Gratitude versus Entitlement: A Dual Process Model of the Profitability Implications of Customer Prioritization
Abstract
Customer prioritization strategies, which focus a firm's efforts on its most important customers, are expected to improve account profitability. Anecdotal evidence suggests, however, that such strategies may also undermine account profitability by inducing customers to become overly demanding. Building on social exchange theory, this research evaluates these competing perspectives across two field studies and finds that prioritization is best understood as a double-edged sword. Specifically, the results reveal that prioritization efforts initiate both a gratitude-driven process, which enhances sales and profit, and an entitlement-driven process, which increases service costs and reduces profit. Importantly, the findings indicate that prioritization tactics differ in the extent to which they trigger these competing processes and thus in their ability to influence account profitability. Finally, the results also reveal that critical moderators (competitive intensity and prioritization transparency) determine the extent to which the entitlement-driven process undermines the gratitude-driven process. For managers, the findings suggest that both the tactics employed and moderating conditions determine whether prioritization has a positive, negative, or negligible effect on prioritized accounts’ profitability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Other mediating mechanisms may be at work, such as gratitude and entitlement.
“Moreover, other mediating mechanisms may be at work, such as gratitude and entitlement (Wetzel et al. 2014).”
From Understanding and managing customer relational benefits in services: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Wetzel et al. 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 81 · Cited by 216
- Authors
- Wetzel, H. A., Hammerschmidt, M., & Zablah, A. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Göttingen (DE)
- George Mason University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wetzel, Hauke A.
- Hammerschmidt, Maik
- Zablah, Alex R.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 1-19
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W2016578398
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 17.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Marketing (publishedVersion)
- GRO (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer churn and segmentation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Keywords
- customer prioritization, gratitude, entitlement, dual-process models, social exchange theory, consumer demand, service costs, competitive intensity, B2B relationships
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review