This study investigates the impact of repeat interaction effects between customers and the same front-line employees (FLEs) in service encounter cascades on customer satisfaction and sales-related outcomes. Using granular transaction data from a large international car rental company, we show repeated customer-interactions with the same FLE, at the beginning of transaction (i.e., car pick-up) as opposed to at the end of transaction (i.e., car return), lead to improved satisfaction and sales-related outcomes. Furthermore, we show the repeated interaction effects can partially offset a service failure's negative impact on customer recommendations of the car rental brand. The documented impact of repeated interactions suggests potential opportunity costs associated with the replacement of FLEs with new technologies, such as AI-powered smart kiosks or other self-service technologies. Our research also demonstrates that repeat interactions can be a passive recovery strategy from previous service operation failures. Finally, our research demonstrates the relative importance of different points of contact between customers and FLEs (i.e., car pick-up versus car return).

Many firms introduce both business-to-business service innovations (B2B-SIs) and business-to-consumer service innovations (B2C-SIs) and need to better allocate their resources. However, they are unsure about B2B-SIs’ effects on firm value or risk, especially relative to those of B2C-SIs. The authors address this problem by developing hypotheses that relate the number of B2B-SIs and B2C-SIs to firm value and firm risk together with the moderators (the number of product innovations and customer-focus innovations). To test the hypotheses, the authors develop and estimate a model using unique panel data of 2,263 SIs across 15 industries over eight years assembled from multiple data sources and controlling for firm- and market-specific factors, heterogeneity, and endogeneity. They analyze innovation announcements using natural language processing. The results show that B2B-SIs have a positive effect on firm value and an insignificant influence on firm risk. Importantly, the effect of a B2B-SI on firm value is significantly greater than that of a B2C-SI. Unlike B2C-SIs, the effect of B2B-SIs on firm value is greater when the firm has more product innovations. Surprisingly, unlike B2C-SIs, the effect of B2B-SIs on firm value is less positive when the SIs emphasize customers. These findings offer important insights about the relative value of B2B-SIs.

Both developed and developing economies worldwide are becoming increasingly services-driven. By some estimates, the value of business-to-business (B2B) commerce dwarfs that of business-to-consumer (B2C). In particular, firms competing in business markets are constantly seeking to introduce service innovations to improve firm value. Yet, there is a paucity of research on B2B service innovations (B2B-SIs) and not much is known about their effects on firm value or firm risk. Furthermore, it is important to better understand how these effects differ from those of business-to-consumer service innovations (B2C-SIs). We empirically address these issues by developing a modeling system that relates B2B and B2C service innovations to firm value and firm risk, while controlling for both firm- and market-specific factors. We estimate our model using a unique panel data of 1668 service innovations across 14 industries over five years assembled from multiple data sources. The results show that B2B-SIs have a positive effect on firm value and an insignificant influence on firm risk. In contrast, B2C-SIs are associated with higher firm risk. B2B-SIs (B2C-SIs) have a higher effect on firm value in B2B (B2C)-dominant industries. In industries with a mix of business customers and consumers, B2B-SIs have slightly higher impact on firm value than B2C-SIs. Our findings offer executives important insights about the relative value of B2B service innovations.

Service innovativeness, or the propensity to introduce service innovations to satisfy customers and improve firm value at acceptable risk, has become a critical organizational capability. Service innovations are enabled primarily by the Internet or people, corresponding to two types of innovativeness: e- and p-innovativeness. The authors examine the determinants of service innovativeness and its interrelationships with firm-level customer satisfaction, firm value, and firm risk and investigate the differences between e- and p-innovativeness in these relationships. They develop a conceptual model and estimate a system of equations on a unique panel data set of 1049 innovations over five years, using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and seemingly unrelated regression approaches. The results reveal important asymmetries between e- and p-innovativeness. Whereas e-innovativeness has a positive and significant direct effect on firm value, p-innovativeness has an overall significantly positive effect on firm value through its positive effect on customer satisfaction but only in human-dominated industries. Both e- and p-innovativeness are positively associated with idiosyncratic risk, but customer satisfaction partially mediates this relationship for p-innovativeness to lower this risk in human-dominated industries. The findings suggest that firms should nurture e-innovativeness in most industries and p-innovativeness in human-dominated industries.

While the promise of hybrid offerings is great, it's easy to get them wrong. Here's how to decipher which products and services work best together and offer the most upside.

La mayoria de las firmas estan tratando de combinar productos y servicios en ofertas innovadoras como un esfuerzo por aumentar los ingresos y utilidades y equilibrar los flujos de caja. Estas soluciones hibridas pueden ayudar a las empresas a atraer clientes nuevos e incrementar la demanda entre los existentes al brindar un valor superior. Dichas ofertas son comunes; considere los casos de Apple (el producto iPod combinado con el servicio iTunes). A pesar de que la promesa de ofertas combinadas es muy atractiva, es facil equivocarse. El problema es que demasiadas empresas, que esperan tener exito, no toman en consideracion todos los pasos necesarios para estructurar, comercializar y vender sus ofertas combinadas. Durante los ultimos tres anos, los autores han analizado mas de cien ofertas hibridas ganadoras de una variedad de empresas B2B y B2C. Su investigacion muestra que la mayoria de las empresas se equivoca de una o mas de cuatro formas: incapacidad para diferenciar; incapacidad para escalar; incapacidad para evaluar correctamente mercados y precios; e incapacidad para invertir en la marca. Los autores identifican tipos comunes de hibridos: una combinacion flexible de productos y servicios permite que los compradores personalicen su compra. Un paquete de �satisfaccion garantizada� ofrece lo mejor de su categoria en productos y servicios. Un paquete de beneficios multiples ofrece a los clientes un numero cada vez mayor de caracteristicas o beneficios adicionales. Un paquete por comodidad se enfoca en la compra conveniente. Los autores tambien ofrecen un conjunto practico de directrices para identificar oportunidades para crear una oferta hibrida exitosa en su propia empresa.

大多数公司都在尝试将产品和服务捆绑销售,以增加收入和平衡现金流.例如,苹果公司将iPod与iTunes音乐服务组合在一起,施乐公司将打印机、复印机与维修保养组合在一起.混合方案--产品和服务的创新组合--能给客户创造更高的价值,帮助公司吸引新顾客,增加老顾客的需求.

Service businesses now make Lip about 70% of the aggregate production and employment in the OECD nations, yet true innovation is rare in the service sector. Many companies incrementally improve their offerings, but few Succeed in creating service innovations that launch new markets or reshape existing ones.The premise of this article is that by thinking about a service in terms of its core benefits and the separability of its use from its production, managers can more easily see how to outinnovate their competitors. Before they can do so, though, they must understand the different types of market-creating service innovations as well as the factors that enable them.The authors introduce and describe a two-by-two matrix whose taxonomy helps managers think strategically about service innovations that can create new markets. The dimensions of the matrix refer to the type of benefit offered and the degree of service separability. The article references best-practices examples including Enterprise Rent-A-Car, FedEx, eBay, Starbucks, Cirque du Soleil, Google, Southwest Airlines, Walgreens, Netflix and Barnes & Noble to illuminate each of the four cells of the matrix and explain the value to managers of understanding the dynamics of the cell that is most applicable to their service innovation efforts.

La innovacion de servicio es diferente de la innovacion de producto en aspectos importantes. En primer lugar, en el caso de servicios interactivos con elevado contenido de mano de obra, las personas que prestan materialmente el servicio forman parte de la experiencia del cliente y, por tanto, de la innovacion. En segundo lugar, los servicios que exigen la presencia fisica del cliente necesitan una capacidad de produccion descentralizada ?local?. En tercer lugar, los innovadores de servicio no disponen de un producto tangible al que se pueda poner marca