6.1.1. The connected customer’s fragmented identity

Digital technology has not only changed the way customers are represented, but also the way the customer defines themselves in relation to others. Indeed, if the Internet has made it possible to facilitate communication or to find childhood friends on social networks, it has also facilitated the emergence of new markets and with them new activities for individuals. As a public servant by day, self-employed Uber driver by night, the individual will tend to diversify their activities and enter, at the same time, into new social roles. This evolution of the company therefore presents a new challenge for marketers who must understand this “fragmented” identity of the connected customer. The difficulty, even more significant today, lies in the fact that the person or individual does not evolve in a single social sphere (family, circle of friends, professional environment) but simultaneously in several environments that are both real (the physical world) and virtual (on the Internet). In their daily life, the individual can then be alternately or simultaneously a citizen, customer, patient, consumer, user or an employee or an entrepreneur, a tenant or property owner, and they can exercise these roles physically or online through social applications or networks. In our connected environment, the individual is called upon to constantly and perpetually juggle between the different roles he or she assigns themselves, changing hats depending on the situation he or she is facing.

Moreover, the ubiquity allowed by connected technologies – more particularly by the IoT – nowadays leads the individual to compartmentalize the tasks associated with their different roles or identities at a lesser scale. A public transport user can, during a simple streetcar journey for example, pay for their children’s lunch, consult social networks, reply to professional e-mails, read blood test results, validate a shopping list or even set their house alarm. Through the facets of their fragmented identity, individuals can have simultaneously diverse expectations and objectives: purely utilitarian or convenient (saving money and energy, saving time, making less effort, etc.); or hedonic and/or relational (communicating at any time, with “anyone”, having a personalized public service, experimenting with new services or products, sharing opinions, etc.). To support these statements, Figure 6.1 illustrates the individual’s fragmented identity in his or her connected environment.

The offer of products or services must then be adapted to these new expectations. More and more accustomed to algorithms governing their daily lives, individuals and society in general nowadays expect technology to simplify their lives, allow them to free up time to pursue these multiple occupations, whether as a citizen, a self-employed entrepreneur or simply as a practitioner of a sport or cultural activity. Connected objects and their applications are not only a source of experimentation for curious and innovative customers, but they must also meet concrete needs such as security, energy and financial savings or time saving. The promise of an easier and effortless life then seems to be the essential condition for the individual to accept that brands use his or her personal data. With a 210% increase in sales between the first quarter of 2017 and 2018⁵, voice assistants such as Amazon Echo or Google Home reflect this change in behavior and expectations.

However, it is not only product or service offerings that must be adapted for this evolution of society and the individual’s identity. The personalization of brand/customer communication, which today seems inevitable for customer relationship managers, will also necessarily have to evolve with technological innovations. The programming of e-mails, SMS or posts on social networks already makes it possible to contextualize communication in time in order to reach its customers at times when their attention is most appropriate. Real-time geolocation – enabled by smartphones and other connected objects – allows messages or notifications to be adapted to the individual’s location. For example, a clothing retailer can send a notification about a promotion when the customer walks through the door of a shopping mall. To be consistent with individuals’ expectations, this spatial contextualization should also take into account their social position. From this perspective, an employee from the mall who walks through the door would not receive the same notification as the average consumer – the latter could instead report a specific promotion for employees, for example. This contextualization, both temporal and spatial, seems to be the next essential step in the personalization of brand/customer communication.

Finally, it is a question for the marketer to imagine this “fragmented identity” through different roles assumed by the individual. Indeed, the representations that managers make of their “customers” allow them to set up performance indicators to facilitate their management.

6.1.2. Representations and performance of the connected customer

Customers construct multiple relationships with brands and organizations (consumer brands, public institutions, political parties, associations, etc.). They may be fans or detractors, loyal or unfaithful, or they may be passive targets or active partners. The customer is simultaneously a revenue generator (through purchases, prescriptions), a communication vehicle (offline and online by word of mouth and published content), a co-creator through their ideas, actions and consumption, or even sometimes a collaborator, employee or part-time employee of the organization (in the case of platforms, such as BlaBlaCar for example). They are also potentially themselves a “marketing product” due to their visibility and increased influence through social media: connected customers can set up online communication strategies in order to work on their e-reputation and have an impact on their audience. Through messages and content published online, they implement strategies of influence as a brand, a journalist or an intellectual would do. Just as marketing has become part of people’s daily lives, so too have organizations to deal with this consumer interference in their own communication.

Digital technology is thus leading to an extension of customer roles and representations. The customer is not only expected to be able to fulfill the role expected of them (intra role performance, such as inquiring, buying and buying again) but they are also expected to surpass this by becoming an ambassador, an employee, a shareholder or an exemplary citizen (extra role performance). The multiplication of the roles assigned to customers is accompanied by a multiplication of the terms assigned to them. Marketing professionals alternatively speak of the customer, consumer, user, fan, basher⁶, influencer, ambassador, citizen, voter, etc. The fruitful language used by marketing professionals and academics attests to the fact that these multiple representations of the customer are increasingly embedded in our society and that it is becoming increasingly possible to name and classify customers according to the roles assigned to them and the performance that is expected of them. These new roles are also objectified through multiple performance indicators measured within companies (commitment rates, conversion rates, etc.), making these representations more and more concrete.

It should be noted, however, that by representations we mean:

“mental constructs present in the mind of an actor, which can be shared by several actors, and which allow them to make sense of another entity (material or not) external to this actor” [BUS 17].

In other words, it will be a matter of the marketer being sensible or embodying the different roles assumed by the connected individual, using a name such as the customer, the influencer or the citizen.

The connected customer, thus, manifests themselves both offline and online and then questions the definitions and use of the different terms used to characterize them. But when should we talk about a customer rather than a user? Is a user necessarily a consumer? Should we distinguish a brand fan from a Facebook fan? These are all questions that are of interest in the sometimes confusing use of these concepts in the media, among marketing professionals and also in academic research. Beyond semantic questions, the multiplication of these terms attests to the evolution of customer representations and roles as digital technology opens up new possibilities. We propose to reproduce in the following summary table some definitions of these terms and to attach examples of performance indicators used by managers. Its objective is not to draw up an exhaustive list of all the terms associated with “customers” when they consume or use products and services, but rather to go into more detail on terms that are commonly used today.

While there is no doubt that CRM has become more complex with the development of digital technology, we do wonder how the individual perceives and lives with this fragmented identity.

6.2.1. Customer marketing, between secrecy and stealth

With digital transformation, the idea of stealth marketing, covert marketing or undercover marketing is becoming particularly relevant. Originally, these terms refer to communication strategies that “attempt to present a product or service by skillfully creating and disseminating ‘buzz’ in an opaque and secret manner” [KAI 04]. In other words, neither the company nor the brand or agency appear to be the authors and sources of this communication. With the rise of digital marketing, these practices have indeed multiplied and lead to more or less reprehensible tactics, such as writing false consumer opinions, creating false blogs, remunerating influencers (YouTubers for example), placing products in films and games, discreet sponsorship of various journalists and prescribers, recruiting celebrities and actors to play “early adopters” on the day a new product is launched, etc.

In 2008, a special issue of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing was dedicated to this subject. The authors pointed out that these hidden marketing practices could be perceived as acts of deception, generating a feeling of intrusion, leading to greater scepticism toward these communications or reinforcing consumer resistance [MAR 08, SPR 08, MIL 08]. The legal and economic risks (image, reputation, etc.) are certainly important for the firms involved. However, it must be noted that with the rise of digital technology, these practices are progressing and are now spreading on a large scale.

Mobilizing more social, local and mobile technologies (SOLOMO), marketing practices are increasingly hidden and stealthy, preventing users, customers, citizens, etc., from determining the source, credibility and intentionality of the communication and influence they receive. These practices already raise many ethical questions (is it wrong? can they be legitimate? etc.) and managerial questions (is it effective and profitable? is persuasion enough to change behavior? etc.).

Marketing has always been accused of exploiting information asymmetries to its advantage and manipulating, misleading or even abusing consumers through the advertising and marketing mix. With the digital transition, the business world is paradoxically less and less accessible and intelligible. With the IoT in particular, the home, car, shop, city, etc., will be able to constantly emit signals and transmit information on the routes, interests and uses of individuals. This will generally not be apparent and obvious to them, except in some cases through digital and mobile tools (a mobile application for example), to which they have access and over which they will have some control. As a result, marketing is increasingly escaping the sight and sensitivity of users who not only do not see the technologies in place but also constantly leave their own digital traces or transmit signals that can be exploited by companies of which they have absolutely no idea. The development of platforms, in digital communication (Google, Facebook, etc.) as well as in IoT, effectively reinforces this feeling of opacity prevailing on the digital and the fear that these data will be used without consumers’ knowledge.

6.2.2. The dark side of the IoT

The potentially dark side of the IoT today counterbalances the generally positive vision that highlighted the many interests in the industrial field as well as in various other fields, such as health or the environment. Using data collected in real time, companies can offer new services, identify new sources of value creation, refine their positioning and improve their communication strategies [POR 14]. In distribution, it is also becoming more possible to offer a seamless and fluid experience and to build bridges between the real world and the virtual world [BRY 13]. IoT is certainly a tremendous promise for marketing professionals: objects communicate and tell us about customers and their uses in real time, it becomes possible to accentuate customization and personalization of services, and finally, IoT can foster a win–win exchange with greater satisfaction and value for customers and more effectiveness and efficiency for the company.

The IoT, thus, has a power of attraction, even fascination (how did they know where I was, what I was doing and what I wanted?), and it is also a source of all fantasies, illusions and fears in the media and among users. De Cremer et al. [DE 17] highlight, in particular, four categories of risk for users:

• – market knowledge and intelligence: companies can misuse the data collected (uses, purchases, in-store trips, etc.) and disseminate them to other stakeholders. The installation of sensors in all compartments of personal life (kitchen, home, car, city, etc.) can also lead to the collection of intimate information or excessively intrusive communication;
• – transactional: IoT can lead to a greater individualization of prices and offers, according to consumers’ tastes, customs and practices. For example, insurers are now developing insurance policies whose rates vary according to the way vehicles are driven and apply penalties for increased risk taking by drivers. The use of algorithms that are largely unintelligible to most consumers – especially the most vulnerable – could allow the least virtuous companies to keep their customers by creating misunderstandings and confusion and thus generate additional revenue;
• – relational: individual tracking of behaviors and practices paves the way for strategies of preferential treatment for the best customers, favoritism and discrimination. In addition, the establishment of an IoT network – for home automation, for example – entails switching costs (barriers to exiting a contract, irrecoverable investments) and tends to permanently “lock down” users;
• – integrity and manipulation: IoT opens up many opportunities for consumer manipulation and deception. For example, a car manufacturer concerned about improving their income may unduly encourage owners of connected cars to consider repairs, buy new parts or even renew their vehicles. This would result in an unfair and inequitable situation.

Like many innovative technologies, IoT today produces strong and sometimes disproportionate resistance, such as for the Linky electricity meter or other IoT solutions developed by banks, insurance companies, etc. On a practical level, this requires companies to first establish a climate of trust, regular accountability and effective pedagogy. With IoT, asymmetries of information and power will indeed spread and user resistance mechanisms could increase [CHO 16], which goes against the very idea of co-creation of value and collective intelligence. On the other hand, if it were to make marketing and its technologies visible to its targets, it could have perverse effects and generate, for example, more anxiety and stress, create a climate of mistrust or make any strategy of influence counterproductive… even if it is morally desirable (promoting soft mobility, improving waste collection, etc.). In this context, transparency becomes a prerequisite and it is necessary to determine “what must be seen”, “what to see” and “what is worth seeing” [NGO 15, NGO 16, POR 17, POR 18].

6.2.3. Toward the disappearance of the “customer” in a connected world?

CRM has made customer identification and individualization/customization of offers an absolute priority. The massive collection of customer data has made it possible to propose appropriate offers and thus improve customer experience and satisfaction. Most CRM research therefore focuses on internal psychological responses (emotions, evaluations, etc.) and behavioral responses (loyalty, recommendation, etc.) that can be measured at the customer level, as well as the programs and tactics implemented for these same individual customers.

However, the digital transition and the development of the IoT are changing the situation. Admittedly, companies have invested heavily in technologies, digital channels and social networks (social CRM) to collect individualized data and optimize the management of their contacts. But is the customer still the right unit of analysis? Indeed, digital transformation has not only impacted CRM strategies and tools. It has transformed the “customer” into a “user”, as evidenced by the daily use through the “user experience”, “user generated content”, “lead users”, “user friendly” strategies, “user innovation”, “user stories⁸”, etc. Although with CRM the consumer had been supplanted by the customer, digital transformation makes the customer “disappear” – with the customer’s regular and sustainable purchasing mission – for the benefit of the user – with function of use and the ability to draw value from the objects that surround them in everyday life (value in use).

Thus, the challenge is no longer just to understand and target the customer in their experiences and relationship with a given brand. It is becoming crucial to place the customer in a broader environment, that of cooking, housing, mobility, travel, health, sport, etc., in order to offer and deliver a valuable experience. Looking further ahead, the city will soon become a crucial playground for connected marketing. Today, 50% of the world’s population lives in cities. In 2050, it will be 70% of the world’s population. All fields of consumption will be affected by the connection of cities. In addition to the housing and mobility issues mentioned above, the smart city refers to issues of energy and water consumption, waste management, travel and tourism, well-being and public health, economic, social and educational development, etc. For Anthopoulos and Fitsilis [ANT 14], the smart city is:

“an infrastructure and service environment based on information and communication technologies that promote an understanding of the city, quality of life and other attributes (i.e. environment, entrepreneurship, education, culture, transport, etc.)”.

The objective of the smart city is therefore to transform the city into a “hub of services”, the latter being generally deployed by a group of large companies and a myriad of start-ups. Marketing in a connected world will necessarily encourage the customer to return to his or her place of residence, to understand how he or she extracts value in this context and to cooperate with multiple actors. However, CRM is still based on a completely different logic, that of the individual in their relationship with a brand, that of competition toward players in the same field and that of the long term (long-term relationship with a customer) as opposed to real time marketing, which is both reactive and brief toward users.

6.3.1. Connection as a source of value creation for the individual

As Hoffman and Novak [HOF 16] and Folcher and Mussol [FOL 18] show, value derives from the uses and ways in which consumers arrange their connected objects and orchestrate their consumption within their homes. For example, the Open Food System⁹ project, developed in particular at the initiative of the SEB group, aimed to “build a ‘digital kitchen’ ecosystem that makes it easier to eat on a daily basis through the provision of enriched digital recipes, connected cooking appliances and innovative services”. The creation of value for customers then comes from the interaction of three environments: food, household appliances and digital. In the same way, the Human at Home project¹⁰ brings together the same connected scientists specializing in sensors, data, language, movement, marketing, etc., from various Montpellier laboratories, as well as innovative companies wishing to understand and design the apartment of the future. Another example is Michelin’s Open Lab Mobility¹¹, which brings together nearly 200 organizations (manufacturers, transporters, energy players, local authorities, insurers, etc.) around the challenges of sustainable mobility.

It seems appropriate to conceive the perceived value of objects in a more holistic approach [AUR 04]. There is value when the user receives benefits from the object [VAR 04]. We can thus distinguish between different types of benefits:

• – utilitarian benefits: these refer to the monetary economy that can be achieved but above all to convenience, practicality and speed of access to services;
• – hedonic benefits: beyond the possession of futuristic objects, in advance of their time, consumers have access to products that adapt in real time to their needs, even if they are unspoken. With the possibilities of monitoring, the customer gains better self-knowledge. The smart home, by combining a set of connected objects, offers a multiplicity of possibilities and functionalities to the user to optimize their daily life in a perspective of better living, because of an appropriation of objects and a personalization of services;
• – self-expression benefits: objects allow the individual to live different consumption experiences depending on the interactions they have with them [VER 09]. The experience is enabling or constraining for the user’s identity [HOF 18], thus making it possible to extend or restrict oneself. Beyond all the benefits received by the user, it is the relationship with the brand that is redefined. Even if they can support the brand relationship, technologies are not “in themselves” relational and individuals develop ambivalent expectations toward them.

6.3.2. Orchestration of connected objects and organization of services around the individual

The development of the relationship with technology and objects can increase perceived value. Linking devices and their data helps to make consumers more informed [POR 14]. The interactions between object and the user (heterogeneous parts) make both parts more intelligent. For example, consumers buy objects that provide services that, in turn, create value, particularly through a particular organization. In the context of an assemblage, the value is defined by and co-created with the consumer rather than being integrated into the product [VAR 04]. By explaining the perceived value of connected objects and their associated services based on the layout they compose, we take into account the “active” role of the user in the personalization and orchestration of the organization of connected objects. To better understand their relationship with objects and services, it is necessary to question the role and place of the individual in the assemblage or orchestration of objects.

First defined as a philosophical concept [DEL 80], assemblage presupposes that the parts of a whole interact with each other and that the whole is better than the sum of the parts. Assemblage is a multiplicity that contains various heterogeneous terms and establishes connections or relationships between them, thus creating a multitude of possibilities [DEL 80]. Each assemblage is made up of “external relationships” that make it unique and give rise to its own properties and multiplicity. The assemblage of connected objects thus combines heterogeneous elements. It is personalized by the user, scalable and thus has emerging properties: as objects are gradually discovered and associated services are appropriated, invisible and underlying ramifications are created with the objects, and new functionalities appear, as can be seen in the example in Figure 6.2.

For the user, the brand relationship is transformed into a network where communication between the different services allows value creation. In this vision, the user is part of the assemblage and co-creates value through their interactions with connected objects. The user can also be seen as an orchestrator. Orchestration in the context of relationships with objects can be defined as:

“the intentional association, organization and coordination of various heterogeneous elements present in the connected environment (objects, humans, fauna, flora) in order to allow the appearance of emerging, dynamic and specific properties” [FOL 18].

The smartphone associated with its applications is now a central element in the orchestration and management of this fragmented identity. This tool, which allows individuals to be informed in real time, to communicate with their relatives on the other side of the world, to buy a rare product from an individual, to carry out administrative procedures or to switch on their coffee machine remotely, has now become difficult to separate from the person in any context, in any facet of their fragmented identity. If the orchestration then allows the elements of the organization to work in a coordinated way, it can be decided either by an external system or by the user.

6.3.3. The individual in a connected environment: control or trust?

In order to improve this service relationship, what decision-making power should be left to the individual when faced with the prescription of such objects? This raises the question of how much free will the individual will have left in their decisions, whether or not they relate to objects. The configuration of objects is therefore to be considered in relation to their prescription. The prescriptive power of objects can be important, but this requires that the user accepts being guided by sometimes opaque technologies. Individuals may therefore want to orchestrate the different objects, but would this be a utopia on their part? As data are sometimes presented as the new black gold, it depends on the configuration and freedom given to it by the software architect to collect the said data. Should we guide the user in customizing the features provided in their environment or the scenarios they can deploy? How do you do that?

Two perspectives seem to be in conflict:

• – first – in the line of artificial intelligence – where objects adapt to the uses that are made and make their own decisions. Although it facilitates the user’s life through the proper collection and use of his or her personal data, it does not give the user much freedom in his or her ability to act. This first approach questions the individual’s degree of trust in the object, software and software designer;
• – an opposite perspective, closer to co-creation, includes the user in software design, to allow them to choose their parameters and thus the functionalities of the objects. It also allows users to regain control over the data. However, it raises the question of how designers can allow end users to simply configure complex features in their intelligent environment.

Easier access to data, and therefore to more information, helps to make the individual smarter. Can we not then consider that these new capacities that make them an “increased individual” can be associated with an extension of the self, knowledge and skills? Nevertheless, is it not these connected objects with artificial intelligence that tell us what to eat, or how many steps to take in a day, that remind us to pick up our children from school or that provide us with information without us having asked for it, reducing the individual rather than increasing them? Although this technology favors new uses that contribute to “facilitating” the daily life of individuals, would the loss of control over personal data or even over their free will lead to a tendency to reduce the individual’s thinking and the expression of their uniqueness… and therefore their identity?

In general, individuals demonstrate their desire to keep people at the heart of their exchanges with companies while presenting a certain mistrust for exclusively robotic relationships. But these same individuals want brands to offer products that spontaneously match their tastes. The use of connected objects by brands must therefore be considered in this sense. Many stores provide their sellers with smartphones or tablets that allow them to access all product information but also customer history in order to offer a wide range of services. Still, offering an adapted service, bots like Mode.ai¹², used by both Levi’s and Louis Vuitton, allow a more precise recommendation of clothing and accessories to customers based on an online discussion and a selection of photos.

The user is divided between a desire for innovative and simple functionality and mistrust of a technology that is not well-known and that may infringe-privacy. The user also wants to actively protect personal data. The RGPD thus promotes anonymization – or even pseudonymization – of data collected through multiple means, such as smartphones, computers, tablets, connected objects, electronic terminals (e.g. beacons), etc. Obligations on platforms (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) also prevent advertisers from recognizing and considering their own customers. Thus, the collection of customer data has obvious limitations and few companies will truly be able to have a 360° customer vision and master the entire customer journey, from the search for information to the conclusion of the purchase and repurchase.

While the organization of objects creates value, by giving them a certain autonomy, the consumer may be reluctant to give them too much authority, and may choose to orchestrate their own consumer experience. For designers, it is a matter of developing ergonomic and easy-to-use interfaces, despite technologies that seem impenetrable to the user, while taking into account the user’s ever-increasing need for various functionalities. What about the designer’s ethics and the power left to the consumer?