh in,
Sa a zadeh, & Ka imi Zand, 2020).
DCM schola s (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; J¨
a inen & Taiminen,
2016; Te ho e al., 2022; Wall & Spinuzzi, 2018) and p ac i ione s (see,
e.g., Lin, 2015; Polewa czyk, 2021; Rise ba o, 2021; AICon en y, 2023)
alike emphasize ha ha ing aluable con en is no enough i i is no
deli e ed in a imely manne . Fu he , imeliness c i ically ela es o he
abili y o ma ch ele an con en o he cus ome ’s use needs a di e en
jou ney s ages (Te ho e al., 2022).
To acili a e imely con en deli e y, i ms ha e inc easingly in es-
ed in ma ke ing au oma ion echnologies in o de o sequen ially a ge
i m-gene a ed con en a gene ic buye pe sona p o iles in di e en
s ages o he cus ome jou ney (Te ho e al., 2022; Te ho e al., 2023).
Consequen ly, mul iple p io DCM s udies in es iga e he ole o ech-
nologies in suppo ing con en ma ke ing e o s along he B2B cus-
ome s’ pu chasing p ocess. Fo example, J¨
a inen and Taiminen (2016)
showcased he ole o ma ke ing au oma ion in pe sonalizing digi al
con en deli e y o cus ome needs a di e en phases o he B2B sales
unnel. Simila ly, Me o, Leinonen, Makkonen, and Ka jaluo o (2022)
discussed he syne gis ic oles o con en ma ke ing and ma ke ing
au oma ion so wa e in suppo ing he sales lead managemen p ocess.
P e-designed con en au oma ion sequences e lec models based on
he hie a chy o e ec s, such as he A en ion–In e es –Desi e–Ac ion
(AIDA) o Reach–Ac –Con e –Engage (RACE) models, which ha e been
widely applied in B2B con ex s (see, e.g., Lich en hal, Yada , & Don hu,
2006; Cha ey & Pa on, 2012; Casidy, Nyadzayo, Mohan, & B own,
2018). These models assume ha cus ome s ha e di e en in o ma-
ional needs a di e en s ages o he pu chasing p ocess and ha i ms
can shape cus ome jou neys by designing a s eamlined and compelling
sequence o con en ha nudges cus ome s o business building ou -
comes (Edelman & Singe , 2015; Te ho e al., 2022). Fo ins ance,
hough -p o oking con en is gene ally hough o i he p e-pu chase
phase and p oduc - ocused con en is hough o i he pu chase
phase (Te ho e al., 2023).
As opposed o he e ec -o ien ed esea ch adi ions ha adop he
communica o ’s iew, in his s udy we ely on he uses and g a i ica ions
(U&G) amewo k, which ocuses on he iewpoin o he cus ome
(Ai ken, G ay, & Lawson, 2008) and has been u ilized o unde s and
social media engagemen beha io (Dolan, Condui , Fahy, & Goodman,
2016; Li e al., 2021; Maslowska, Mal house, & Collinge , 2016; Mun-
inga, Moo man, & Smi , 2011; Rohm, Kal che a, & Milne, 2013). Ac-
co ding o he U&G amewo k, social media engagemen beha io is
d i en by he g a i ica ion o social media use mo i a ions.
In e p e ed h ough he lens o he U&G amewo k, he p o ision o
educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and cause- ela ed con en is a po en ial
means o ul illing he di e en g a i ica ion needs o cus ome s. The
ype o con en ha is app ecia ed by cus ome s in di e en s ages o he
cus ome jou ney depends on he cus ome in ques ion since use mo i-
a ions a e subjec i ely de e mined (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2013). Howe e ,
i he selle can p o ide con en ha mee s he cus ome ’s indi idual use
g a i ica ions— o ins ance, by applying sophis ica ed beha io al a -
ge ing (Up e i e al., 2021; Zhang & Li, 2019)— his should lead o highe
con en engagemen . We hus hypo hesize as ollows:
H1. I he cus ome is exposed o educa ional con en (H
1a
), p oduc -
ela ed con en (H
1b
), and cause- ela ed con en (H
1c
) when he
cus ome pe cei es i as i ing a pa icula jou ney s age, his hen leads
o highe le els o con en engagemen .
A key goal o he selle in sha ing imely and ele an con en ha i s
he cus ome ’s si ua ion is o ac i a e and acili a e he buying p ocess
(Agniho i, Dingus, Hu, & K ush, 2016; Agniho i, Ko handa aman,
Kashyap, & Singh, 2012; Co ez e al., 2023; Zinke ich & Ghekie e,
2019). A di ec link be ween DCM and sales pe o mance is di icul o
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
15
demons a e in B2B due o he complex na u e o B2B buying (Co ez
e al., 2023; Lilien, 2016). Howe e , lead sco ing models p e alen ly
used in i ms igge he ini ia ion o ace- o- ace sales ac i i ies as a
consequence o cus ome s’ consump ion o social media con en (Ca -
w igh , Liu, & Radda s, 2021; Ianko a, Da ies, A che -B own, Ma de ,
& Yau, 2019; Te ho e al., 2022).
The lead sco ing model’s logic o he cus ome ’s social media con-
sump ion being a igge o sales o ce engagemen can be in e p e ed
h ough ad e isemen p ocessing beha io , which ocuses on he links
be ween a i udes and beha io s ha eme ge h ough cogni i e and
a ec i e p ocesses (K is o e son & Dunn, 2023; Shimp, 1981). Placed
in he con ex o DCM, high con en ele ancy should lead o highe
cus ome engagemen wi h he con en , which u he esul s in posi i e
beha io al ou comes h ough he eme gence o posi i e cus ome a i-
udes owa ds bo h he con en and he associa ed b and. We hus hy-
po hesize as ollows:
H2. The highe he le el o engagemen wi h educa ional con en
(H
2a
), p oduc - ela ed con en (H
2b
), and cause- ela ed con en (H
2c
),
he highe he le el o cus ome engagemen wi h he selling i m.
and:
H3. The e ec o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e on
cus ome engagemen wi h he selling i m is media ed h ough con en
engagemen .
A he same ime, i is o be expec ed ha he abo e-men ioned dy-
namics will be a ec ed by cus ome -speci ic con ingencies. B2B buye s
who use social media equen ly ha e been ound o display g ea e
con idence in and com o wi h hei decisions (Schaub, 2014) due o he
in o ma ion bene i s ha acc ue om he consump ion o social media
in a p o essional se ing (Schmid , Lelchook, & Ma in, 2016). Howe e ,
expe ience wi h social media (including p i a e usage) and he e-
quency o use (Dwi edi, Ismagilo a, Rana, & Raman, 2021; Guesalaga,
2016; Kein¨
anen & Kui alainen, 2015) bo h in luence how cus ome s
de i e in o ma ion bene i s om he use o social media. We hus expec
ha buye s who egula ly use social media o inding in o ma ion abou
b ands and p oduc s ha e s onge p e e ences as o which ypes o
social media con en i a gi en si ua ion. I he o med p e e ence
ma ches he displayed con en , engagemen wi h he con en should be
highe . We hus hypo hesize as ollows:
H4. The buye ’s social media usage mode a es he posi i e impac o
he pe cei ed jou ney i o con en exposu e on con en engagemen so
ha he impac o he cus ome -jou ney i o con en exposu e is
s onge o hose buye s wi h high social media usage han i is o hose
wi h lowe social media usage.
Acco ding o Gus a son, Pomi leanu, Ma iadoss, and Johnson
(2021), consump ion o social media con en empowe s B2B buying uni
membe s o iden i y needs and solu ions accu a ely h ough he
simul aneous p o ision o mul iple in o ma ion cues. I he na u e o he
buying si ua ion equi es inpu om mo e senio -le el s a , hey may
engage wi h selle -gene a ed con en o ga he in o ma ion ha guides
hei decision-making. Howe e , eaching ou o salespe sons s ill
p e alen ly alls wi hin he esponsibili y o buying-cen e posi ions
s a ed by pe sonnel occupying lowe hie a chical posi ions (Diba, Vella,
& Ab a , 2019). We hus hypo hesize as ollows:
H5. The ela ionship be ween con en engagemen and i m engage-
men is mode a ed by he buye ’s o ganiza ional posi ion so ha a
highe posi ion dec eases he e ec o con en engagemen on i m
engagemen .
The esea ch model o be es ed is p esen ed in Fig. 1. The p oposed
model does no seek o es wha is engaging con en in B2B in a gene al
sense. Ins ead, we expose cus ome s o a ange o con en ypes
(educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and cause- ela ed con en ) o he pu -
pose o es ing he e ec s o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o he con-
en exposu e on cus ome engagemen wi h he con en and he selling
i m.
Consis en wi h he concep ualiza ion o Lemon and Ve hoe (2016),
he cus ome jou ney is di ided in o h ee s ages: he p e-pu chase,
pu chase, and pos -pu chase phase. In he p e-pu chase phase, he
needs o he cus ome a e de ined. In he pu chase phase, he cus ome
engages in beha io such as making a choice, o de ing, and paying. In
he pos -pu chase phase, he cus ome in e ac s wi h he b and and i s
en i onmen ollowing he pu chase. Consis en wi h he U&G ame-
wo k (Ai ken e al., 2008), we assume ha he ype o con en ha is
app ecia ed by cus ome s in di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney
depends on he cus ome in ques ion, whe eby i is impo an o examine
he pe cei ed cus ome jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e and i s
e ec s on engagemen .
3. Me hodology
3.1. Resea ch design
An online scena io-based expe imen me hod was selec ed due o i s
high in e nal alidi y in es ing causal ela ionships in a con olled
manne (Aguinis & B adley, 2014; Salonen, Zimme , & Ke ¨
anen, 2021).
In addi ion, a wi hin-subjec design was chosen o s eng hen he
ex e nal alidi y o he s udy, as exposing esponden s o se e al s imuli
be e app oxima es eal-li e decision-making si ua ions (Cha ness,
Gneezy, & Kuhn, 2012).
The o e all scena io was a ic i ious pu chasing si ua ion in which
he esponden s we e exposed o he con en sha ed by an exis ing
Finnish company, Vainu, a p o ide o da a-d i en CRM and sales so-
lu ions. We chose a eal-li e company o inc ease ealism. Vainu was
chosen because i p oduces di e en ypes o con en ha aim o engage
cus ome s in di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney; i s ma ke ing and
Fig. 1. The esea ch model.
A. Salonen e al.

Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
16
sales p ocess sui he designed scena ios; and because we we e looking
o a i m ha ope a es globally bu is ela i ely unknown in o de o
educe he biases ha exis ing b and a i udes migh cause.
Wi hin his scena io, h ee sho igne es we e used o explain he
s ages o he cus ome jou ney (p e-pu chase, pu chase, and pos -
pu chase s ages) o he pa icipan s. We c ea ed mock-up e sions o
Vainu’s exis ing social media con en ha ep esen ed he h ee con en
ypes: educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and cause- ela ed con en (Appen-
dix 2).
Following he scheme shown in Table 1, he h ee social media pos
ypes we e sys ema ically assigned o he h ee igne es ha desc ibe
he di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney, esul ing in six expe i-
men al condi ions. The esponden s we e alloca ed andomly o one o
six expe imen al condi ions, which p esen ed h ee di e en social
media pos ypes (educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and cause- ela ed pos s)
in pe mu ed sequences (see Table 1).
3.2. Measu es
The su ey con ained wo dependen a iables: con en engagemen
and i m engagemen . In e ms o con en engagemen , much o he
ex an digi al con en ma ke ing esea ch applies con en analysis as a
me hodological app oach. Thus, social media con en engagemen is
ypically measu ed h ough eac ions o he pos (e.g., people like, lo e,
o celeb a e a pos ), clicks, commen s, and sha es, wi h combined coun s
o such me ics being used o o m he con en engagemen a iable
(Co ez e al., 2023; Viei a, de Almeida, Agniho i, & A unachalam,
2019). Ra he han asking he esponden s an exhaus i e se o “ eac-
ion” ques ions, we asked hem o indica e hei likelihood o “liking” o
“sha ing” he pos . We addi ionally asked: “How likely a e you o ac
upon his pos ?” and “How likely a e you o conside he displayed pos
as ele an ?” Fi m engagemen was measu ed wi h one i em: “I you
we e con ac ed by a sales ep esen a i e om Vainu, how likely would
you be o ag ee o a sales mee ing?” All i ems we e measu ed on a 1- o-7
a ing scale wi h a slide unc ion, allowing one o selec be ween 1 =
ex emely unlikely and 7 =ex emely likely wi h one decimal accu acy.
The independen a iable was ope a ionalized as he pe cei ed i o
he p esen ed and p e e ed con en ype o each cus ome -jou ney
s age. P io o conduc ing he expe imen , we had no way o knowing
he p e e ences o he esponden s. Howe e , ollowing he expe imen ,
he esponden s we e eques ed o indica e he cus ome -jou ney s age
( he p e-pu chase, pu chase, o pos -pu chase s age) ha each o he
p esen ed con en ypes i he bes (E =educa ional con en , P =
p oduc - ela ed con en , and C =cause- ela ed con en ). We hen
c ea ed a dicho omous scale (0 =no i , 1 = i ) depending on whe he
he esponden s we e exposed o each con en ype a hei p e e ed
jou ney s age o no (Fig. 2). This hen allowed us o examine he e ec
o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e on con en and
i m engagemen .
Po en ial mode a ing a iables included social media usage and job
posi ion. The esponden s’ social media usage was measu ed by he
ex en o which he esponden used social media o ind in o ma ion
ela ed o b ands and p oduc s (1 =s ongly disag ee, 7 =s ongly ag ee).
Job posi ion was measu ed by asking he esponden s o indica e hei
hie a chical posi ion in he o ganiza ion, which was eco ded as 0 =
i s -le el managemen o lowe and 1 =middle-managemen o op-
le el managemen . Fu he mo e, analysis esul s we e con olled wi h
wo co a ia es: b and amilia i y and he esponden s’ ex en o
in ol emen in he pu chase p ocesses (=The numbe o oles (ad ising,
in luencing, deciding, execu ing, no ole) assumed du ing p ocu emen
p ocesses). To check whe he he expe imen al manipula ion wo ked as
in ended, he esponden s had o assess each p esen ed con en i em as
ei he “educa ional,” “p oduc ela ed,” o “cause ela ed” on a h ee-
i em scale.
3.3. Da a collec ion and sample
A p e es was conduc ed (126 usable esponses) be o e he main da a
collec ion in o de o es he manipula ions, app op ia eness o he
expe imen al condi ions, and ins uc ions. The esponden s o he p e-
es we e ec ui ed om MTu k. Following mino changes, we p o-
ceeded wi h he collec ion o he main da a. The da a o he main s udy
we e collec ed using he B2B online panel se ices o Qual ics. The
da ase consis s o 444 usable esponses. The esponden s we e ec ui ed
in he US and ecei ed compensa ion o hei pa icipa ion. All he
pa icipan s had o mee he ollowing sc eening c i e ia: each mus be a
expe o manage le el and wo k in pu chasing, sales, ma ke ing,
gene al managemen , o IT; each mus wo k o a i m wi h 10 o mo e
employees; each mus wo k in a o -p o i company; and each mus ha e
p o essional expe ience o a leas wo yea s. Addi ionally, we eques ed
a sample ha is as ep esen a i e as possible in e ms o i m size.
Since pa icipan s’ a en ion o he ins uc ions was c i ical o his
s udy, hey had o pass an a en ion check. Based on he p inciple o an
ins uc ional manipula ion check (Oppenheime , Mey is, & Da idenko,
2009), in he ins uc ion ex he esponden s we e di ec ed o click on a
uni e si y logo ins ead o he con inue bu on; i hey ailed o do his,
hey we e sc eened ou . In o al, 477 pe sons comple ed he su ey.
Table 1
The expe imen al condi ions.
Con en exposu e sequence
(P e-pu chase con en ➔➔ Pu chase con en ➔➔ Pos -pu chase
con en )
n (%)
Educa ional con en ➔ P oduc - ela ed con en ➔ Cause- ela ed con en 68 (15.3)
Educa ional con en ➔ Cause- ela ed con en ➔ P oduc - ela ed con en 74 /16.7)
P oduc - ela ed con en ➔ Educa ional con en ➔ Cause- ela ed con en 82 (18.5)
P oduc - ela ed con en ➔ Cause- ela ed con en ➔ Educa ional con en 65 (14.6)
Cause- ela ed con en ➔ Educa ional con en ➔ P oduc - ela ed con en 78 (17.6)
Cause- ela ed con en ➔ P oduc - ela ed con en ➔ Educa ional con en 77 (17.3)
To al 444 (100)
Fig. 2. Measu emen o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e.
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
17
Howe e , 33 esponden s we e emo ed due o missing answe s,
esul ing in a inal sample o 444 (n =444).
The pa icipan s had an a e age wo k expe ience o 10 yea s.
Twen y-six pe cen belonged o he op-le el managemen (CxO, p esi-
den ), 52% o he mid-le el managemen (e.g., depa men o di ision
manage ), and 19% we e i s -le el manage s (e.g., eam leade s). Th ee
pe cen o he pa icipan s had no immedia e subo dina es. In e ms o
buying-cen e oles, 31% o he esponden s gi e ad ice du ing he
pu chasing p ocesses, 45% in luence, 54% decide, and 42% execu e
(mul iple answe s we e possible). Se en pe cen we e no in ol ed in
pu chasing p ocesses.
3.4. Da a analysis
The da a was analyzed using SPSS e sion 28 and he PROCESS
mac o plugin o SPSS by Hayes (2018).
4. Resul s
4.1. Scale eliabili ies, manipula ion and plausibili y checks
The mul i-i em scales o he measu es o engagemen o he
espec i e con en ypes show consis en ly high C onbach’s alpha alues
(>0.9, see Appendix 3). We he e o e in e p e he scales as su icien in
e ms o cons uc eliabili y, so ha he scales could be used as in ended
wi hou ha ing o emo e i ems.
Since he co ec iden i ica ion o he con en ypes is cen al o he
s udy, we examined he expe imen al ea men s using manipula ion
checks. The educa ional pos was co ec ly assessed as educa ional in
70.3% o he cases, while 22.5% conside ed i as a p oduc - ela ed pos
and 7.2% as a cause- ela ed pos . The p oduc - ela ed pos was simila ly
co ec ly assessed as p oduc ela ed in mos o he cases (69.4%) and
signi ican ly ewe esponden s conside ed i o be an educa ional pos
(18%) o a cause- ela ed pos (12.6%). The cause- ela ed pos was
accu a ely assessed as cause ela ed in 80.2% o he cases, while 11.7%
conside ed i an educa ional pos and 8.1% a p oduc - ela ed pos . Chi-
squa e es s con i med ha esponses o he educa ional pos we e
signi ican ly di e en compa ed wi h p oduc - ela ed pos s (
χ
2
=336.4,
p <.001) and cause- ela ed pos s (
χ
2
=221.2, p <.001), and esponses
o he p oduc - ela ed pos di e ed om he esponses o he cause-
ela ed pos (
χ
2
=282.8, p <.001). In summa y, he expe imen al
manipula ion wo ked as in ended.
The esponden s we e also asked o assess he plausibili y o he
si ua ions hey encoun e ed in he su ey (“To wha ex en do he
a o emen ioned scena ios e lec ac ual decision-making si ua ions?”).
The a e age a ing o 5.6 on a 1–7 scale can be in e p e ed as an indi-
ca ion o high ans e abili y o eal-li e si ua ions, which s eng hens
he ex e nal alidi y o he s udy.
4.2. Pe cei ed i o con en exposu e
As p e iously desc ibed, he esponden s we e andomly alloca ed o
one o six expe imen al condi ions, which p esen ed h ee di e en
ypes o social media pos (educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and cause-
ela ed pos s) in pe mu ed sequences. We ound no di e ences be-
ween he s udied g oups in e ms o engagemen .
The esponden s we e hen asked o indica e which s age o he
pu chase jou ney each o he p esen ed con en s i he bes . As ex-
pec ed, he esponden s’ pe cep ions a ied signi ican ly (see Table 2).
Educa ional con en was mos o en conside ed o bes i he p e-
pu chase s age (45.3%), bu he pu chase s age (30.2%) was also o en
men ioned, while he pos -pu chase (18.7%) was conside ed he leas
i ing phase. Fo p oduc - ela ed con en , he pu chase s age (47.7%)
was seen as mos i ing, ollowed by he p e-pu chase phase (28.4%)
and pos -pu chase phase (18.0%). The i o cause- ela ed con en was
ela i ely equally dis ibu ed ac oss he h ee jou ney s ages wi h 28.4%
indica ing ha i i ed wi h he pu chase s age, 25.7% wi h he pos -
pu chase s age, and 24.1% wi h he p e-pu chase phase. Cause- ela ed
con en was also mos o en conside ed o ha e no clea i o any
s age (21.8%). These esul s indica e ha he e a e no clea single bes
solu ions as o which con en should be p esen ed a which s age o he
buying p ocess.
In p epa a ion o hypo hesis es ing, he indi idual p e e ences
desc ibed in Table 2 we e included in he analyses by c ea ing a
dicho omous a iable o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o con en
exposu e o each con en ype. This was done by ma ching whe he
esponden s we e exposed o each con en ype in he p e e ed pu chase
p ocess s age (0 =no i , 1 = i ). Ou o all he cases (see Table 3),
educa ional con en was mos o en seen in i s p e e ed jou ney s age
(38.5%), while 31.3% o esponden s saw p oduc - ela ed con en in he
p e e ed s age. Cause- ela ed con en was seen he leas o en in he
p e e ed pu chase p ocess s age (22.1%), e lec ing he esponden s’
unce ain y abou he bes s age o cause- ela ed con en .
4.3. Hypo heses es ing
The esul s o es ing he e ec o he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o
each con en ype’s exposu e on con en engagemen show ha p oduc -
ela ed con en (β =0.095, p <.05) and cause- ela ed con en (β =
0.111, p <.05) had a signi ican posi i e e ec (suppo ing H
1b
and H
1c
)
while no such e ec was de ec ed on educa ional con en (β =0.05, p >
.05; so H
1a
is ejec ed, see Table 4).
The esponden s’ engagemen wi h he h ee ypes o con en was
posi i ely associa ed wi h hei willingness o se a mee ing wi h he
company’s sales ep esen a i e (i.e., i m engagemen ). The e ec o
con en engagemen on i m engagemen di e ed conside ably be ween
he con en ypes. The engagemen wi h p oduc - ela ed con en had he
s onges e ec on i m engagemen (β =0.421, p <.001), ollowed by
educa ional con en (β =0.241, p <.001), while cause- ela ed con en
was he leas e ec i e (β =0.110, p <.05). The esul s hus suppo
hypo heses H
2a
, H
2b
, and H
2c
.
Fu he eg ession analyses show ha he pe cei ed cus ome
jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e has an o e all signi ican posi i e
o al e ec on i m engagemen (β =0.861, p <.001). Fu he mo e, his
e ec is ully media ed h ough con en engagemen as he indi ec e -
ec is signi ican (β =0.600, p <.001) while he di ec e ec is non-
signi ican (β = − 0.005, p >.05; so H
3
is suppo ed).
As hypo hesized in H
4
, a posi i e in e ac ion e ec o he pe cei ed
jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e and social media use on con en
engagemen was ound (β =0.330, p <.05), sugges ing ha he mo e
in ensi ely indi iduals use social media o in o ma ion e ie al abou
Table 2
The p e e ed cus ome jou ney s age i o each con en ype.
The p e e ed cus ome jou ney s age i o each con en ype, n (%)
Educa ional
con en
P oduc - ela ed
con en
Cause- ela ed
con en
P e-pu chase s age 201 (45.3) 126 (28.4) 107 (24.1)
Pu chase s age 134 (30.2) 212 (47.7) 126 (28.4)
Pos -pu chase s age 83 (18.7) 80 (18.0) 114 (25.7)
No clea i o any
s age
26 (5.9) 26 (5.9) 97 (21.8)
Table 3
The pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o he displayed con en .
Con en ype, n (%)
The jou ney-s age i o
he con en
Educa ional
con en
P oduc - ela ed
con en
Cause- ela ed
con en
No i 273 (61.5) 305 (68.7) 346 (77.9)
Fi 171 (38.5) 139 (31.3) 98 (22.1)
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
18
p oduc s and b ands, he s onge he e ec o he jou ney-s age i o
con en exposu e on con en engagemen . Fu he , he esponden ’s
o ganiza ional posi ion was also ound o mode a e he con en
engagemen and i m engagemen ela ionship (suppo ing H
5
). The
mode a ing e ec was nega i e (β = − 0.149, p <.05), sugges ing ha
con en engagemen among he esponden s in lowe o ganiza ional
posi ions led o a highe willingness o engage wi h he ad e ise ’s sales
ep esen a i e compa ed wi h he willingness ound among hose in
highe posi ions.
Since he ac ual exis ing company (Vainu) se ed as an example o
social media pos s, i could no be uled ou ha amilia i y wi h he
b and led o highe engagemen . In ac , b and amilia i y leads o a
signi ican ly highe con en engagemen (β =0.228, p <.001) bu no o
highe i m engagemen (β =.016, p >.05). As pe sons in ol ed in
pu chasing p ocesses may be expec ed o deal wi h o e s om supplying
companies, a highe le el o in ol emen in pu chasing p ocesses should
also lead o a gene ally highe le el o engagemen . Indeed, g ea e
in ol emen in buying p ocesses leads o bo h highe con en engage-
men (β =0.235, p <.001) and i m engagemen (β =0.132, p <.001).
5. Discussion and conclusions
Wi h his s udy, we pa icipa e in he ongoing discussion on DCM,
which has eme ged as a key ma ke ing communica ions pa adigm o
explain how i ms can engage cus ome s by sha ing con en ma ched o
hei imely needs (Hollebeek & Macky, 2019; Holliman & Rowley,
2014; J¨
a inen & Taiminen, 2016; Te ho e al., 2022).
The indings om ou s udy con i m ha , a he han me ely
a emp ing o unde s and wha is engaging con en , he ocus should be
inc easingly placed on unde s anding when o sha e i . In e ms o he
wha , we u ilized he b oad ca ego iza ion p oposed by Shahbaznezhad
e al. (2021) and ocused on h ee speci ic ypes o con en ha a e ex-
pec ed o be ele an in a B2B se ing: educa ional con en ( a ional
con en ), p oduc - ela ed con en ( ansac ional con en ), and cause-
ela ed con en (in e ac ional con en ). The esul s o his s udy show
ha all h ee ypes o con en gene a ed high le els o con en engage-
men (see Appendix 3). While he di e ences we e ela i ely small,
p oduc - ela ed con en was on a e age he mos engaging ype o
con en .
Mo e signi ican di e ences in engagemen only eme ged when we
added he imeliness dimension, which in he B2B con ex c i ically
ela es o he abili y o ma ch ele an con en o he cus ome ’s use
needs a di e en jou ney s ages (Holliman & Rowley, 2014; J¨
a inen &
Taiminen, 2016; Wall & Spinuzzi, 2018). The esul s o his s udy sug-
ges ha he e a e no uni e sally co ec sequences o p esen ing con-
en o cus ome s a di e en s ages o he pu chase jou ney in o de o
sys ema ically inc ease engagemen (c . Te ho e al., 2022). Ins ead, he
indings sugges ha he ypes o con en cus ome s p e e o see in
di e en jou ney s ages a ies widely be ween indi iduals.
I he selle has no way o knowing indi idual cus ome p e e ences,
i appea s ha , on a e age, p oduc - ela ed con en is mos o en
conside ed o i he pu chase phase (47.7%), while educa ional con en
is mos o en conside ed o bes i he p e-pu chase s age (45.3%). A
p e e ence o cause- ela ed con en was ela i ely equally dis ibu ed
ac oss he h ee jou ney s ages. This ype o con en does no di ec ly
help o ame he cus ome ’s p oblem, no does i p o ide in o ma ion
abou he selle ’s o e ing, bu i has been sugges ed as an impo an
means o cus ome s o assess hei willingness o en e and main ain
ela ionships wi h supplie s (Han & Lee, 2021). We in e p e his o
mean ha cause- ela ed con en se es he unc ion o a b anding ool
ha has no gene ic i o any jou ney s age. I may c ea e posi i e b and
a i udes o po en ial cus ome s and s eng hen exis ing b and
ela ionships.
In e es ingly, educa ional con en was he only con en ype o
which he pe cei ed cus ome jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e did
no a ec engagemen . This ype o con en is gea ed owa ds enabling
cus ome s o ame he business p oblems ha hey encoun e (Te ho
e al., 2022) and i enables cus ome s o unde s and indus y ends and
echnologies (Co ez e al., 2023). We in e p e his inding o mean ha
cus ome s ind educa ional con en o be engaging, e en i i is no
immedia ely use ul.
5.1. Theo e ical con ibu ions
The s udy makes h ee impo an con ibu ions o he li e a u e.
Fi s , o ou knowledge, his is he i s s udy o empi ically demons a e
ha p o iding imely con en d i es engagemen in business ma ke s.
This is an impo an addi ion o he ex an quan i a i ely o ien ed B2B
Table 4
The esul s o es ing he concep ual model.
IV DV β sig. R
2
Hypo hesis
Di ec e ec s on engagemen
EduFi EngEdu 0.05 1.05 >0.05 H
1a
: no suppo ed
P oduc Fi EngP od 0.095 2.01 <0.05 H
1b
: suppo ed
CauseFi EngCause 0.111 2.36 <0.05 H
1c
: suppo ed
EngEdu
Fi mEng
0.241 7.07 <0.001
0.647
H
2a
: suppo ed
EngP od 0.421 8.31 <0.001 H
2b
: suppo ed
EngCause 0.110 2.65 <0.01 H
2c
: suppo ed
Indi ec e ec β CIL/CIU R
2
Con Fi ➔Con Eng➔Fi mEng 0.600 0.38/0.82 0.636 H
3
: suppo ed
To al e ec β sig.
Con Fi Fi mEng 0.861 4.69 <0.001
Di ec e ec
Con Fi Fi mEng −0.005 −0.04 >0.05
Mode a ion e ec s β sig.
Con Fi x SoMeUse Con Eng 0.330 2.46 <0.05 H
4
: suppo ed
Con Eng x Posi ion Fi mEng −0.149 −2.08 <0.05 H
5
: suppo ed
Co a ia es β sig.
B and amilia i y Con Eng 0.228 8.36 <0.001
Pu chase in ol emen Con Eng 0.235 4.61 <0.001
B and amilia i y Fi mEng 0.016 0.77 >0.05
Pu chase in ol emen Fi mEng 0.132 3.47 <0.001
IV: independen a iable; DV: dependen a iable; CIL/CIU: con idence in e al lowe limi / con idence in e al uppe limi ; EduFi : he pe cei ed i o educa ional
con en ; P oduc Fi : he pe cei ed i o p oduc - ela ed con en ; CauseFi : he pe cei ed i o cause- ela ed con en ; EngEdu: engagemen wi h educa ional con en ;
EngP od: engagemen wi h p oduc - ela ed con en ; EngCause: engagemen wi h cause- ela ed con en ; Con Fi : he pe cei ed jou ney-s age i o con en exposu e;
Con Eng: con en engagemen ; Fi mEng: i m engagemen ; SoMeUse: use o social media o ge in o ma ion on b ands and p oduc s; Posi ion: he esponden ’s posi ion
in hei company.
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
19
DCM esea ch ha has used con en analysis echniques o elucida e he
d i e s (e.g., message ea u es, s yles, goals, and appeals) behind
gene ally engaging B2B con en (e.g., Co ez e al., 2023; Deng e al.,
2021; Jun unen e al., 2021; Mei e e al., 2022). The indings om ou
s udy sugges ha a he han me ely a emp ing o unde s and wha is
engaging con en , mo e ocus should be placed on unde s anding when
o sha e i . These indings hus unde line he impo ance o gene a ing
insigh s on he indi idual-le el needs and he beha io o di e en
membe s in he cus ome ’s decision-making uni wi h he help o no el
echnologies, such as machine lea ning. This hen o ms he basis o
designing and deli e ing he igh con en ypes o he igh indi iduals
a he igh s age o he pu chase jou ney h ough beha io al a ge ing
(J¨
a inen & Taiminen, 2016; Me o e al., 2022; Te ho e al., 2022;
Up e i e al., 2021; Zhang & Li, 2019).
Second, he demons a ed e ec o he pe cei ed cus ome jou ney-
s age i o con en exposu e on he cus ome ’s willingness o engage
wi h he selling i m highligh s he impo ance o DCM as a d i e o
sales pe o mance. Al hough he DCM li e a u e s ongly posi s b and o
i m engagemen as he p ima y goal o DCM (Hollebeek & Macky,
2019; Holliman & Rowley, 2014; J¨
a inen & Taiminen, 2016; Pe e son,
Malshe, F iend, & Do e , 2021; Te ho e al., 2022; Viei a e al., 2019),
he majo i y o ex an esea ch ocuses on an analysis o publicly
a ailable con en engagemen me ics, such as likes, commen s, sha es/
e wee s on social media pla o ms (see, e.g., Deng e al., 2021; McShane
e al., 2019; Mei e e al., 2022) wi hou demons a ing any link o i m-
le el pe o mance ou comes. In his espec , his is he i s s udy o
demons a e he posi i e e ec o DCM on i m engagemen in he o m
o a cus ome ’s willingness o ag ee o a sales mee ing. The inding
s eng hens he s udy by Wang e al. (2019) ha demons a ed he
posi i e e ec o DCM (compa ed wi h o line ma ke ing) on lead
acquisi ion.
Thi d, ou indings poin o he impo ance o unde s anding he ole
o mode a ing a iables in unde s anding he e ec i e applica ion o
DCM in B2B. Speci ically, he indings o his s udy poin o he impac o
wo mode a o s: he cus ome ’s social media use and posi ion in he
o ganiza ion. Cus ome s ha e di e en deg ees o expe ience wi h social
media (Dwi edi e al., 2021; Guesalaga, 2016; Kein¨
anen & Kui alainen,
2015). Also, he ole o social media in he knowledge-con e gence
p ocess in he buying uni a ies and is dependen on he buying si u-
a ion, on he numbe o membe s, and on hei in ol emen in he
knowledge-con e sion p ocess (Gus a son e al., 2021). These
mode a ing a iables in luence cus ome engagemen wi h selle -
ela ed con en and he ou comes o his engagemen .
5.2. Manage ial implica ions
We o e se e al c i ical insigh s o manage s in e es ed in de el-
oping hei DCM p ac ices. Fi s ly, his s udy inds ha in es men s in o
DCM can pay-o h ough posi i ely impac ing he ea ly s ages o he
sales p ocess. Mo e speci ically, we show ha he cus ome ’s con en
engagemen leads o a highe cus ome willingness o ini ia e ace- o-
ace dialogue wi h he selle . Fu he , in gene a ing engagemen , ime-
liness ma e s. Mo e speci ically, i he selle is able o sha e con en ha
mee s he cus ome ’s use needs a di e en jou ney s ages, his enhances
he cus ome ’s willingness o engage wi h he i m and he con en ha
i gene a es. Howe e , imeliness is no easy o achie e because cus-
ome s ha e su p isingly a ied opinions as o wha is conside ed imely
con en in he di e en s ages o he cus ome jou ney.
To de elop an e ec i e digi al con en dis ibu ion s a egy, we
ecommend ha manage s conside he esou ces and compe ences ha
hey ha e a hei disposal, which should hen guide he selec ion o an
app op ia e DCM app oach (see Fig. 3).
The simples app oach o implemen is he baseline DCM app oach,
which implies c ea ing and sha ing con en ha is gene ally engaging in
B2B ma ke s. Such con en s can be educa ional, p oduc - ela ed, and
cause- ela ed. I he le el o cus ome knowledge, con en p oduc ion
esou ces, and echnological compe ence a e skim, we ecommend
manage s o selec his app oach since he implemen a ion does no
equi e in elligence o cus ome needs a di e en jou ney s ages o
signi ican esou ces o c ea e and dis ibu e a b oad con en po olio o
add ess hese needs. A he same ime, he baseline DCM app oach is
unlikely o be as e ec i e in gene a ing engagemen as mo e a ge ed
app oaches.
To imp o e cus ome con en engagemen , he imely DCM app oach
add esses an indi idual cus ome ’s si ua ional con en needs. Howe e ,
imely DCM equi es in es men in o sophis ica ed echnologies and
capabili ies o allow a) indi idual-le el moni o ing o con en engage-
men and b) ine-g ained beha io al a ge ing o i m-gene a ed con en .
The ine-g ained beha io al a ge ing o i m-gene a ed con en is
needed o imp o e he ocal i m’s abili y o a ge con en based on he
cus ome ’s idiosync a ic use needs a di e en jou ney s ages. Such
ea u es exis in con en ional ule-based au oma ion echnologies (see e.
Fig. 3. Selec ion o app op ia e digi al con en ma ke ing app oach.
A. Salonen e al.
Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen 118 (2024) 12–26
26
Shahbaznezhad, H., Dolan, R., & Rashidi ad, M. (2021). The ole o social media con en
o ma and pla o m in use s’ engagemen beha io . Jou nal o In e ac i e Ma ke ing,
53, 47–65.
Shimp, T. A. (1981). A i ude owa d he ad as a media o o consume b and choice.
Jou nal o Ad e ising, 10(2), 9–48.
Sunds ¨
om, M., Alm, K. H., La sson, N., & Dahlin, O. (2021). B2B social media con en :
Engagemen on LinkedIn. The Jou nal o Business and Indus ial Ma ke ing, 36(3),
454–468.
Swani, K., B own, B. P., & Milne, G. R. (2014). Should wee s di e o B2B and B2C? An
analysis o o une 500 companies’ Twi e communica ions. Indus ial Ma ke ing
Managemen , 43(5), 873–881.
Swani, K., Milne, G. R., B own, B. P., Assa , A. G., & Don hu, N. (2017). Wha messages o
pos ? E alua ing he popula i y o social media communica ions in business e sus
consume ma ke s. Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 62, 77–87.
Ta esse, W. (2015). Con en s a egies and audience esponse on Facebook b and pages.
Ma ke ing In elligence and Planning, 33(6), 927–943.
Taiminen, K., & Ranawee a, C. (2019). Fos e ing b and engagemen and alue-laden
us ed B2B ela ionships h ough digi al con en ma ke ing: The ole o b and’s
help ulness. Eu opean Jou nal o Ma ke ing, 53(9), 1759–1781.
Te ho, H., Me o, J., Siu la, L., & Jaakkola, E. (2022). Digi al con en ma ke ing in
business ma ke s: Ac i i ies, consequences, and con ingencies along he cus ome
jou ney. Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 105, 294–310.
Te ho, H., Salonen, A., & Y j¨
anen, M. (2023). Towa ds a con ex ualized unde s anding o
inside sales: The ole o sales de elopmen in e ec i e lead unnel managemen .
Jou nal o Business & Indus ial Ma ke ing, 38(2), 337–352.
Up e i, B. R., Huh ala, J. P., Tikkanen, H., Malo, P., Ma as i, N., Kaski, S., … Ma ila, P.
(2021). Online con en ma ch-making in B2B ma ke s: Applica ion o neu al con en
modeling. Indus ial Ma ke ing Managemen , 93, 32–40.
Viei a, V. A., de Almeida, M. I. S., Agniho i, R., & A unachalam, S. (2019). In pu sui o
an e ec i e B2B digi al ma ke ing s a egy in an eme ging ma ke . Jou nal o he
Academy o Ma ke ing Science, 47(6), 1085–1108.
V edenbu g, J., Kapi an, S., Sp y, A., & Kempe , J. A. (2020). B ands aking a s and:
Au hen ic b and ac i ism o woke washing? Jou nal o Public Policy & Ma ke ing, 39
(4), 444–460.
Wahid, R., Me o, J., & Ri ala, P. (2023). W i en by Cha GPT, illus a ed by Midjou ney:
Gene a i e AI o con en ma ke ing. Asia Paci ic Jou nal o Ma ke ing and Logis ics,
35(8), 1813–1822.
Wall, A., & Spinuzzi, C. (2018). The a o selling-wi hou -selling: Unde s anding he
gen e ecologies o con en ma ke ing. Technical Communica ion Qua e ly, 27(2),
137–160.
Wang, W. L., Mal house, E. C., Calde , B., & Uzunoglu, E. (2019). B2B con en ma ke ing
o p o essional se ices: In-pe son e sus digi al con ac s. Indus ial Ma ke ing
Managemen , 81, 160–168.
Webe , M. (2008). The business case o co po a e social esponsibili y: A company-le el
measu emen app oach o CSR. Eu opean Managemen Jou nal, 26(4), 247–261.
Yagh in, S., & Me o, J. (2024). Augmen ing machine lea ning wi h human insigh s: The
model de elopmen o B2B pe sonaliza ion. Jou nal o Business & Indus ial
Ma ke ing. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/JBIM-02-2023-0073 (ahead-o -p in ).
Yagh in, S., Sa a zadeh, H., & Ka imi Zand, M. (2020). Planning a goal-o ien ed B2B
con en ma ke ing s a egy. Ma ke ing In elligence and Planning, 38(7), 1007–1020.
Zhang, C. B., & Li, Y. (2019). How social media usage in luences B2B cus ome loyal y:
Roles o us and pu chase isk. The Jou nal o Business and Indus ial Ma ke ing, 7,
1420–1433.
Zhang, J., & Du, M. (2020). U iliza ion and e ec i eness o social media message
s a egy: How B2B b ands di e om B2C b ands. The Jou nal o Business and
Indus ial Ma ke ing, 35(4), 721–740.
Zinke ich, A., & Ghekie e, R. (2019). B2B LinkedIn con en ma ke ing. Middle own, DE:
B2B Ma ke ing and Founde s Communi y.
A. Salonen e al.