Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Customer response to dissatisfaction: A synthesis of literature and conceptual framework

Jodie L. Ferguson a,, Wesley J. Johnston b,1
a b

Department of Marketing, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000, United States Center for Business and Industrial Marketing, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3991, Atlanta, GA 30302-3991, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Business-to-business customers who are dissatised with services or products may respond by voicing complaints, by exiting the transaction relationships, by spreading negative word-of-mouth (WOM) about their experiences, and/or by continuing the transactional relationships as they are. The authors synthesize extant customer (dis)satisfaction response behaviors in the organizational buyer behavior literature, and discuss within-rm and third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. A model of customer response behavior is disclosed featuring possible inuences of exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM: number of alternative suppliers, past complaint response behavior, number of years in relationship, and type of purchase. Propositions are provided on the effects of inuence variables on response behavior relationships. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 3 October 2008 Received in revised form 7 April 2010 Accepted 13 April 2010 Keywords: Customer dissatisfaction Exit Response behavior Word-of-mouth Voice

In Sheth's (1973) general model of industrial buying behavior, he suggested that consumers' satisfaction with past buying experiences inuences their future purchase decisions. Similarly, their dissatisfaction with their past buying experiences should also inuence their future purchase decisions. Unlike satisfaction, however, dissatisfaction has the potential to cause negative future decisions, not simply future purchase decisions such as declining to repurchase, but also decisions to complain and to spread negative word-of-mouth (WOM) that will damage the business or reputation of the offending provider or supplier. Suppliers have a great stake in lessening such harm by understanding dissatised customers' potential responses and understanding what factors cause them to respond in certain ways. Companies must be aware that dissatised customers may wreak damage depending on the behavior they choose in responding to dissatisfaction. They may simply complain about their dissatisfaction, or they might terminate the transaction relationship, severing future revenues, dissolving the company's relational investment, and costing the company dissolution expenses, sanctions for future business, and setup outlays to establish new relationships (Tahtinen & Vaaland, 2006). Negative WOM is one extreme hazard with far-reaching consequences. Money, Gilly, and Graham (1998) demonstrated that current customers responding to dissatisfactory experiences may spread negative WOM to a supplier's existing and potential
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 804 828 3201; fax: +1 804 828 0200. E-mail addresses: jlferguson@vcu.edu (J.L. Ferguson), mktwjj@langate.gsu.edu (W.J. Johnston). 1 Tel.: + 995 404 413 7851. 0019-8501/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.05.002

customers. Negative WOM may cause the supplier to lose credibility or suffer a tarnished reputation, which can mean substantial revenue loss from multiple sources. With the proliferation of the Internet, negative WOM on trade organization websites could blanket the entire industry, potentially crippling the supplier. Bonoma, Zaltman and Johnston (1977)) reported that rms rely on WOM communication within rms to make buying decisions. Negative WOM can not only ruin the supplier's reputation for the buying center involved, but can spread to other buying centers within the rm, causing lost revenues for the supplier in other departments. In this paper, the authors strive to accomplish the following objectives: (1) to dene business customer dissatisfaction with a purchase experience, (2) to synthesize the extant research on business customer (dis)satisfaction and subsequent behavioral responses to dissatisfaction, (3) to provide a conceptual framework for examining business customer dissatisfaction response behavior, (4) to explore the potential recipients of complaining and negative WOM in a business-tobusiness context, (5) to proposition potential inuences on the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship, and (6) to suggest propensities for individual members of buying centers to engage in response behaviors. 1. Business customer (dis)satisfaction As the role of the business relationship and focus on the customer has come to the foreground, the business-to-business literature has paid increasing attention to customer satisfaction (see Emerson & Grimm, 1999; Tikkanen & Alajoutsijarvi, 2002; Tikkanen, Alajoutsijarvi, & Tahtinen, 2000). The satisfaction literature derives its concept

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127 Table 1 Summary of business-to-business research relevant to (dis)satisfaction and response behaviors. Author(s) Backhaus and Bauer (2000) Variables involved Outcomes and responses behaviors Key ndings Critical incidents impact satisfaction formation. Conjoint analysis shows that purchasers fall into three categories for deciding industrial complaining behavior: some do not use consistent rules, some use a single rule (e.g., price), and some use price and number of suppliers. Hirschman's (1970) model of customer response behavior is applied to businessto-business markets from an IMP perspective. Exploration of nancial implications to response behaviors. Product line growth rate and supplier exibility are found to inuence the customer servicesatisfaction relationship. Perspectives on relationship termination are discussed and a model of inter-rm relationship termination presented with support through four case studies. Customer perceived value is positively related to word-of-mouth (positive) and negatively related to searching for alternatives. A typology of dissatisfaction style groups: squawker, complainer, activist, and wait and squawk. Buyers experience problems in different problem categories (e.g., delivery). Survey of buyers to estimate the effectiveness of 13 complaint actions. Buyers' decision processes studied in high-technology markets. Pace of technology, vendor-related switching costs, and formalization all positively affect switching behavior, while experience and centralization negatively affect switching behavior.

119

Presence of critical incidents, satisfaction Barksdale, Powell, and Hargrove Purchase price, number of (1984) suppliers, types of purchase, relationship with supplier

Voicing (complaining)

Blois (2008)

Business-to-business exchanges

Exit, voice, and loyalty, and nancial implications to response behaviors

Emerson and Grimm (1999)

Satisfaction, rm, and environmental variables Interaction between trigger event and existing state of the relationship

Loyalty

Giller and Matear (2001)

Relationship termination

Hansen, Samuelsen, and Silseth Customer perceived value (2008) Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996a) Expertise, jurisdictional disagreement, vendorbuyer communications, dependency; dissatisfaction Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996b) Effectiveness of complaint actions

Word-of-mouth and searching for alternatives Do nothing, complain, warn others, third-party action

Heide and Weiss (1995)*

Hibbard, Kumar, and Stern (2001)*

Pace of technology change, technology heterogeneity, experience, technological compatibility, vendor-related switching costs, importance of purchase, formalization, centralization Destructive act intensity, supplier attribution, self-attribution, external attribution, relationship quality, total dependence and relative dependence Switching costs

Types of complaint actions: positive (seeking vendor assistance) and negative (switching, negative WOM, complaints that harm rm reputation, wait and see) Vendor consideration and switching behavior

Disengagement, constructive discussion, passive acceptance, venting; performance (supplier's perspective) and relationship quality Repurchase intentions

Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty (2002)

Liu (2006) Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005)

Customer value Customer value; customer satisfaction and perceived switching costs

Switching costs Share-of-business intention

Patterson, Johnson, and Spreng (1997)

Perkins (1993)

Expectations (inuenced by novelty, importance, decision complexity) and performance (inuenced by stake holding and uncertainty), disconrmation, fairness; satisfaction Satisfaction

Intentions

Ping (1993)*

Investment in relationship, witching costs, alternative attractiveness, satisfaction

Loyalty, voice, exiting, opportunism, neglect

Ping (1994)*

Alternative attractiveness; relationship satisfaction (moderator)

Exit

Responses to destructive acts in channels setting examined. Cognitions about the destructive act and relationship characteristics to inuence engagement in responses to the destructive act. Switching costs examined and six dimensions proposed: lost performance costs, uncertainty costs, pre-switching search and evaluation costs, post-switching behavioral and cognitive costs, set-up costs, and sunk costs. Firms can inuence perceptions of switching costs by increasing perceptions of customer value. Customer value, comprising three dimensions (economic value, value of core services, and value of support services), customer satisfaction, and perceived switching costs inuence share-ofbusiness repurchase decisions. The disconrmation paradigm for determining satisfaction can be applied to industrial buying situations. A model of satisfaction is tested; all but two hypothesized relationships are conrmed. An approach to measuring customer satisfaction, using product and service characteristics. Negative associations found between satisfaction and exit and neglect and between investment and neglect. Positive associations found between alternative attractiveness and exit, neglect, and opportunism; between investment and voice; between satisfaction and voice; and between switching cost and loyalty. Relationship satisfaction has a nonlinear moderating effect of alternative attractiveness on exit behavior in a channels setting. (continued on next page)

120 Table 1 (continued) Author(s) Ping (1997)*

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

Variables involved Satisfaction, cost of exit, partnering rm demographics Customer satisfaction

Outcomes and responses behaviors Voice

Key ndings In B2B relationships, satisfaction, cost of exit, and partnering rm demographics affect voicing behavior. Measurement for customer satisfaction in B2B marketing. Specically developed for retail organizations and their suppliers. Dissatisfaction leads to lower key account success.

Schellhase, Hardock, and Ohlwein (1999)

Sharma (2006)

Tikkanen and Alajoutsijarvi (2002)

Dissatisfaction, marketers' relational assets, buyer's relational assets, quality of alternatives, buyer's knowledge of key account personnel, lack of innovation, social/personal bonds, environment Customer satisfaction

Key account success

Tikkanen et al. (2000)

Critical incidents; (dis)satisfaction

Trawick and Swan (1981)

Williams and Rao (1980)

Intentions to reorder, reorders Follow-up required, actual response equals desired, prior complaint response, buyer rm larger than supplier, buyer rm a major customer, another supplier available; satisfaction with rm response to complaining behavior Organizational buyer complaint Dissatisfaction, individual aspects behavior of behavior, problem situation, structural variables, types of purchase

Discussion of current procedures for tracking customer satisfaction. Three steps proposed (the inner context of a business relationship, the connected network of the customersupplier relationship, and the outer context of the connected network) that must be considered for industrial customer satisfaction. Case study demonstrates that critical incidents affect buyer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Satisfaction with rm response is affected by follow-up, actual/desired response, prior complaining handled satisfactorily, and the buyer rm being a major customer. Satisfaction with rm response to complaining behavior signicantly impacted actual reordering. A model proposed of organizational buyer complaint behavior

*From the marketing channels literature.

of (dis)satisfaction from Oliver's disconrmation between perceived post-purchase outcomes (i.e., supplier performance) and pre-purchase expectations (Oliver, 1980). The disconrmation affects the customer's level of satisfaction. Although satisfaction can vary in degree, from less to more (i.e., resulting in a continuum), generally speaking, a positive disconrmation results in satisfaction and a negative disconrmation results in dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Customers may respond to satisfaction by spreading positive WOM or purchasing and repurchasing more frequently. Dissatised customers, however, may refuse to repurchase from the supplier, or may undertake malicious attempts to get even or harm the supplier, such as by spreading negative WOM. Therefore, in this paper the authors focus on framing customer responses to dissatisfaction, which may help suppliers better understand dissatised customers' negative responses and better devise measures to prevent or modify such responses. Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that one cross-sectional negative occurrence may not cause customers to become dissatised; rather a series of dissatisfactory incidences may cause them to become dissatised holistically with the supplier. Similarly, when a company fails to meet purchasing consumers' expectations in one or several aspects of the buying process, they may become dissatised with the whole purchase experience. Perkins (1993) suggested several failures that may lead to customer (dis)satisfaction: service (e.g., sales service, and technology support), product specications (e.g., technical quality, and reliability), and operations (e.g., price, on-time delivery, and availability). Webster and Wind (1972), in their general model of buying behavior, discussed the concept of the buying center within a buyer (i.e., customer). Because the buying process can be so complex and involve multiple persons, multiple goals, and potentially conicting decision criteria, to handle the buying process a company creates a buying center, which comprises all organizational members involved in the buying process, including users, inuencers, deciders, buyers, and gatekeepers. Buying center members may have different levels of

expectations for the product/service purchased (Williams & Rao, 1980), and they may each have different experiences that shape their perceptions of supplier performance, depending on their involvement in aspects of service, product specications, and/or operations. With their differences in expectations and perceived outcomes, individuals may experience dissatisfaction while others are content. For example, Bob Buyer's experience with the supplier's sales representative may exceed his expectations, while Ursula User's experience with the supplier's late delivery may fail to meet her expectations. In this situation, the buyer is satised but the user is dissatised. Business customer dissatisfaction results when at least one member of the buying center is dissatised with a purchase experience, because that one dissatised member can respond with behaviors that harm the supplier. Thus suppliers should be aware that in business-to-business purchases, customers may be dissatised with their purchase experience when a supplier fails to meet the expectations of at least one member of the customer's buying center on one or more aspect of service, product specications, and/or operations. 2. (Dis)satisfaction and response behaviors in the literature The authors' review of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the organizational buyer behavior literature gave insights into business customer dissatisfaction response behavior. Table 1 provides a summary of this literature. Much of the research focused on dening or measuring satisfaction (Backhaus & Bauer, 2000; Perkins, 1993; Schellhase et al., 1999). The research that examined responses to (dis) satisfaction, such as exit behavior, was limited and typically focused on one or a limited number of response behaviors (Barksdale et al., 1984; Giller & Matear, 2001; Jones et al., 2002). Research by Hansen et al. (1996a) did, however, examine complaining and spreading negative WOM behaviors, but only revealed clusters of similar responding groups. A more complete framework of responses to

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

121

business customer dissatisfaction needs to be developed, as exemplied by Ping (1993, 1994, 1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) who developed models of response behavior for the marketing channels and retailing contexts. Hansen et al. (1996a) adapted Singh's (1990) typology of consumer response styles to an industrial market setting by developing four dissatisfaction style groups: squawkers, activists, complainers, and wait and squawkers. The groups were clustered according to their behavioral responses to a dissatisfying experience: doing nothing, complaining, switching suppliers, warning others, or taking third-party actions. In contrast to categorizing customers by their response behaviors, we identied the recipients of the different responses to frame the behaviors themselves and their contributions. Earlier literature on customer complaints focused on complaints delivered solely to the supplier (Barksdale et al., 1984; Trawick & Swan, 1981; Williams & Rao, 1980). In their studies, Hansen et al. (1996a,b) included complaint behavior to third-party individuals as well as positive and negative complaint actions, such as negative WOM. However, these studies focused on complaints to suppliers (i.e., the dyadic partner in the transactional relationship). Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that the network outside the customersupplier dyad is crucial in satisfaction. Today's communication options grow ever more intense, so complaint behavior beyond the supplier and the spread of negative WOM has heightened importance; therefore, we have included complaining and spreading negative WOM within the dyadic relationship and outside to third parties in our framework of dissatisfaction response behaviors. 2.1. Hirschman's exit, voice, and loyalty dissatisfaction response model As early as Hirschman's (1970) response framework, researchers were focusing on response behavior frameworks. Several social science arenas have recognized Hirschman's framework, including psychology, political science, consumer behavior, and organizational behavior (Singh, 1991). The framework model suggests that customers will behave in one of three general ways in reaction to a dissatisfactory purchase experience: exit, voice, or loyalty. When customers exit, they sever their relationship with the selling or servicing rm. When they activate the voice option they express their desire to change the undesirable situation and to seek satisfaction. When they select the loyalty option, they choose to continue their current transactional relationship; they omit the choice of exiting the relationship. Singh (1990) took the framework one step further by introducing another option that was similar to voicing but needed its own classication: negative WOM, which entails communicating to others but not the supplier about the dissatisfactory experience. The marketing channels literature has somewhat accepted Hirschman's framework since the model is basic for dissatisfaction literature (Hibbard et al., 2001; Ping 1993, 1994, 1997). These studies loosely used the exit, voice, and loyalty model and adapted it to include additional variables to t the channels context. Ping (1993, 1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) tested the effects of antecedents on response behavior and found support for these effects and for the use of Hirschman's response variables in the channels setting. Blois (2008) used Hirschman's (1970) model to describe businessto-business responses in eloquently adapting the model of exit, voice, and loyalty to responses, but limited the focus to nancial implications of exercising each response behavior. 2.2. Literature summary Reviewing the literature of dissatisfaction and response behaviors revealed multiple opportunities. First, researchers have conducted limited research on dissatisfaction in a business-to-business context. They have paid some attention to various response behaviors (e.g.,

complaining; Trawick & Swan, 1981), but have provided no framework for classifying most response behaviors in a business-tobusiness context, particularly as it relates to the buying center. We need to more clearly conceptualize the targets of customers' response behaviors. Specically, who is on the receiving end of voicing and negative WOM? Finally, Hirschman's (1970) model of exit, voice, and loyalty has been adapted in marketing channels and retailing contexts, has seen limited adaptation in the business-to-business context (with the exception of Blois, 2008), and can be used to more completely frame business customer dissatisfaction response behavior. 3. Dissatisfaction response behavior framework In the current paper, our proposed framework focuses on four response behaviors: exit, voice, loyalty (Hirschman, 1970), and spreading negative WOM (Singh, 1990). Blois (2008) summarized and dened Hirschman's (1970) concepts in the business-to-business context, where exit is moving from an existing supplier to one of its competitors, where voice is an attempt to change, rather than escape from, an objectionable state of affairsthrough general protest, and where loyalty is an option where a customer may continue to purchase from a supplierin hope that improvement or reform can be achieved from within (Blois, 2008, p. 3; Hirschman, 1970, pp. 4, 15, 79). Finally, Richins's (1983) premier article on consumers' negative WOM dened spreading negative WOM as telling others about the unsatisfactory product or [supplier] (p. 68). In the next section, we discuss each of the four response behaviors in more detail. It is important to note that exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM are not mutually exclusive responses (Singh, 1990). Instead, these responses can be engaged individually or together. For example, it is possible for a customer to complain (e.g., voice) to the supplier about poor performance and switch to another supplier (e.g., exit) when it is time to reorder the product. Also, voicing and negative WOM are directed actions. The behavior is directed from the customer to or at the supplier, or another individual or group. 3.1. Exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM When customers choose to exit, they no longer wish to continue their transaction relationship with the supplier. Their experience is so severe that they believe that solely voicing their displeasure will not persuade the vendor to respond in a way that will rectify the experience. Their dissatisfactory experience may be the last in a succession of inadequate responses, possibly being the one to push the customer to sever the transaction relationship. Customers who choose to exit must nd alternative sources to provide the service. The exit response does not necessarily mean that the customer exits all transactions with the supplier. In organizational buying behavior, a rm may use a vendor for multiple different products and/ or services. Faced with a dissatisfactory situation, the rm may decide to exit the relationship for that particular product or service, but may decide to continue as usual with other products or services because the same supplier fullls those needs. For example, Customer A purchases bolts and fasteners from Supplier B. Supplier B delivers the bolts on time but the fasteners are two weeks late. Customer A may decide to sever the fastener purchasing part of the relationship but continue the bolt purchasing. Because of satisfactory service on the bolt orders, Customer A will continue that portion of the relationship with Supplier B, but will exit the fastener portion of the relationship. Customers who experience dissatisfaction with a supplier can complain (i.e., voice) to persuade the supplier to solve the problem; the goal of voicing is to turn the experience from dissatisfactory to satisfactory (Trawick & Swan, 1981). Voice is an active response to dissatisfaction, with intent to seek restitution (Singh, 1991). Voice is often directed to the supplier but can also be directed toward

122

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

individuals within the buying rm (i.e., the customer) or to a thirdparty. For example, if Bob Buyer is dissatised with Suzie Supplier's prices, he can complain to Suzie to lower the prices, complain to Dean Decider (i.e., within the buying center) to increase the budget, or complain to Len Lawyer (i.e., third-party) to sue Suzie for price gouging. The loyalty option may seem passive, but may actually be a calculated response on the customer's part. When executing loyalty, the customer chooses to refrain from exiting the relationship; rather, the customer will continue the transactional relationship and status quo purchases in hopes that the supplier will perform better in the future. Blois (2008) suggested that even as customers remain loyal, they may still voice or spread negative WOM. Spreading negative WOM describes the very active response the customer takes to inform others about the dissatisfactory experience (Singh, 1990). Negative WOM is not directed toward the supplier, but instead is directed to other individuals either within the buying rm or third-party recipients. Voice and negative WOM are similar but they have distinctions. Voice is an active option where the customer seeks change; negative WOM is active, but not to effect change. Negative WOM can be thought of as venting or as an attempt to express frustration. 3.2. Within-rm and third-party recipients In their exit, voice, and loyalty studies pertaining to marketing channels, Hibbard et al. (2001) and Ping (1993) examined customers' responses to a single informant only, their responses to the supplier. In reality, customer response behavior could stem from a variety of individuals within the buying center and could be directed toward individuals and/or groups inside or outside the dyadic relationship (i.e., customersupplier). Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that when studying customer satisfaction, one must look at the internal context (i.e., the buyerseller dyad) as well as the external context (i.e., industry scene). Along these lines, the response behavior should be considered within the buying rm (i.e., the customer), between the two rms (i.e., customer and supplier), and within the industrial network. In the following section we discuss these situations. Voice and negative WOM are distinctive from exit and loyalty because voice and negative WOM are directed to a recipient, either the supplier or beyond the supplier. When customers decide to exit or remain loyal, they either sever or keep their relationship. They can direct voice to the supplier, to others within their buying center, or to third parties. Like voice, they can direct negative WOM to others within the buying rm, beyond the buying center but within the boundaries of the rm (i.e., to other buying centers within the rm), or to third parties (e.g., legal outlets). Fig. 1 illustrates within-rm voicing and negative WOM, and Fig. 2 illustrates supplier and thirdparty voicing and negative WOM. Johnston and Bonoma (1981) suggested that the buying center exists as a communication network that derives its conguration from regularized patterns of communication. Among other communication dimensions, the vertical involvement and lateral involvement imply that communication ows up and down organizational hierarchical levels and side-to-side among divisions or departments, all within buying centers. Fig. 1 demonstrates that because all members of the buying center can experience different levels of (dis)satisfaction, all members of the buying center can also direct both voice and negative WOM to each other. For example, Ursula User complains to Bob Buyer about an insufcient supply of product from a purchase in an effort to correct the delivery. Bob, in turn, must then complain directly to the supplier to correct the problem. Because Ursula complains to Bob, she executes voice. On the other hand, if Ursula complains to Bob just to express frustration while making do with the dissatisfactory delivery, she executes negative WOM.

Fig. 1. Within-rm voicing and negative word-of-mouth.

Fig. 1 also demonstrates how members of the buying center can spread negative WOM beyond the initial buying center and to other buying centers within the buying rm. When faced with a dissatisfying supplier experience, members of the buying center can vent to other buying centers, thereby expressing dissatisfaction with a common supplier and executing negative WOM response behavior. Voice and negative WOM can also be directed toward third parties. A dissatised buying center member may decide that voicing to a legal outlet or suing the supplier is the best response to get restitution. Members of the buying rm's buying center may feel the urge to spread negative WOM about the supplier to friends and colleagues who may be current or potential customers of the supplier. Another outlet for buying center members to vent may be a neutral third-party such as a trade organization. Trade organizations may have blogs, newswires, or chat rooms established for communicating dissatisfaction. Similar customers could use trade organizations as a resource to make purchasing decisions and to learn about other dissatised customers' experiences. Fig. 2 depicts the third-party recipient options.

Fig. 2. Supplier and third-party voicing and negative word-of-mouth.

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

123

4. Inuences of the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship A number of variables may moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship more radically than the consumer relationship does because both customer and supplier may have so much more at stake. Business-to-business purchases may be worth more money, be more abundant, and have more people involved in the purchase. Thus, the business customer's decision to engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, or spreading WOM may have greater consequences (e.g., loss of productivity or loss of prots) and may negatively affect more people (e.g., reprimanding or ring salespersons or other associates). Limited business-to-business research has explored the factors that inuence response behaviors. Hansen et al. (1996a) suggested that expertise, jurisdictional disagreement, vendorbuyer communications, and dependency are variables that inuence response behavior. Hibbard et al. (2001) found that intensity of destructive acts, attribution, and relationship quality all inuence response behavior. Although many additional moderators may exist, in the next section we propose that four moderators may particularly inuence the business customer (i.e., any member of the buying center of a purchasing rm) dissatisfaction response behavior relationship. Fig. 3 demonstrates the four inuences of dissatisfactionresponse behavior. (1) Number of alternative suppliers. Blois (2008) suggested that the number of alternative suppliers available to the customer may inuence response behavior; to help persuade the supplier, customers may threaten exit, even if they fail to follow through. Thus, the number of supplier alternatives is posited to inuence each response behavior. (2) Past complaint response. When customers want the supplier to repair a dissatisfactory experience, customers are likely to respond depending on how that supplier previously acted to rectify complaints. Trawick and Swan (1981) suggested that satisfaction with the supplier's previous responses to complaints may affect future purchase intentions. Hence, supplier response to prior complaining is posited to moderate the relationship between dissatisfactionresponse behavior. (3) Number of years in relationship. In his research of retailers and wholesalers, Ping (1997) found signicant relationships between the number of years with partner, satisfaction, and voice. Years of relationship did not directly affect voice, but the length of time the customer and supplier have worked together may moderate the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. (4) Type of purchase. Patterson et al. (1997) found that type of purchase inuenced the individual factors of satisfaction. That is, novelty, complexity, and importance all signicantly impacted customer expectations and perceptions of performance. Type of purchase is included as a potential moderator

because it may also inuence the likelihood of customers participating in dissatisfaction response behavior. 4.1. The dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship When holding constant the number of alternatives, past compliant response, length of relationship, and type of purchase, the more dissatised a customer the more likely the customer will exit, voice, or spread negative WOM, and the less likely the customer will remain loyal. A dissatised customer may want to exit and nd an alternative that will provide more satisfactory experiences. Also a dissatised customer may seek to make the dissatisfactory experience satisfactory by voicing complaints or by spreading negative WOM to warn others or to inict harm on the supplier by discouraging future customers. As levels of dissatisfaction increase, the customer is less likely to continue hoping that the problem will work itself out or that it will not happen again. Proposition 1. The greater the level of dissatisfaction, (a) (b) (c) (d) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, the more likely the customer will exit, the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

4.2. Number of alternative suppliers The concentration of alternative suppliers available to the customer at the time of dissatisfaction may inuence response behavior. This can include the ability to fulll the need internally (i.e., within the means of the buying rm), using another supplier, or nding a substitute solution. When the supplier is the only alternative, or one of just a few, the customer will react differently to a dissatisfactory experience. Hirschman (1970) identied that in this competitive situation the seller with little competition has a monopoly or a loose monopoly. The more alternatives a customer has, the more condent the customer will feel, and the less the customer will feel dependent on the supplier. When faced with a dissatisfying experience, the customer will feel more condent that alternatives are available if the supplier provides no restitution. In this case, the customer is likely to solve the problem by voicing. Other options are available, so the customer can switch to an alternative if voice fails to rectify the situation. The customer is also more likely to exit and less likely to remain loyal because multiple alternatives are available to ll the product or service need. An abundance of alternative suppliers may bring about more negative WOM behavior because the customer will feel less pressure to protect or salvage a relationship with the supplier if the negative WOM gets back to the supplier. The following proposition suggests the inuence of the number of alternative suppliers on response behavior. Proposition 2. The number of alternatives will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. The more alternative suppliers available to the customer, (a) (b) (c) (d) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, the more likely the customer will exit, the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

4.3. Past complaint response A supplier's response to a customer's voice is called complaint response behavior, dened as the action the supplier takes to provide restitution. If a customer has led a complaint (i.e., voiced) with the

Fig. 3. Inuences on the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.

124

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

supplier in the past, the supplier's response to the complaint may inuence the customer's future behavior (Trawick & Swan, 1981). If the supplier responds as the customer desires (e.g., responds in a timely way or gives a refund), then the customer will be satised with the supplier's complaint response behavior. If the supplier fails to respond as the customer desires, then the customer will be dissatised with the supplier's complaint response. Trawick and Swan (1981) found that customers' satisfaction with a complaint response affects whether they will reorder from the supplier. Satisfaction with complaint response behavior could also inuence the customer's response when another dissatisfying experience occurs. If the supplier responded satisfactorily to a past complaint, the customer will be likely respond as before (i.e., through voice) to future dissatisfactory experiences. If the supplier has provided dissatisfactory responses to past complaints, the customer will be less likely to complain again or to remain loyal, and may choose to exit or spread negative WOM. The following propositions regard past complaint response behavior. Proposition 3. Past complaint responses will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. (a): When suppliers have given satisfactory responses to past voicing, customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by voicing again. (b): When suppliers have given dissatisfactory responses to past voicing, customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by exiting or spreading negative WOM, and less likely to respond by voicing or remaining loyal.

4.5. Type of purchase McQuiston (1989) studied the impact of three types of purchases (i.e., novelty, complexity, and importance) on participation and inuence variables in an industrial purchase decision. Novelty was identied as individuals' lack of experience with similar purchase situations in the buying center of the buying rm, complexity as how much information the customer must gather to accurately evaluate the product before making a purchase, and importance as the perceived impact of the purchase on organizational protability and productivity. Novelty, complexity, and importance may inuence response behavior. When involved in novelty purchases, customers may feel less condent about their purchase decision. They may feel that their inexperience could have contributed to the supplier's failure, that they might have communicated their specications inadequately, that they could have failed to understand the supplier's specications, that they might be responsible. They may then be less likely to spread negative WOM because they lack condence in their judgment as to whether the supplier met their expectations or who is responsible for the situation. They may prefer to voice their dissatisfying purchase experience to the supplier to reiterate what they need and to help resolve the problem. Also, they may choose to exit instead of remaining loyal in this novelty purchase situation because with they have so little invested in the new purchase and may nd it simpler to end the transaction relationship. Proposition 5. The type of purchase will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a novelty purchase, (a) (b) (c) (d) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, the more likely the customer will exit, the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

4.4. Number of years in relationship The number of years in the relationship refers to the number of years the customer and supplier have done business with each other. According to Day (2000), a long-term relationship can range from transactional exchanges (e.g., purely contractual or automated purchases) to collaborative exchanges (e.g., complete collaboration with supplier); on one hand, some long-term contracts contain no emotional commitment to keep the relationship going (p. 12). On the other hand, Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987) suggested that terminating relationships that have developed over extended periods may be similar to termination of personal relationships, resulting in psychological, emotional, and physical stress (p. 19). Even without emotional connection, leaving a long-time supplier may incur switching costs such as new supplier set-up expenses. Despite the customer's emotional involvement in the relationship, the number of years of doing business with the supplier is likely to impact how the customer responds to dissatisfaction. The customer who has been in business with the same supplier for years may feel more comfortable bringing a problem to the supplier's attention and more hopeful that it will be resolved. Also, because of satisfactory previous experiences with a long-term supplier, the customer may be more willing to let the dissatisfying experience pass without acting. Finally, if a customer has remained with a supplier for a long time, the customer may be less likely to spread negative WOM. The customer may fear that spreading negative WOM will cause others to judge that an inadequate supplier duped the customer into a long-term relationship. Proposition 4. The number of years in the relationship will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. The more years of doing business with the supplier, (a) (b) (c) (d) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, the less likely the customer will exit, the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

A highly complex purchase decision involves a great deal of investment on the part of the customer. With so much invested, the customer will want to voice complaints to rectify the problem and will nd it very difcult to sever the relationship easily. Also, if the purchase is highly complex and the customer has invested much time in the purchase decision, the customer feels responsible for letting others in similar purchase situations know about the dissatisfactory experience. Thus, this customer may choose to spread negative WOM. Proposition 6. The type of purchase will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a highly complex purchase, (a) (b) (c) (d) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, the less likely the customer will exit, the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

Highly important purchases will also nd the customer more likely to le complaints, not only with the supplier but with a legal outlet if necessary. A dissatisfactory experience with a highly important purchase can be very costly. The customer may also be more likely to exit the relationship to prevent further dissatisfying experiences. As with the highly complex purchase, customers will also have invested time and money in making the purchase decision for a highly important purchase. They may decide to spread negative WOM to inform others who are making such important purchase decisions about the dissatisfactory experience. Proposition 7. The type of purchase will moderate the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a highly important purchase, (a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing, (b) the more likely the customer will exit,

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127 Table 2 Propensity to engage in response behavior by role of the buying center.

125

dissatisfactory experiences with acquaintances at other rms. Since the buyer deals directly with the supplier, the buyer may be more prone to voice directly to the supplier or to seek restitution from a legal rm if the experience calls for it. The buyer may also have more opportunities to spread negative WOM at trade conventions or through buyer networking groups.

6. Discussion and future research The current research makes several contributions to the study of business customer dissatisfaction. A synthesis of extant business-tobusiness literature on (dis)satisfaction and response behavior reveals several gaps in our knowledge of dissatisfaction and response behaviors. First, researchers have examined some business customer responses to dissatisfaction, but the possible responses should be framed into a cohesive model. Using Hirshman's (1970) exit, voice, and loyalty and Singh's (1990) negative WOM models, we developed a general framework of business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior. Also the extant response behavior literature lacks research on the recipients of voicing and negative WOM behaviors beyond the customersupplier dyad. We discuss and propose both within-rm and third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. Potentially many variables may inuence a dissatised customer's response behavior. A few of these inuences have been demonstrated (e.g., expertise and dependency, see Hibbard et al., 2001), but other factors may also inuence responses. Number of alternative suppliers, past complaint responses, number of years in the relationship, and type of purchase are all propositioned to moderate the customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. Finally, we discuss the propensity for individuals to react differently to a dissatisfactory situation based on their role within the rm's buying center. While our purpose was to frame the customer dissatisfaction response behavior relationship and postulate potential inuencers of that relationship, our propositions remain unveried. To test this model, real-world case studies could be used to illustrate a customer's actual actions. First, critical incidence techniques could get study participants to recall dissatisfactory service or purchase experiences. Then a series of probing questions could expose how they responded. Most of the proposed moderators of response behavior are objective measures (e.g., number of alternate suppliers, number of years in relationship, type of purchase), and scaled-response questions (i.e., subjective measures) could be used to measure satisfaction with past complaint responses. The unique dynamic of multiple buying center members makes exploring dissatisfaction response behavior more complex than consumer dissatisfaction response behavior. The effects of multiple response behaviors per an individual dissatisfactory experience should be examined. For example, the user may complain directly to the supplier, while the buyer spreads negative WOM to acquaintances at other rms. Future research should explore the interactive effects of the role in the buying center and inuences of response behavior, such as type of purchase. Additional inuences of response behavior should be conceptualized and tested. The level of relationalism could inuence the dissatisfaction response behavior relationship. Although we proposition that the number of years in the relationship inuences response behavior, customers who are highly invested in the relationship with the supplier (i.e., not just those who have ongoing discrete transactions with the supplier) may have emotional, social, or idiosyncratic investments that could elicit different effects on response behavior (Williamson, 1975). Customers who are more emotionally involved in the transaction relationship may respond differently from customers who are not emotionally involved. Additionally, customer value, which Anderson and Narus (1998) brought to research attention, may inuence response behavior. Liu (2006) and Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005) found that

(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and (d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.

5. Role in the buying center and response behavior While the previous section examined inuences on a business customer's response behavior (i.e., the general response of the rm or the organizational buyer), the individual members of the rm's buying center may possess different propensities to engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, and spreading negative WOM. Table 2 proposes buying center members' individual propensities to engage in response behavior. Proposition 8. The propensity to engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, or spreading negative WOM will depend on an individual's role in the buying center. The tendency for an individual to choose response behavior may depend on the amount of vertical and horizontal inuence that members of the buying center possess; positions of authority, such as management above the primary functions or senior management, have more vertical inuence in purchases (Robey & Johnston, 1977) and more control over whether the rm continues the relationship with the seller after the dissatisfactory experience. Therefore, the roles of buyer and decider, who traditionally are managers above the primary functions, may have the highest propensities among buying center members to exit or remain loyal. While the gatekeeper may not always possess the ultimate authority to choose which supplier the rm deals with, a dissatised gatekeeper who controls the information suppliers relay may have moderate ability to engage in exiting and loyalty. Lateral inuence involves communication along an organization's horizontal structure, such as with multiple users or multiple departments involved in a purchase situation (Robey & Johnston, 1977). Users and inuencers are members of the buying center who, through experience or rst-hand observation, can provide opinions about products and services for business consumption. Thus, users and inuencers may exhibit more lateral inuence by complaining (i.e., voicing) and spreading negative WOM within the rm. Users may not always possess the authority to make decisions on purchases, but they use the purchases and can judge quality through experience. They can complain about poor quality, hoping to get the dissatisfactory product or service rectied, or they can share bad experiences that may be considered for future purchases. The role of the inuencer is to evaluate and communicate assessments of purchases. In dissatisfactory situations, inuencers may choose to complain (i.e., voice) to other members of the buying center in hopes that the situation will be resolved, or to spread negative assessments (i.e., negative WOM) about the situation, which in turn may inuence future purchase decisions. Users may also tend to complain directly to the supplier when their usage experiences are dissatisfactory, and may also share their

126

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

customer value can impact customers' perceptions of switching costs and ultimately repurchase and exit behaviors. The dynamic between the response behaviors should be more fully developed for the business-to-business context. Blois (2008) and Hirschman (1970) suggested that in activating one response behavior, a customer may also be more likely to partake in another response behavior. For example, loyalty may cause more voicing (Blois, 2008). Therefore, within a business-to-business context, the response behaviors may be related to each other. Also, as Trawick and Swan (1981) suggested, the supplier's response to complaining may determine satisfaction. Similarly, the response behaviors (i.e., exiting the relationship) may lead to (dis)satisfaction. For example, if Bob Buyer exits the relationship with Suzie Supplier and contracts with Sammy Supplier, Bob may feel satised with his decision if the transition goes smoothly. But if Sammy surprises Bob with unexpected set-up costs, he may feel dissatised with his decision to exit. These reciprocal relationships should be further explored. Empirical studies are necessary to better understand customer selection of who will be on the receiving end of voicing and negative WOM. The nature of the buying center produces interesting prospects as to how inter-rm complaining occurs. Also, the impact of negative WOM within the buying rm, within and between buying centers, and to third parties needs to be further examined. The impact of negative WOM may be far more intense and detrimental to the supplier than we conceptualize. Future research to explore the reach of negative WOM, perhaps using communication-tracking software such as email or blogs, could further our understanding of these important response behaviors. 7. Managerial implications When selling products or conducting services in the business-tobusiness segment, suppliers must be prepared to handle situations when customers are dissatised. Suppliers should have follow-up services and procedures for dealing with complaints. They must be prepared for undesirable responses to dissatisfaction such as exit, loyalty, and negative WOM. Exit translates to loss of current sales plus additional sales that may have come in the future. While loyalty may keep the customer in the transactional relationship temporarily, undesirable consequences may emerge later. If the customer engages in loyalty without voice, the supplier may retain the business for the present but will remain oblivious to the danger lying in wait. Without knowing to correct the problem (i.e., bring restitution), the supplier will repeat the mistakes that cause not only the current customer to be dissatised but will similarly affect other customers. Negative WOM could damage a rm's reputation and evaporate future sales. Although complaint handling may be arduous and costly, suppliers should want their customers to voice dissatisfactions. According to Hansen et al. (1996a), voicing can alert suppliers and allow them to correct problems; can bring better products, services, and processes; or improve existing protocols. The optimal response behavior for all parties involved is friendly complaint behavior (i.e., Hansen et al., 1996a), or constructive voicing, which involves alerting the supplier of dissatisfaction and allowing the supplier to take appropriate action to rectify the situation. Customers may bypass the supplier and voice to a third-party, such as a legal outlet, seeking to legally restore their satisfaction and costing the supplier nes and legal fees. Thus, suppliers have a vested interest in encouraging their customers to engage in complaint behavior with the supplying rm when it is needed. They could encourage their customers to report dissatisfaction by communicating easy-to-follow complaining procedures and by offering superior support services with well-trained staff. To reduce undesirable response behaviors (e.g., exit and negative WOM) and to encourage loyalty paired with voicing behaviors (e.g., friendly complaining), suppliers must look to inuence the

moderators of the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. First, if the number of alternative suppliers brings about more exiting and spreading of negative WOM, then the supplier should strive to position itself as a superior supplier to alternatives, thereby lessening the appeal of switching to another supplier. Second, suppliers can control their response to customer complaints in efforts to encourage more voicing and less exit and negative WOM. Implementing an aggressive response plan to customer complaints, such as faster turnaround, could inuence a dissatised customer's decision to issue future complaints, knowing that the supplier handled previous complaints satisfactorily. Also, if length of the relationship can reduce exit and negative WOM, suppliers should entice customers to reorder and sign extended purchase agreements to increase the time a customer transacts with the supplier. The supplier may entice the customer by offering discount prices for future purchases and providing services to lessen customer burdens. Finally, suppliers can reduce the inuence of type of purchase on response behavior, thereby reducing exit and negative WOM by modifying the customer's perception of the type of purchase. For example, if the purchase is a novelty, the supplier could provide the customer with plenty of information designed to thoroughly explain the purchase procedure for that product or service. If the purchase is highly important, the supplier could provide satised customer testimonials to demonstrate successful completion of purchases of similar magnitude. If the purchase is highly complex, the supplier could provide easy-tounderstand information and personally assist customers as they specify their orders. Dissatisfactory experiences in business purchase situations are an unwanted but undeniable facet of business-to-business transactions. By understanding and attempting to manipulate the inuences of dissatisfaction response behaviors, managers can strive to reduce unwanted response behaviors such as exit and negative WOM and encourage desired response behaviors such as voicing (e.g., friendly complaining) and loyalty. References
Anderson, J., & Narus, J. (1998). Business marketing: Understanding what customers value. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 5365. Backhaus, K., & Bauer, M. (2000). The impact of critical incidents on customer satisfaction in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 8(1), 2554. Barksdale, H., Jr., Powell, T., & Hargrove, E. (1984). Complaint voicing by industrial buyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 13, 9399. Blois, K. (2008). Exit, voice and loyalty in business to business markets. The IMP Journal, 2(1), 212. Bonoma, T., Zaltman, G., & Johnston, W. (1977). Industrial buying behavior. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Day, G. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 2430. Dwyer, F., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987, April). Developing buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 1127. Emerson, C., & Grimm, C. (1999). Buyerseller customer satisfaction: The inuence of the environment and customer service. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14, 403. Giller, C., & Matear, S. (2001). The termination of inter-rm relationships. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 16(2), 94. Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B. M., & Silseth, P. R. (2008). Customer perceived value in B-t-B service relationships: Investigating the importance of corporate reputation. Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4), 206217. Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). Encouraging friendly complaint behavior in industrial markets: Preventing a loss of customers and reputation. Industrial Marketing Management., 25, 271281. Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). The perceived effectiveness of marketer responses to industrial buyer complaints: Suggestions for improved vendor performance and customer loyalty. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 11(1), 7789. Heide, J., & Weiss, A. (1995, July). Vendor consideration and switching behavior for buyers in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing, 59, 3043. Hibbard, J., Kumar, N., & Stern, L. (2001, February). Examining the impact of destructive acts in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 4561. Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in rms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Johnston, W., & Bonoma, T. (1981). The buying center: Structure and interaction patterns.Journal of Marketing, 45, 143156 (Summer).

J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127 Jones, M., Mothersbaugh, D., & Beatty, S. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 55, 441450. Liu, A. (2006). Customer value and switching costs in business services: Developing exit barriers through strategic value management. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(1), 3037. Liu, A., Leach, M., & Bernhardt, K. (2005). Examining customer value perceptions of organizational buyers when sourcing from multiple vendors. Journal of Business Research, 58, 559568. McQuiston, D. (1989, April). Novelty, complexity, and importance as causal determinants of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 53, 6679. Money, B., Gilly, M., & Graham, J. (1998, October). Explorations of national culture and word-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 62, 7687. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460469. Patterson, P., Johnson, W., & Spreng, R. (1997). Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for business-to-business professional services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 417. Perkins, W. (1993). Measuring customer satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 22, 247254. Ping, R., Jr. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting, voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 320352. Ping, R., Jr. (1994). Does satisfaction moderate the association between alternative attractiveness and exit intention in a marketing channel? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 364371. Ping, R., Jr. (1997). Voice in business-to-business relationships: Cost-of-exit and demographic antecedents. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 261281. Richins, M. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatised consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing, 47, 2431 (Winter). Robey, D., & Johnston, W. (1977). Lateral inuences and vertical authority in organizational buying. Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 451462. Schellhase, R., Hardock, P., & Ohlwein, M. (1999). Customer satisfaction in business-tobusiness marketing: the case of retail organizations and their suppliers. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 14(5/6), 416. Sharma, A. (2006). Success factors in key accounts. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(3), 141150.

127

Sheth, J. (1973, October). A model of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37, 5056. Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation across three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1), 115. Singh, J. (1991). Industry characteristics and consumer dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 25(1), 1955. Tahtinen, J., & Vaaland, T. I. (2006). Business relationships facing the end: Why restore them? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(1), 1423. Tikkanen, H., & Alajoutsijarvi, K. (2002). Customer satisfaction in industrial markets: Opening up the concept. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(1), 2542. Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijarvi, K., & Tahtinen, J. (2000). The concept of satisfaction in industrial markets: A contextual perspective and a case study from the software industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 373386. Trawick, F., & Swan, J. (1981). A model of industrial satisfaction/complaining behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 10(1), 2330. Webster, F., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972, April). A general model for understanding organizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36, 1219. Williams, A., & Rao, C. (1980). Industrial buyer complaining behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 9, 299304. Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust implications. New York: The Free Press. Jodie L. Ferguson is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Professor Ferguson's research interests include customer and consumer response to rms' decisions in the marketplace. Wesley J. Johnston is the CBIM RoundTable Professor of Marketing and director of the Center for Business and Industrial Marketing in the Robinson College of Business at the Georgia State University. He is currently the editor of the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. Professor Johnston's research interests include application of the behavioral sciences to marketing in the areas of business-to-business marketing and customer relationship management. His research has been published in the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of International Business Studies and numerous other publications.