Paper type Research paper1. IntroductionOne of the biggest challenges facing marketing managers today is the lack ofcredibility in the boardroom, with 73 percent of CEOs reporting a lack of trust inthe marketing department’s ability to generate sales and increase customer conversion,demand and market share (The Fournaise Marketing Group, 2011). In recent yearshowever, there is broad agreement among corporate marketers and marketingresearchers that utilizing data to drive marketing decisions can help change theperception of marketing from a cost center to a value generating center. In fact, a recentstudy conducted by Columbia Business School and the New York American MarketingAssociation found that 91 percent of marketing leaders and 100 percent of chiefmarketing officers (CMOs) believe that in order to be successful, brands need to makedata-driven marketing decisions (Rogers and Sexton, 2012). Despite the overwhelmingdesire to be data-driven, according to the above study, 29 percent of marketing leadersreport that they have little or no customer data to implement this desire. Among thoseThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.
com/1757-5818.htmReceived 5 November 2012Revised 10 January 2013Accepted 30 January 2013Journal of Service ManagementVol. 24 No. 3, 2013pp. 330-352q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1757-5818DOI 10.1108/09564231311327021JOSM24,3330that are collecting large volumes of data, 39 percent report that they are unable toconvert their data into actionable insights.
The explosion of data from various digital sources such as e-mail marketing, onlinecontent (web sites, podcasts, blogs), social networks (Facebook, Twitter), and internet andmobile ads has added to this challenge for marketers (Larivie`re et al., 2013). In the lastdecade, the use of neurophysiological data to measure marketing ROI and brand equity hasemerged as another paradigm shift in data-driven marketing, with neuroscience data beingincreasingly referred to as the new “scanner” data (Venkatraman et al., 2012). As a result,there has been an increasing trend in the number of neuromarketing companies offeringproprietary neurophysiological toolkits and traditional market research firms entering thisspace with companies such as Nielsen Research investing in NeuroFocus (Well, 2010).
The profusion of these different data sources has made it difficult to identify whichsources matter, how to integrate the different data sources and identify which insights theycan each be used for (Olafsson et al., 2008). According to the 2012 study among corporatemarketers (Rogers and Sexton, 2012), 77 percent reported that effectively combining theirtraditional and digital marketing is a critical business objective due the challenge faced inintegrating channel-specific metrics such as the number of Facebook “likes” with moreuniversal metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs).
Further, although marketersunderstand the importance of basing their marketing budget on ROI analysis, 57 percent ofthose surveyed were not doing so and 37 percent indicate using “brand awareness” as auniversal metric to measure marketing ROI. Additionally, only 14 percent of the companiesthat use social media marketing are evaluating these efforts with forward-looking metricssuch as customer lifetime value (CLV) (Rogers and Sexton, 2012). As with digital data, theintegration of neurophysiological and traditional data is a key challenge for firms. A panelof practitioners agreed that adopting a multisource approach offered by the triangulationof neurophysiological and traditional data is important to understanding the “why” andthe “what” in marketing research, however, there was less agreement on how to integratethese sources of consumer insights (Dubois and Isaac, 2011).In response to these challenges, there are four key purposes to this paper:(1) link traditional and new sources of customer data and their metrics;(2) link data and metrics to strategic and tactical business insight