An executive summary for managers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article

Contemporary marketing practices of consumer and business-to-business firms: how different are they?
Nicole E. Coviello
Associate Professor, Faculty of Management, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada

Roderick J. Brodie

Department of Marketing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Keywords Relationship marketing, Inter-firm comparisons, Canada, New Zealand Abstract The literature has traditionally argued that marketing in firms serving consumer markets is, and should be, different from that in firms serving business markets. This research investigates the marketing practices of 279 firms in Canada and New Zealand to examine the relevance of the consumer/B2B dichotomy in the context of a contemporary conceptual framework. The results show that while consumer firms are somewhat more transactional in their approach to the market and B2B firms are more relational, overall patterns of marketing practice are similar across firm type. Theoretical, practical, and research implications are discussed.

Classic dichotomies

As the marketing literature has evolved over recent decades, we have witnessed the emergence of a number of classic dichotomies; dichotomies which are used to define our research and educational practices, journals and textbooks. Such dichotomies suggest that marketing practice is ``different'' for firms with different types of customers (e.g. consumer vs business), different market offerings (e.g. goods vs services), different geographic scope (e.g. domestic vs international), or different size and age characteristics (e.g. small vs large, or newer vs more established firms). All of these perspectives evolved in the context of a particular view of marketing explicitly defined by the AMA in 1985 (Marketing News, 1985) to involve:
F F F the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.

Since the mid-1980s, however, academic interest has begun to focus on issues associated with the management of relationships. The concept of ``relationship marketing'' was first defined (in a services marketing context) by Berry (1983, p. 25) as:
F F F attracting, maintaining, and in multi-service organizations enhancing customer relationships.

Other early proponents of relationship marketing base their views in business-to-business markets (Ford, 1980; Ha kansson, 1982; Dwyer et al., 1987). Yet others take a more holistic perspective (Gummesson, 1987;
The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

382

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001, pp. 382-400, # MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0885-8624

Gro nroos, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), to the point where marketing has been described simply as the process of managing relationships (Gro nroos, 1996). B2B marketing Given the various marketing dichotomies which have emerged in the context of what may be considered the traditional view of marketing, we believe it is now appropriate to understand whether or not they are still relevant in the context of the more modern view of relational marketing. In this paper, we focus on a classic dichotomy that is well established in the literature: consumer versus business-to-business (B2B) marketing. By examining the practices of consumer/B2B firms in the context of a conceptual framework that integrates both transactional and relational marketing, we seek to identify and understand both differences and similarities across these types of organizations, in order to improve our research, educational processes, and managerial practice. The paper proceeds with an introduction to the literature supporting this study. This review highlights the dearth of empirical studies investigating the consumer/B2B dichotomy. Two hypotheses are also developed for examination. We then explain the research method, and present the results and implications. Theory and hypotheses The consumer/B2B dichotomy was established in the marketing literature by a number of persuasive theoretical works, each of which essentially argues that B2B markets are different from consumer markets along a number of dimensions (Ames, 1970; Cooke, 1986; Lilien, 1987; Webster, 1978). For example, Lilien (1987) argues that B2B markets are unique due to their derived demand, long purchase cycles, and a varying and fragmented market structure. Industrial buyers are described by Lilien as heterogeneous in terms of their number and size, and often multiple individuals are involved in the purchase decision process. He argues that systems-selling typifies B2B marketing, with products sold in a decentralized manner. Webster (1978) differentiates B2B marketing by focusing on the characteristics of:
. .

product complexity; and buying process complexity.

Managerial perspective

From a managerial perspective, Ames (1970) also argues that marketing in the industrial world is more of a general management responsibility than in consumer firms, and both he and Webster (1978) note that B2B markets are characterized by functional interdependence and buyer-seller interdependence. This latter point is reinforced by Gruen (1995) as well as Ha kansson and Snehota (1995) who argue that business marketing is driven by relationships; relationships with unique structural and process characteristics. For example, business relationships are considered to be different from those in the consumer domain due to their continuity, complexity, symmetry, and informality. Overall, the prevailing view of the literature supporting the dichotomy rests on the conceptual argument that B2B market characteristics and influences, buyer decision processes, and buyer-seller relationships differ from those found in consumer markets. Indeed, Lilien (1987, p. 16) argues that any similarities that might be identified between B2B and consumer markets are superficial, concluding that:

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

383

F F F consumer-based approaches will fail in most cases due to simplifying and na ve assumptions.

Consequently, he argues that B2B markets must be handled differently than consumer markets. Cooke (1986) also argues that it is not realistic to assume the same marketing strategies can be used for consumer and B2B products, and Webster (1978, p. 24) argues that the ``complexity'' of B2B markets calls for new approaches that:
F F F must be different from those found in consumer marketing.

Apparently these views have been widely accepted in spite of Fern and Brown's (1984) argument that the dichotomy is unjustified and characterized by a number of weaknesses including a lack of empirical support. Furthermore, Jackson and Cooper (1988) note that although differences in consumer and business buying behaviors are generally accepted and understood, the same cannot be said for differences in marketing approaches. Indeed, only nine studies can be found which empirically test the dichotomy to understand this issue. These studies address issues related to the role or characteristics of the product manager, market orientation, general marketing or advertising activities, and perceptions of problem areas, business strategies, and the marketing research function. Investigations A review of the nine investigations reveals only four that support the consumer/B2B dichotomy. These studies showed differences in the nature and influence of the market orientation in consumer vs business firms (Parasuraman et al., 1983; Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1997), the nature and role of the product manager (Cummings et al., 1984), and perceptions of the market research function (Deshpande and Zaltman, 1987). In contrast, two studies fail to support the dichotomy (Andrus and Norvell, 1990; Turley and Kelley, 1997), and the detailed results of three others offer only partial support for the dichotomy in spite of concluding there are differences between B2B and consumer marketing (Kelly and Hise, 1979; Zeithaml et al., 1985; Dawes and Patterson, 1988). Given these patterns, the concern raised by Fern and Brown (1984) regarding a lack of empirical evidence appears to be reasonable in that the extant literature shows mixed results based on a relatively small number of studies. Furthermore, most of these investigations are dated, and may not reflect contemporary practice. Overall, the belief that marketing in consumer and B2B firms is fundamentally different appears to have been heavily influenced by strong conceptual arguments. These arguments were developed from a general understanding that consumer and business buyer behaviors are different, and this seems to have led to the assumption that consumer and B2B marketing practices must also be different. However, of the nine empirical investigations that were identified, only Andrus and Norvell (1990) specifically focus on marketing practices per se, and their results clearly challenge the consumer/B2B dichotomy by finding few differences across executive perceptions of their firm's marketing environment and its marketing strategies. The weak empirical evidence pertaining to the issue of how firms practice marketing in the context of this classic dichotomy therefore leads to the first research question: are marketing practices really different between consumer and B2B firms? In addition, most of the extant empirical studies rely on what might be considered a ``traditional'' view of marketing for their conceptual and analytical framework. That is, their conclusions are drawn from data that have been generated and examined in the context of the marketing mix
384 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Conceptual arguments

model where the variables of product, price, promotion, and distribution are managed in order to attract customers and generate transactions. This emphasis is perhaps to be expected given the widespread acceptance of the marketing mix/4P model in both the marketing literature and educational practice during the period in which these studies were conducted. What is important to recognize, however, is that empirical research on the dichotomies has been conducted using a model that emerged in the 1950s. At that time, the business environment was quite different, with primary attention focused on the practices of large consumer good firms serving mass markets. Today, however, major changes are occurring within both the marketing environment and business organizations. Markets are more global and technologically sophisticated, competition is more intense, buyers are more demanding, and clearly, academic and managerial interest has evolved beyond the narrow focus on consumer goods markets. Environmental and structural change Perhaps not surprisingly, this environmental and structural change is accompanied by a shift in the way marketing is being organized and practiced (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and this is in turn challenging the traditional view of the discipline. A new paradigm of thought has emerged (Kotler, 1992; Webster, 1992) where it is argued that it is more important to focus on the development and management of ``relationships''. Such relationships may extend beyond final customers to include suppliers, channel intermediaries, and a variety of other market contacts (Webster, 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Gro nroos, 1994). According to Sheth et al. (1988), the interest in, and emphasis on relationships is likely to redefine the domain of marketing. This paradigm is generally referred to as relationship marketing, and one commonly used definition is that offered by Gro nroos (1991, p. 8):
Marketing is the process of identifying, establishing, maintaining, and enhancing (and when necessary, also terminating) relationships with customers and other stakeholders, at a profit, so that the objectives of all parties involved are met. This is done by a mutual exchange and fulfillment of promises.

Similarly, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p. 34) define relationship marketing as:
F F F all marketing activities directed towards establishing, developing, and maintaining successful relational exchanges.

Relational dimension

Interestingly, it is the relational dimension of business markets that has been commonly used to differentiate B2B marketing from that of consumer marketing (Webster, 1978; Ford, 1980), and as summarized by Hutt and Speh (1998, p. 32):
F F F relationship management constitutes the heart of business marketing.

This implies that any discussion or examination of marketing practices comparing consumer and B2B firms should extend beyond the simple marketing mix model that is prevalent in the literature, to incorporate a more relational view of marketing. Thus, the second research question then becomes: how do the marketing practices of consumer firms compare to those of B2B firms, when examined in the context of a more relational (and less traditional) view of marketing? To answer this question, it is important to understand both the traditional and relational marketing paradigms. What follows is a brief summary of various conceptualizations of marketing practice in the relational paradigm. This includes a classification framework useful for empirical investigation and
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001 385

two hypotheses regarding the nature of marketing practice as it relates to the consumer/B2B dichotomy. Conceptualizations of marketing practice Bagozzi (1975) first suggested the notion that exchange is a central concept of marketing. He describes marketing as exchange systems of actors, relationships and causes (endogenous and exogenous). Bagozzi's theoretical framework provides the basis for distinguishing between a discrete transaction and a sequence of transactions that lead to relationships between buyers and sellers and other actors involved in a marketing system. Transaction marketing A variety of other authors have since attempted to differentiate traditional marketing (sometimes referred to as transaction marketing) from relationship marketing. For example, Christopher et al. (1991) explain that traditional or transaction marketing is focused on a single sale in the short term, while relationship marketing is focused on customer retention over the longer term. Transaction marketing is said to be oriented towards product features with low service emphasis, and involves moderate customer contact and limited customer commitment. In contrast, relationship marketing emphasizes product benefits with high service, customer contact, and customer commitment. A more complex view is offered by Gro nroos (1991) who argues that transaction and relationship marketing differ in their time perspective, price elasticity, the dominating marketing function and quality dimension, measurement of customer satisfaction, the customer information system, functional interdependence, and the role of internal marketing. Gro nroos notes that the choice of approach used (either transactional or relational) may depend not only on the offer, but also the type of customer served and the stage of business life cycle. Nevertheless, he argues that a continuum exists, with consumer packaged goods normally characterized by transaction marketing. In contrast, B2B goods and services are more likely to employ relationship marketing. Beyond these essentially dichotomous classifications, Webster (1992) outlines an extended continuum of marketing relationships, ranging from transactions and repeated transactions, through to long-term relationships, buyer-seller partnerships, strategic alliances, networks, and vertical integration. More recently, Coviello et al. (1997) undertook an extensive review of the wider marketing literature encompassing both the traditional and relational views of marketing. They analyzed and synthesized the literature to develop an integrated conceptual framework that reflects a pluralistic view of marketing practice. That is, rather than viewing traditional and relational marketing as mutually exclusive, they suggest that marketing is characterized by multiple complex processes that are manifested in four different approaches to marketing practice (see Table I). The key point of the framework is that rather than position the various marketing approaches on a continuum, Coviello et al. (1997; 2000) argue that any or all of the approaches might be relevant to, or practiced by, an organization at a given time. At the same time, each of these approaches is distinct, and can be differentiated by a series of dimensions derived from an extensive review of the literature (see Coviello et al. (1997) for details on the development of the conceptual framework). These dimensions (originally 12) were refined and operationalized by Brodie et al. (1997) and later Coviello et al. (2000), and now include four exchange dimensions and five managerial dimensions.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Integrated conceptual framework

386

Transaction marketing

Transactional perspective Database marketing Interaction marketing

Relational perspective Network marketing Connected relationships between firms Firms ``with'' firms (involving individuals) Impersonal interpersonal (ranging from distant to close) Continuous (stable yet dynamic, may be short or long term) Formal and informal (i.e. at both a business and social level) Co-ordination (interaction between sellers, buyers, and other parties across multiple firms for mutual benefit, resource exchange, market access, etc.) Connected relationships between firms (in a network) External market assets (focusing on developing the firms position in a network of firms) General manager

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Information and economic transaction Interactive relationships between a buyer and seller Nature of communication Firm ``to'' mass market Firm ``to'' targeted segment or Individuals ``with'' individuals (across individuals organizations) Type of contact Arms-length, impersonal Personalized (yet distant) Face-to-face, interpersonal (close, based on commitment, trust, and cooperation) Duration of exchange Discrete (yet perhaps over time) Discrete and over time Continuous (ongoing and mutually adaptive, may be short or long term) Formality in exchange Formal Formal (yet personalized via Formal and informal (ie at both a technology) business and social level) Managerial intent Customer attraction (to satisfy the Customer retention (to satisfy the Interaction (to establish, develop, and customer at a profit) customer, increase profit, and attain facilitate a cooperative relationship for other objectives such as increased mutual benefit) loyalty, decreased customer risk, etc.) Managerial focus Product or brand Product/brand and customers (in a Relationships between individuals targeted market) External market assets (focusing on Managerial investment Internal marketing assets (focusing Internal marketing assets establishing and developing a (emphasizing communication, on product/service, price, relationship with another individual) distribution, promotion capabilities) information, and technology capabilities) Specialist marketers (e.g. customer Managers from across functions and Managerial level Functional marketers (e.g. sales service manager, loyalty manager) levels in the firm manager, product development manager)

Purpose of exchange

Economic transaction

Notes: Adapted from Coviello et al. (1997, 2000)

Table I. Four marketing approaches classified by exchange and managerial dimensions

387

In this framework, transaction marketing involves activities where a firm attracts and satisfies potential customers by managing the elements in the marketing mix. This approach involves creating discrete economic transactions that are generally treated in isolation, at arms length, and in the context of a formal, impersonal process. The seller actively manages the exchange, and manages communication ``to'' buyers in the mass market. At a managerial level, managers focus on marketing a product/brand to an identified group of customers. Marketing activities are usually relegated to functional marketing areas, and managers focus on developing internal capabilities related to the marketing mix. Database marketing Database marketing involves applying a tool or technique to develop and manage long-term relationships between the company and its targeted customers. In this marketing activity, the focus is still on the market transaction, but now involves both economic and information exchange. The marketer relies on information technology (e.g. in the form of a database or the Internet) to create a type of relationship, thus allowing firms to compete in a manner different from mass marketing. More specifically, the intent is to use technology to help retain customers over time. Communication patterns are generally driven and managed by the seller, and are therefore asymmetrical (similar to transaction marketing). Marketing is still ``to'' the customer, rather than ``with'' the customer. Relationships per se are not close, but are facilitated and personalized through the use of technology. They do not generally involve ongoing interpersonal communication and interaction between individuals, and exchange is discrete, albeit over time. Managerial investment for database marketing is in the tool/technique, and supporting technology and information. That is, it is an internal and controllable marketing asset managed by specialist marketers. In this approach to marketing, the managerial focus widens to include both the product/brand and specifically targeted customers. While database marketing involves a certain form of relationship that is personalized yet distant, interaction marketing activities involve face-to-face interactions within relationships. Marketing occurs at the individual level based on social processes and personal interactions. Relationships are established between individuals, and can occur in both a formal and informal manner, with the parties being mutually active and adaptive. At a managerial level, interaction marketing is truly ``with'' the customer, as both parties in the dyad invest resources to develop a mutually beneficial and interpersonal relationship. Interaction marketing is not the responsibility of a specialist marketer per se (as in database marketing), nor is the practitioner necessarily in the position of seller. Rather, interaction marketing can involve a number of individuals across functions and levels in the firm, and may encompass both buying and selling activities. Network marketing Network marketing activities occur across organizations, where firms commit resources to develop a position in a network of relationships. This is generally accomplished through business and social transactions over time, as a result of developing and maintaining individual, interaction-based relationships. Thus, network marketing encompasses relationships at both the individual and firm level. Because the relationships are part of a larger net, they can range from close (interpersonal) to distant (impersonal), and have varying levels of dependence and degrees of communication. Coordination of parties through network marketing may be conducted by general managers or by ``part-time'' marketers from all areas in the
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

388

organization, or even outside the organization. Relationships may be with customers, distributors, suppliers, competitors, and so on. Overall, the relevance of the Coviello et al. (1997) framework to this research is seen in two ways. First, it complements Christopher et al. (1991), Gro nroos (1991) and Webster (1992) by offering a framework that is:
. .

focused on marketing practice; and able to be operationalized for the purposes of comparing different approaches to marketing across different types of firms.

Empirical investigation

Thus, it facilitates empirical investigation on the dichotomies in an underrepresented yet important area: marketing practice. Second, it extends our view of marketing from the traditional (transactional) perspective or a simple transactional/relational dichotomy, to a more pluralistic view. That is, the framework recognizes and encompasses the established European perspective on interaction, as well as more recent developments in the marketing literature that reflect the use of technology in marketing and the role of network relationships. It therefore integrates both traditional and relational paradigms of marketing thought and provides a more relevant base from which to examine marketing practices in different contexts (compared with the reliance on the traditional paradigm that prevails in the extant literature). Hypotheses To summarize the literature, there is:
.

a lack of consistent empirical support for the consumer/B2B dichotomy, and a dearth of investigations focused on marketing practices in the dichotomous context.

Furthermore, the dichotomy argument is based on a traditional, somewhat transactional conceptualization of marketing, and no empirical research comparing relational marketing practices across the dichotomy can be identified. Nevertheless, the dominant view of the marketing literature appears to be that marketing is ``different'' in consumer and B2B organizations. Marketing practices To improve our understanding of the contemporary marketing practices of consumer and B2B firms, we offer two hypotheses that examine the relevance of the dichotomy in the context of both transactional and relational marketing. First, the literature review clearly suggests that the marketing practices of firms serving business markets are driven by relationships that are complex, interpersonal, and involving interdependence between buyer and seller (Webster, 1978), where the ``seller'' can be any or a number of a individuals in the organization, including senior executives (Ames, 1970). All parties and their communication efforts are directed towards relationship building between buyers and sellers (at a micro level) and firms (at a macro level). This leads to the following hypothesis, framed in the context of the classification scheme developed by Coviello et al. (1997): H1. Firms serving business markets are more likely to practice interaction marketing (IM) and network marketing (NM). In contrast to B2B firms, the relationship between buyers and sellers in consumer firms is one characterized as an arms-length marketplace transaction enacted through relatively indirect channels. Volume sales and
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001 389

market share are particularly important to these firms, and communication efforts typically involve advertising, sales promotion, and public relations efforts to reach a large, geographically dispersed market. Consumer firms are therefore more likely to emphasize practices associated with transactional marketing. Of note however, it is recognized that relational concepts have begun to be applied in consumer markets. This is facilitated by technological advancements that allow for the development of more direct one-to-one relationships with consumers in mass markets (Sheth and Parvatiyar, 1995; Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999). Thus, it is likely that in contemporary marketing, consumer firms also utilize technology to get closer to their customers. This leads to the second hypothesis, again framed in the context of the classification framework adopted in this study: H2. Firms serving consumer markets are more likely to practice transaction marketing (TM) and database marketing (DM). Method Data collection method and sample A self-administered structured questionnaire was developed to collect quantitative data pertaining to aspects of marketing practice and both respondent and organizational demographics. The sample consists of 279 firms comprising two groups of managers in Canada (n = 94) and New Zealand (n = 185). These two countries share similar business-economic influences in that each is driven by resource-based industries and serves a major (and geographically close) trading partner. They also share similar cultural characteristics (Hofstede, 1980), in that both are individualistic, with small power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance levels. Data from the two countries were pooled for analytic purposes, as chi-square analysis shows the two country samples to be similar along most of the key organizational characteristics: type of customer served, type of product offer, age, and sales growth rate (see Table II). Size, however, was an exception, with New Zealand firms being smaller than their Canadian counterparts. This variable was controlled for in data analysis. The study involves convenience samples of working managers participating in part-time MBA programs in each country. They were enrolled in the introductory marketing course that was taught by members of the research team. Participants/respondents received the survey in the first week of class
Characteristic a. Type of market served Consumer B2B b. Type of product offer Goods Services c. Size* < = 100 employees > 100 employees d. Age Less than 5 years 6-10 years 11-30 years > 30 years e. Growth rate Decreased/no change (change in sales over 3 yrs) 1-10% growth > 10% growth New Zealand (n = 185) 34.1 65.9 44.3 55.7 51.6 48.4 13.0 18.4 28.6 40.0 15.0 42.2 42.8 Canada (n = 94) 37.2 62.8 44.7 55.3 31.1 68.9 13.8 13.8 18.1 54.3 15.2 34.2 50.6 Total 35.1 64.9 44.4 55.6 44.9 55.1 13.3 16.8 25.1 44.8 15.1 39.7 45.2

Questionnaire

Note: *Chi-square (degrees of freedom): 10.269 (1), p = 0.001

Table II. Key characteristics of the sample (%)

390 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

and were asked to complete it as a ``take-home'' assignment. This minimizes bias created by classroom exposure to marketing theory and/or the professor's personal views on the topic. As completion of the instrument was a required project early in the term, the approach resulted in a high level of response with considerable care being given by respondents to all aspects of the study. Respondents in both Canada and New Zealand were similar across the key managerial demographics, and all were middle managers from firms that were representative of the local business population in each center. Respondents were actively involved in the daily marketing and general management operations of their organization, and were well suited to answer questions about their firm's marketing practices. Primary variable Measurement approach The primary variable for hypothesis examination is the type of customer served. Firms were classified as serving either consumer or business markets based on managers' responses to a question regarding their primary (most important) customer base. This choice then guided the manager's responses for the survey questions pertaining to marketing practices. The variables of firm sector (type of product offer), size, age, and sales growth rate were also defined given two studies on the consumer/B2B dichotomy noted the potential influence of other co-variates on marketing (Parasuraman et al., 1983; Andrus and Norvell, 1990). Differences in marketing practice were measured using a series of individual items reflecting the nine dimensions operationalized by Coviello et al. (2000). On the survey instrument, each of the nine dimensions consisted of a set of variables designed to capture each of the four approaches to marketing practice. Each variable was measured using five-point Likert-type scales anchored by ``never (1)'' and ``always (5)''. Validation of the instrument The instrument and items used in the measurement model were pre-tested with ten marketing practitioners from various sectors and five marketing academics (all of whom have at least ten years of industry experience in marketing and management). Following minor modifications to structure and wording, the instrument was pre-tested with a set of executive students similar to those ultimately targeted to participate in the research. The results suggested the instrument was understandable, interpreted appropriately, and captured the characteristics of marketing practice of interest in this investigation. Pre-testing On the basis of pre-testing, it was concluded that the instrument had adequate content and face validity. The construct validity of the instrument is initially justified on the basis that the items were developed from a theoretical framework that was derived from an extensive literature review. The reliability of the measures was assessed by developing a series of four scales using the variables within each of the nine dimensions. Each of these scales reflected one of the four approaches to marketing discussed by Coviello et al. (1997). Coefficients were calculated for each scale using Cronbach Alpha tests, and it was decided to eliminate the variables associated with the dimension labeled ``formality''. This decision was further confirmed by the results of a Principal Components Analysis of the scales. The final number of dimensions across the four scales was thus reduced from nine to eight, and the four scales showed alpha values of 0.65 (transaction marketing), 0.64 (database marketing), 0.71 (interaction marketing), and 0.77 (network marketing). These levels are generally considered to be acceptable (Nunnally, 1978).
391

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Analysis The data was first analyzed using regression to examine the extent to which the type of firm (consumer or B2B) was associated with firm sector, size, age, and sales growth rate. The data was then analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine individual item differences across the primary variable of interest (the consumer/B2B dichotomy). Results This section discusses the results of the study and shows that both hypotheses are only partially supported. Details are discussed below, but it is important to first understand the associations between the type of market served and other key characteristics. Analysis indicates that type of market served is negatively associated with firm size (p < 0.05). No association was found between type of market served and type of product offer, firm age, or sales growth rate. Thus, for the tests of H1 and H2, it was decided to control for the co-variation of firm size. Marketing practices Comparing the marketing practices across the two types of firm, both similarities and differences are identified. Table III shows that significant differences emerge across seven of the eight dimensions for the consumer/ B2B dichotomy. At an aggregate level, this would suggest that the marketing practices of firms serving consumer markets are different from those serving business markets. However, it offers more insight to examine the dichotomy along the 31 individual variables underlying the dimensions in order to understand the subtleties of specific practices. For example, Table III shows that significant differences were found for seven of the 16 variables that comprise the four managerial dimensions measured in this study, and nine of the 15 variables underlying the four relational exchange dimensions. More detailed results will now be discussed. Consumer firm practices These results indicate that relative to B2B organizations, consumer firms practice significantly higher levels of certain aspects of transaction marketing. That is, they are more likely to: focus their efforts on attracting new customers; emphasize the product offering; invest in areas related to the traditional marketing mix; emphasize marketing communication that is directed from the firm to the mass market; engage in customer contact that is arms-length and impersonal; and participate in relational exchanges which involve no future personalized contact between the customer and the firm. Consumer firms also differ from B2B firms in their practice of certain aspects of database marketing. They are more likely to invest resources in communication technologies, utilize specialist marketers to conduct various marketing activities, and focus their marketing communication on customers in a specific, targeted segment. In addition to these significant differences, a review of the ranked means within each of the eight dimensions in Table III shows that firms serving consumer markets emphasize activities pertaining to transaction marketing and database marketing. B2B firm practices Table III shows that B2B firms are more likely than consumer firms to practice significantly higher levels of certain aspects of interaction marketing. For example, they tend to emphasize interpersonal contact with primary customers, and marketing communication that involves individual employees with their customers. They are also more likely to participate in relational exchanges that involve ongoing personal contact between
392 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Higher levels of transaction marketing

Dimensions and variable Managerial intent: (a) attract customers (b) retain customers (c) develop cooperative relationships (d) coordinate system-wide relationships Managerial planning focus: (a) product offering (b) general customer base (c) individual customers (d) system-wide relationships Managerial resource investment: (a) ``4P'' activities (b) communication technology (c) personal relationships (d) organizational/system relationships Managerial level (marketing done by): (a) functional marketers (b) specialist marketers (c) all employees (d) chief executive Purpose of relational exchange: (a) generate financial return (d) acquire customer information (c) build individual long-term relationships (d) form system-wide relationships Communication pattern/balance/parties: (a) firm to mass market (b) firm to specific segment (c) individual employees with their customers (d) senior managers with other senior managers Type of customer contact: (a) arms-length, impersonal (b) somewhat personalized (c) interpersonal Duration of relational exchange/time frame: (a) no future personalized contact by firm (b) some future personalized contact by firm (c) ongoing personal contact with an individual (d) ongoing personal contact with the system Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Marketing approach Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction Network Transaction Database Interaction/ network

Consumer B2B mean mean 4.25 4.10 3.78 3.31 4.50 4.16 3.70 3.17 4.15 2.98 3.66 3.20 3.73 2.84 2.97 2.96 4.22 3.22 3.96 3.35 3.56 3.94 3.72 2.88 2.39 3.12 3.77 3.90 4.32 3.98 3.26 4.23 3.91 3.69 3.07 3.79 2.94 3.95 3.46 3.75 2.51 2.88 3.11 4.35 3.32 4.17 3.56 2.45 3.91 4.16 3.34 1.64 2.83 4.50

F-value 3.94* 2.90 1.08 0.08 5.27** 2.50 0.00 0.24 4.55* 4.66** 5.37** 1.80 2.71 9.76*** 0.39 4.81** 0.78 0.46 1.87 1.28 33.44*** 3.68* 6.16** 6.34** 18.61*** 2.19 23.63***

Transaction Database Interaction Network

1.91 3.72 3.61 3.25

1.44 3.66 4.12 3.95

7.81*** 0.53 8.09*** 12.85***

Table III. Comparing marketing practices

individual buyers and sellers, and invest resources to develop personal dyadic relationships. Similar patterns appear for network marketing, where B2B firms are more likely to emphasize interpersonal contact with primary customers and participate in relationships that involve ongoing contact with the organizational network/system. The nature of their marketing
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001 393

communication in B2B firms also tends to involve senior managers interacting with their counterparts in other organizations, and marketing generally takes place at the senior management level. These findings, together with a review of the ranked means for B2B firms suggest that these organizations are more relational than their consumer counterparts in some of their marketing practices. This is also supported by other patterns in Table III, where for example, a simple comparison of means in the dimension labeled ``purpose of relational exchange'' shows that B2B firm means for the three relational variables (b-d) exceed those of consumer firms. Although not statistically significant, the direction of these results is informative. Volume requirements Summary and other findings Overall, when the MANOVA results are combined with other patterns found in Table III, it appears that both H1 (Consumer firms are more likely to practice TM and DM) and H2 (B2B firms are more likely to practice IM and NM) are supported. Perhaps the obvious explanation is that the practices of consumer firms are driven by volume requirements (due to market size) while business-to-business firms are more likely to manage fewer relationships and, thus, interaction and network marketing are more appropriate. It is equally important to note, however, that while statistically significant results exist for certain variables:
. .

such differences appear for just over half the variables (16 of 31); and the differences might not always be managerially important or relevant.

For example, while consumer firms are more likely to focus on the product offer in their market planning, both consumer and B2B firms report relatively high levels of activity on this variable (means of 4.50 and 4.23). Similarly, although consumer firms are more likely than B2B firms to be involved with relational exchange that involves no future personalized contact by the firm, both types of firm report relatively low levels of activity for this variable (means of 1.91 and 1.44). Similarities Indeed, a review of the MANOVA results suggests that while certain differences do emerge between consumer and B2B firms (with the former emphasizing TM and DM, and the latter IM and NM), the general patterns of behavior are more similar than not. Furthermore, when the 15 non-significant results are reviewed, both consumer and B2B firms report a high emphasis on generating a financial return, with marketing activities carried out by functional managers. These behaviors are conceptualized by Coviello et al. (1997) to reflect transaction marketing. Both types of firm also practice conceptualized aspects of database marketing as seen in the high level of intent to retain customers, and also their planning focus on the customer base (in addition to the product offer). Although the mean ratings for investment in communication technology, acquiring customer information, and communicating with the customers in a personalized manner are slightly lower, the patterns remain consistent across consumer and B2B firms. Thus, they both appear to practice conceptualized aspects of database marketing. Both consumer and B2B firms also practice aspects of interaction marketing as evidenced by the relatively high mean ratings for the intent to develop long-term, individual relationships with buyers. There is also evidence that both types of firm focus their planning on specific customers with the intent
394 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

to develop co-operative relationships. Finally, aspects of network marketing are also practiced across the dichotomy (although less frequently), as firms invest in external marketing assets to develop and co-ordinate system-wide relationships. General patterns Given the above, the combined results show that H1 and H2 are only partially supported. At one level, the dichotomy argument seems to be supported given the comparison across individual items provides evidence that consumer firms are more likely to practice transaction marketing and database marketing, and B2B firms are more likely to emphasize interaction marketing and network marketing. However, additional analysis shows there are more similarities than differences across the 31 individual variables in this investigation. Therefore, a clear dichotomous pattern fails to emerge, and the general patterns show that contemporary practices of both types of firms reflect aspects of all four marketing approaches. Discussion and implications This study examined two hypotheses related to contemporary marketing practice in the context of the consumer/B2B dichotomy. We hypothesized that consumer firms would be more likely to practice transaction marketing and also database marketing (H1), while B2B firms would be more likely to practice interaction and network marketing (H2). The results offer mixed support for these hypotheses in that while some support is found for the expected differences, a number of similarities are also identified. What follows is a discussion of the key findings, their theoretical significance, and suggestions for both managerial practice and future research. Key findings At one level, marketing appears to be more relational in B2B firms and more transactional in consumer firms. Thus, it might be argued that the conduct of marketing in B2B firms is different from that in consumer firms, and should be recognized as such in research and education. Such an argument would in fact support most of the existing literature. There are, however, a number of important points to recognize before reaching this conclusion. First, consumer and B2B firms have a large number of similarities in their marketing practice across the three dimensions describing the intent of marketing decisions, the managerial planning focus, and the purpose of exchange. Second, there are also similarities within other dimensions such as resource investment, customer contact, and managerial level of market planning. These findings contradict the marketing literature that has consistently argued for consumer/B2B marketing differences. Third, and perhaps most important, the similarities in practice encompass both the traditional and more relational views of marketing. That is, the current business practices of both consumer and B2B firms involve managing the marketing mix to attract customers (transaction marketing) and utilizing technology to enhance customer relationships (database marketing). They also emphasize the development and management of personal relationships with individual customers (interaction marketing), and efforts to position the firm in a net of various market relationships (network marketing). Thus, both the transactional and relational paradigms are relevant in contemporary marketing, regardless of type of market served. Therefore, these empirical findings support Fern and Brown's (1984) argument that the dichotomy is unjustified. Although some differences do emerge across contexts, it is unreasonable to argue that marketing practices are fundamentally different across consumer and B2B firms. Thus, these findings contradict Webster (1978), Cooke (1986) and Lilien (1987).
395

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

Contemporary marketing

Theoretical implications Overall, this study enriches our understanding of contemporary marketing in the context of firms serving consumer and business markets. While buyer market structure, demand patterns, and buyer behaviors may be different across firms serving these two types of market (and perhaps even these are changing), this paper argues that the traditional divide between consumer and B2B marketing practice is oversimplified in a contemporary environment. Thus, the key implications of this study are as follows. First, it is important to recognize that B2B marketing, while unique in certain aspects, is not fundamentally different from consumer marketing. Related to this, it is important to understand both similarities and differences in marketing practice across contexts, including when and why different approaches to marketing are being practiced, how multiple approaches can be practiced simultaneously, and how these practices might be influenced by other firms, market or managerial characteristics. Second, to accurately depict and understand contemporary marketing practices, theoretical frameworks should include a full spectrum of marketing approaches, and not rely solely either the transactional or relational paradigm as a conceptual base. Also, as the marketing environment continues to evolve, theoretical frameworks must also evolve to reflect new developments in practice and research. Practical implications Managers should identify which marketing approaches may challenge their organization as there will be increasing pressure on all firms to effectively apply different approaches as the firm and its portfolio of relationships evolves. For example, consumer firms may attempt to get closer to their various customers as a defensive measure in increasingly competitive markets, and consequently will continue to emphasize relational marketing in the form of database marketing. Managers in these organizations should also consider focusing on understanding, establishing and facilitating both personal and business relationships such that a network of viable contacts is developed. Investment (time, personal effort, and financial resources) should be placed in both the individual relationships, and the development of the firm's position in a network of firms. Similarly, B2B firms might develop more sophisticated transactional marketing abilities and infrastructure, given that the core product and its supporting marketing mix lie at the heart of the firm's relational offer. These firms should also seek to enhance their database marketing capabilities as e-business continues to grow. Indeed, development of the requisite skills and infrastructure to support database marketing will become increasingly important to both consumer and B2B firms as customers continue to increase their technological sophistication and use of information technology in decision making. Consumer firms will apply alternative technologies in an effort to manage smaller segments on a more personal basis, and B2B firms will use them to support/facilitate interaction and network marketing efforts. Overall, an appreciation of the different marketing approaches examined in this study should help guide managers in developing their ability to effectively implement both transactional and relational marketing. Managers will have to be sensitive to the knowledge, resources, and systems underlying each approach. In this regard, it is likely that consumer and B2B firms might learn from one another in their ongoing development of broader marketing capacity. Limitations and research implications There are certain limitations to this study that should be recognized and overcome in future research. First, the division of the sample into firms

Marketing approaches

Ongoing development

396

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001

serving either consumer or business markets might be oversimplified in that a number of firms may serve both types of customers. Although respondents were asked to identify their primary/most important customer base, and focus their responses on this customer group (thus allowing for a distinct comparison between consumer and business marketing practices), future research could allow for respondents to either: (1) report a consumer market, business market, or business and consumer market focus; or (2) provide separate answers for each of the different customer groups served. Serving multiple customer groups This would provide further insight to the complexities of serving multiple customer groups. Second, as the investigation relied on the self-reports/ perceptions of single managers within the organization, future research could obtain information from multiple respondents across levels and functions. Third, marketing practice is likely to evolve with various market and technological developments. Snapshots of marketing practice will have limited relevance unless repeated frequently over time. Thus, while this cross-sectional study provides a useful base, longitudinal, contextually sensitive data is best suited to capture evolutionary marketing practices and their various context influences.
References Marketing News (1985), ``AMA board approves new marketing definition'', Marketing News, 1 March, p. 1. Ames, B.C. (1970), ``Trappings vs. substance in industrial marketing'', Harvard Business Review, No. 48, July-August, pp. 93-102. Andrus, D.M. and Norvell, W. (1990), ``Marketing differences between large and small firms: a test of the industrial/consumer dichotomy hypothesis'', Akron Business and Economic Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 81-90. Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1997), ``Marketing orientation and company performance: industrial vs consumer goods companies'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 385-402. Bagozzi, R.P. (1975), ``Marketing as exchange'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, October, pp. 32-9. Berry, L.L. (1983), ``Relationship marketing'', in Berry, L.L., Shostack, G.L. and Upah, G.D. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-38. Brodie, R.J., Coviello, N.E., Brookes, R.W. and Little, V. (1997), ``Towards a paradigm shift? an examination of contemporary marketing practices'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 383-406. Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Cooke, E.F. (1986), ``What is business and industrial marketing?'', Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 9-17. Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J. and Munro, H.J. (1997), ``Understanding contemporary marketing: development of a classification scheme'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 501-22. Coviello, N.E., Brodie, R.J. and Munro, H.J. (2000), ``An investigation of marketing practice by firm size'', Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 5/6, pp. 523-45. Cummings, W.T., Jackson, D.W. and Ostrom, L.L. (1984), ``Differences between industrial and consumer product managers'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 171-80. Dawes, P.L. and Patterson, P.G. (1988), ``The performance of industrial and consumer product managers'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-84. Deshpande, R. and Zaltman, G. (1987), ``A comparison of factors affecting the use of marketing information in consumer and industrial firms'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, February, pp. 114-18.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001 397

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P.J. and Oh, S. (1987), ``Developing buyer-seller relationships'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 11-27. Fern, E.F. and Brown, J.R. (1984), ``The industrial/consumer marketing dichotomy: a case of insufficient justification'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48, Spring, pp. 68-77. Ford, D. (1980), ``The development of buyer-seller relationships in industrial markets'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 5/6, pp. 339-53. Gro nroos, C. (1990), ``Relationship approach to marketing in service contexts: the marketing and organizational behavior interface'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-11. Gro nroos, C. (1991), ``The marketing strategy continuum: toward a marketing concept for the 1990s'', Management Decision, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-13. Gro nroos, C. (1994), ``From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in marketing'', Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-20. Gro nroos, C. (1996), ``The rise and fall of modern marketing and its rebirth'', in Shaw, S.A. and Hood, N. (Eds), Marketing in Evolution. Essays in Honour of Michael J Baker, Macmillan Press, London, pp. 14-35. Gruen, T.W. (1995), ``The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets'', International Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 447-69. Gummesson, E. (1987), ``The new marketing developing long-term interactive relationships'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 10-20. Ha kansson, H. (1982), International Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. Ha kansson, H. and Snehota, I. (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge, London. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Hutt, M.D. and Speh, T.W. (1998), Business Marketing Management A Strategic View of Industrial and Organizational Markets, 6th ed., The Dryden Press, Orlando, FL. Iacobucci, D. and Hibbard, J.D. (1999), ``Toward an encompassing theory of business marketing relationships (BMRs) and interpersonal commercial relationships (ICRs): an empirical generalization'', Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 13-33. Jackson, R.W. and Cooper, P.D. (1988), ``Unique aspects of marketing industrial services'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 111-18. Kelly, J.P. and Hise, R.T. (1979), ``Industrial and consumer goods product managers are different'', Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 325-32. Kotler, P. (1992), ``Marketing's new paradigm: what's really happening out there'', Planning Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 50-2. Lilien, G.L. (1987), ``Business marketing: present and future'', Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 3-21. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), ``The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1983), ``Service firms need marketing skills'', Business Horizons, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 28-31. Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), ``Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 255-71. Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D.E. (1988), Marketing Theory: Evolution and Evaluation, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY. Turley, L.W and Kelley, S.W. (1997), ``A comparison of advertising content: business to business versus consumer services'', Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 39-48. Webster, F.E. (1978), ``Management science in industrial marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42, January, pp. 21-7. Webster, F.E. (1992), ``The changing role of marketing in the corporation'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, October, pp. 1-17. Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), ``Problems and strategies in services marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Spring, pp. 33-46.

&

398

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 16 NO. 5 2001