Customer behavior and adoption · Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study with selection on observables and unobservables, comparing buyer firms that adopted a manufacturer's free B2B mobile app with a non-adopting control group over 15 months.
Return on Engagement Initiatives: A Study of a Business-to-Business Mobile App
Manpreet Gill, Shrihari Sridhar, Rajdeep Grewal (2017). Return on Engagement Initiatives: A Study of a Business-to-Business Mobile App. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0149.
Plain-English take
App adoption increased the manufacturer's annual sales revenue by 19.11%–22.79%; return on engagement remained positive after development costs, and was higher when buyers created more projects in the app. For your marketing: Use it as a product, platform or behavior mechanism reference rather than a direct forecast for a SaaS funnel.
How much weight to give this
4/5 Strong design for its specific question
The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.
Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study with selection on observables and unobservables, comparing buyer firms that adopted a manufacturer's free B2B mobile app with a non-adopting control group over 15 months.
A tool manufacturer's business buyers and their sales records; the app was offered free to engage buyers, and buyer participation intensity was measured through projects created in the app.
Based on the publisher-described design and comparison; see the article for complete analysis.
Publisher record was fetched directly; full text was not assumed open.
Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the retrieved publisher record.
Research question
What the authors investigated
Can a B2B mobile-app engagement initiative generate measurable sales returns, and how does customer participation intensity explain return on engagement?
Design
Quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study with selection on observables and unobservables, comparing buyer firms that adopted a manufacturer's free B2B mobile app with a non-adopting control group over 15 months.
Sample and setting
A tool manufacturer's business buyers and their sales records; the app was offered free to engage buyers, and buyer participation intensity was measured through projects created in the app.
Reported result
What the study found
App adoption increased the manufacturer's annual sales revenue by 19.11%–22.79%; return on engagement remained positive after development costs, and was higher when buyers created more projects in the app.
This is a paraphrase of the source. Check the original paper for definitions, estimates, statistical uncertainty and analysis details.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
The evidence is from one manufacturer's app and buyer base, and adoption is not randomized; consequently, residual selection, firm-specific implementation effects, and generalization to other B2B apps remain concerns.
Possible founder application
Use it as a product, platform or behavior mechanism reference rather than a direct forecast for a SaaS funnel.
Evidence access
Publisher abstract/metadata retrieved; consult the linked paper for full methods and tables.
SAGE's Journal of Marketing page identifies the authors, article, journal, and DOI and reports the 15-month adopter/control design, 19.11%–22.79% sales-revenue effect, cost-adjusted positive RoEI, and participation-intensity result in the abstract. Direct publisher-page retrieval was recorded on 2026-10-09; profile summarizes the accessible record and does not claim independent review of inaccessible full text.
If only an abstract or metadata was available, the profile is limited to claims supported there. A paper's paywall does not change its evidentiary status, but it limits what we can substantiate from accessible text.