Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Customer value anticipation, customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical examination

Daniel J. Flint a,, Christopher P. Blocker b, Philip J. Boutin Jr. a
a b

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
A service-dominant logic by denition is inherently customer oriented and relational, reecting deeper and more complex connections between suppliers and customers. The service mindset driving increased collaboration enables suppliers to have deeper insights to what customers' value. Customer value perceptions are dynamic, sometimes in constant ux, necessitating anticipatory capabilities on the part of suppliers. Yet, there is a notable lack of discussion about customer value anticipation and related empirical evidence of whether or not customers care if suppliers anticipate what they value. The authors report on two survey studies that test using structural equation modeling the notion that suppliers good at anticipating what customers will value realize higher customer satisfaction and loyalty. Understanding this relationship is critical for marketing managers wrestling with allocation of limited resources. We nd that customer value anticipation is a strong driver of satisfaction and loyalty, with satisfaction acting as a mediator for loyalty. 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Article history: Received 22 October 2009 Received in revised form 30 January 2010 Accepted 27 May 2010 Available online 31 July 2010 Keywords: Customer value anticipation Service dominant logic Customer loyalty Customer satisfaction Customer value

1. Introduction It has become relatively common knowledge that marketing managers must understand what their customers' value in order to survive and grow in competitive markets (e.g. Slater & Narver, 2000; Vargo & Lusch, 2004; Woodruff, 1997). Yet merely knowing what customers' currently value is clearly not enough because what they value changes (Flint, Woodruff, & Gardial, 2002) suggesting that suppliers must also have the capability to anticipate what customers will value. Implying the need for such a capability, market-orientation research calls for marketers to partly focus on changing customer needs (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Matsuno & Mentzer, 2000; Siguaw, Simpson, & Baker, 1998). Highly market-oriented rms supposedly spend time examining market trends as well as discussing future needs with customers directly. Recent extensions of market orientation separate this kind of activity into its own construct, i.e., proactive market orientation, which revolves around helping customers anticipate developments in their markets (Narver, Slater, & MacLachlan, 2004). Similarly, Jayachandran, Hewett, and Kaufman (2004) discuss the importance of anticipating changing customer needs. This premise is echoed within the service-dominant logic (SDL) discourse. Professors Vargo and Lusch (2008) in a renement of SDL added foundational premise 10, i.e., Value is always uniquely and phenomeno Corresponding author. 304 Stokely Management Center, Department of Marketing and Logistics, College of Business Administration, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. E-mail addresses: dint@utk.edu (D.J. Flint), chris_blocker@baylor.edu (C.P. Blocker), pboutin@utk.edu (P.J. Boutin). 0019-8501/$ see front matter 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.034

logically determined by the beneciaryValue is idiosyncratic, experiential, contextual, and meaning laden (p. 7, Table 1, Vargo & Lusch, 2008). Building on this notion, we argue that managers within business customer organizations are constantly and idiosyncratically making decisions that affect and are affected by their experiences. As a result, what they see as valuable in supplier relationships, products and services that all serve to facilitate or block desired benet achievement (i.e., create or hinder the creation of value) is in constant ux in a process that could be referred to as valuing (Flint, 2006). Therefore, understanding this dynamic nature of customer valuing, inherently customer-oriented suppliers (FP8) would expend effort trying to anticipate what their customers will value in the future in order to facilitate a valuable service exchange throughout an ongoing relationship. SDL would suggest that customers are more satised with and loyal to suppliers who are able to anticipate their desires well. We refer to this capability as customer value anticipation. As no previous research has gone beyond implying the need for such a capability, we drew on this discourse to develop a denition of customer value anticipation for the purposes of our research. Customer value anticipation refers to a supplier's ability to look ahead at what specic customers will value from supplier relationships including their product and service offerings and the benets they create given the monetary and non-monetary sacrices that must be made to obtain those offering benets. From the supplier's perspective, it involves both the processes for anticipating as well as the outcome predictions of product and service offerings that would most likely facilitate value creation by customers. From the customer's perspective, it is their sense that suppliers have such processes and their perception that suppliers are able to actually anticipate their needs, possibly even before they do.

220

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

Our empirical examination here is not focused on the processes per se that enable suppliers to anticipate what customers will value, but rather on customers' perceptions of the extent to which suppliers possess such anticipation capabilities. Our overarching research question was: Do customers care whether or not suppliers have this capability? We equate care with higher levels of satisfaction with and loyalty toward suppliers who do. Here satisfaction refers to a global outcome assessment of the extent to which customers are pleased and have positive emotional evaluations of suppliers. This conceptualization is consistent with 50 years of empirical customer satisfaction research (e.g., Oliver, 1980, 1997). Loyalty refers to the extent to which customers feel committed to suppliers and do not actively seek out replacement suppliers (Oliver, 1999). It is important that we understand whether or not customers value suppliers' CVA capabilities because developing these capabilities is likely to be distinctly different from other voice of the customer processes and possibly costly to develop. In addition to this practical consideration, we contribute theoretically to the SDL discourse by suggesting that SDL can be linked to the concepts of the resource-based view of the rm, market orientation, and customer value through examination of a customer value anticipation capability. We comment on these theoretical linkages next. A CVA capability can be seen as a dynamic capability (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000), itself an extension of the resource-based view of the rm, and more specically, a specic kind of dynamic capability, namely an operant resource. As an operant resource, CVA would align with informational, human, or organizational resources (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008). Because CVA is difcult to do without close relational interaction with customers, it is most likely a higher order (interconnected or composite) operant resource (Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008). Drilling down further, if considered an interconnected operant resource, it would fall in the categories of market relating capabilities, learning platform capabilities, organizational learning capabilities, or knowledge creation capabilities (see Table 3, Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008). As a composite operant resource, it would fall in the categories of market knowledge competence, absorptive capacity, customer response capabilities, or knowledge management capabilities (see Table 2, Madhavaram & Hunt, 2008). So in multiple potential ways, a CVA capability ts well within a theoretical conceptualization of a rm adopting an SDL orientation and a resource-based view of the rm. It also ts well with current views on market orientation. Market-oriented rms are encouraged to act on changes in customers' needs (Flint et al., 2002; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver et al., 2004). The concept of suppliers acting on changes is closely related to, if not identical to, supplier exibility and relationshipspecic adaptation, both of which address suppliers' reactions to changes in customers' needs (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Cannon & Perreault, 1999; Noordewier, George, & Nevin, 1990). Although it can be argued that customer value, customer needs, and customer requirements are not identical constructs, at a general level the literature argues for marketing managers to pay attention to the dynamic nature of what customers want from suppliers. It is generally argued that being market oriented improves suppliers' marketplace performance. Supplier market orientation has also been viewed in terms of its effects on customers (Siguaw et al., 1998; Simpson, Siguaw, & Baker, 2001). Yet, there is still no direct empirical evidence of whether suppliers' anticipation of what customers' value actually affects customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. If not, why not just encourage marketers to be extremely exible and adaptive? If there is an effect on customer satisfaction and loyalty, marketers will be pressed to develop processes specically focused on anticipating what customers will value in the future. This is not a small task, but our understanding of customer value helps to clarify the objective. Research in the area of customer value has developed and tested conceptualizations of what business customers' value from their suppliers (see Ulaga, 2001, 2003; Woodruff, 1997). This research

highlights functional, relational, and service benets as well as monetary and non-monetary sacrices as working together in a trade-off notion to form an overall perception of the value of a supplier relationship, including the value created by suppliers' product and service offerings. What is noticeably absent from these operationalizations of business customer value is the role of anticipation or proactivity on the part of the supplier in contributing to the level of value customers think suppliers help create. We think that our research here argues in support of adding customers' perceptions of suppliers' CVA capabilities to future customer value frameworks. If we were to use Woodruff's (1997) denition of customer value, we could simply add anticipation of changes to his customer value denition to arrive at CVA is a supplier's anticipation of changes in a customer's preference for product attributes and associated benet and sacrice consequences arising from intended use that facilitate achieving the customer's goals, purposes and needs. Extending this more precisely to see where CVA ts into a customers' perception of value and using Woodruff's (1997) terminology, for the purposes of our research, we are interested in customers' preference for suppliers' value anticipating capabilities. Finally, concerning theoretical SDL contributions, we feel that SDL could benet from extensions that address capability implications of adopting an SDL perspective. Following the logic of Ballantyne and Varey (2008), CVA can be viewed as a kind of service conducted by suppliers for customers, not only for the benet of suppliers themselves. Anticipating what customers will value provides lead time for suppliers to actually prepare a responseto be ready when changes emerge. In this way, it is in the true sense doing something for someone (Ballantyne & Varey, 2008, p 11). The thinking around servicing customers through goods and services opens up opportunities for suppliers to become more involved in customers' worlds. This deeper involvement should allow for suppliers to develop deeper insights to customers' organizational cultures, decision-making processes, strategies, structures, performance metrics and so forth, that if interpreted closely should enable suppliers to more effectively anticipate what customers will value next. So, it is through active management of deeper involvement that suppliers are better able to serve customers by trying to anticipate what their customers will value next; allowing deeper supplier involvement is a service rendered by customers that provides insights, which will enable anticipation and response by suppliers. This logic suggests that developing a CVA capability might be an implication of adopting an SDL mindset. It is a notion consistent with that of collaboration (Gronroos, 1994; Gummesson, 1994) and superior customer-linking capabilities noted as a key source of competitive advantage (Day, 1994). Our aim for this research was to examine the extent to which customers' perceptions of suppliers' customer value anticipation capabilities drive their satisfaction with and loyalty toward those suppliers. The next sections develop our research hypotheses based on foundational literature, present our two-study methodological approach and ndings, and discuss implications for practice and research. 2. Hypotheses development 2.1. Customer value anticipation Although challenging, businesses are pressured by quality award criteria and the business press in general to anticipate customers' future needs, expectations, and requirements (e.g., Gale, 1994). History suggests that anticipating customer market change is critical for rm success. For example, 28 years ago Peters and Waterman (1982) reported on 43 of the best-run companies in the U.S., all of whom demonstrated closeness to the customer. Yet, a subsequent study found that 14 of the rms were in nancial trouble shortly after the book's publication with a critical factor common to all of them as a failure to anticipate and respond to changing markets (Kandampully

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

221

& Duddy, 1999). But in order to hypothesize the effects of CVA, we must place it in context with overall customer value knowledge. 2.2. Relating CVA to foundational customer value research It is possible to have multiple interpretations of future customer needs, expectations, and requirements. A common interpretation is a forecasting one where future requirements mean the future level of demand for particular products and services. A supplier's response to changes in demand levels such as this is represented by supplier exibility (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Noordewier et al., 1990). Interestingly, some have advocated an expanded focus for forecasting beyond its emphasis on predicting demand in a quantitative sense to predicting customers' future environments and changing expectations (Wotruba, 1996). Another interpretation is one of future products, services, and product/service modications that customers will desire from suppliers. A supplier's reaction to changes of this kind has been referred to as supplier adaptation (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Cannon & Perreault, 1999). Changes in combinations of product and service attributes, as well as related benets and sacrices that customers desire, have been referred to as customer desired value change (Flint et al., 2002). This dynamic aspect of customers' desires is partly due to their own future considerations, whereby customers project into the future what they will need, which affects marketers' strategies as stated below (Lemon, Barnett, & Winer, 2002): Firms must recognize that [customers] are active forecasters, taking future considerations into account in their current decision-making efforts (and) as a result, rms must begin to develop dynamic customer relationship management strategies. These strategies should take into account not only actions the rm takes to build and manage the relationship but also, insofar as is possible, the future projections of customers (p. 13). The conclusion is that some customers might come to expect suppliers to anticipate their needs and desires (even if they themselves cannot). Linked to customer value research, customer satisfaction research has a strong history of measuring expectations as a comparison standard in the disconrmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980; Yi, 1990). Customers' expectations can form based on numerous factors (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993) and can sometimes be referred to as desires. Spreng, MacKenzie, and Olshavski (1996) break desires out as a distinct comparison standard construct to reect what customers want. We know that those rms that best meet customers' current desires usually have more satised and loyal customers. Although marketers are advised to look to their customers' futures for product and service improvement and development (Flint, 2004; Morrison & Schmid, 1994), we do not yet know if doing so actually has an impact on customer satisfaction or loyalty. The realization that customers make supplier decisions based on the benets they desire given the sacrices they must incur to get those benets underlies the growing focus on customer value in business customer value research (Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004; Ulaga, 2003; Woodruff, 1997). This journal has published a couple of special issues dedicated to the topic, the most recent being the November 2006 issue which focused on creating customer value through competency-based marketing (see Golfetto & Gilbert, 2006). Anticipation in general as investigated within psychology suggests that there are multiple facets to anticipation. People who are experts in an area can anticipate future actions and outcomes better than nonexperts by picking up on subtle clues faster and more accurately connect them to possible outcomes (Smeeton, Williams, Hodges, & Ward, 2005). This research suggests that an anticipation skill can be developed/learnt and is dependent on deeper study of details associated with the activity in question (Smeeton et al., 2005; Wofford & Goodwin, 1990). In our case, attention to detail in

customers' worlds should improve anticipation/prediction accuracy. Additionally, anticipation can involve feelings of anxiety, especially if it involves uncertainty and/or undesired events or outcomes (Van Gerwin, Spnhoven, Van Dyck, & Diekstra, 1999). The more skilled people are at anticipating future events and outcomes, the calmer, less stressed, and less anxious they become. There are likely many reasons why customers change what they value (Beverland, Farrelly, & Woodhatch, 2004; Flint et al., 2002), including future use and situational considerations (Lemon et al., 2002). It seems reasonable to assume that the more complex the set of customer benetsacrice tradeoffs and the more rapidly benets and tolerated sacrices change, the more difcult and resource intense will be the task of anticipating what they will look like in the future. Recent research has argued that CVA is necessary and requires in part a deep understanding of the customer value change phenomenon itself, i.e., customer desired value change (Flint & Woodruff, 2001; Flint, Woodruff, & Gardial, 1997, 2002). Specically, research on customer desired value change indicates that some customers expend a great deal of energy attempting to get suppliers to see and respond to their changing needs. Findings also show that customer's changing needs can serve as a major motivation for customers to build relationships with key suppliers, and to potentially dissolve relationships with others who fail to keep pace with changing desires. Clear implications from this research include the importance of marketers taking a proactive, anticipatory stance to customer desired value changes. In addition to the empirical examination that has emerged in the last decade of what business customers value (e.g. Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Flint et al., 2002; Lam et al., 2004; Lapierre, 2000; Ulaga, 2001, 2003), research within the purchasing realm has commented on what purchasing managers want from suppliers. Although much of the purchasing literature addresses internal-to-the organization issues that impact or are impacted by purchasing activities (e.g., Johnson, Klassen, Leenders, & Fearon, 2002; Johnson & Leenders, 1998; Pagell & Das, 1996), we can discern from discussions of the changing role of purchasing in organizations and the responsibilities of purchasing managers what purchasing managers value from suppliers. For example, business customers have been continually reducing the number of suppliers they use for some time, focusing on those suppliers more well connected with and insightful toward customers' operations from product design to production, and interested in strategic alliances, co-location of supplier personnel, and matching world class benchmarks (Carter & Narasimhan, 1996). Purchasing managers expect continuous improvement from suppliers in terms of product quality, cycle time, cost, delivery performance, and strategic input to customer organizations (Trent & Monczka, 1998). One obvious theme across these changing desires is the actions purchasing managers are taking to enhance time-related factors in supplier relationships to minimize administrative overhead, reduce costs, and improve time to market. Customer value anticipation ought to improve these supplier response times being measured by customers. Clearly purchasing managers in the twenty-rst century play a more strategic role in their organizations than they did in the middle of the twentieth century and as such, the more strategically they look at suppliers and supply chains. Despite the lack of empirical examination of an anticipation capability within the purchasing literature as well, researchers have discussed the importance of relationship-specic adaptation (Cannon & Homburg, 2001), which we interpret as reactive not anticipatory. One sign that value anticipation is important to today's customers is found in the changing role of the industrial salesperson. Reviews suggest that industrial selling has shifted from the role of persuasion agent to a manager of customer value (Weitz & Bradford, 1999; Wotruba, 1996). This role requires the salesperson to develop a sophisticated understanding of a customer's business to anticipate future needs, forecast not only future demand but uncover emerging needs, and

222

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

assess how customer's expectations are evolving (Wotruba, 1996). Despite this trend, the lack of direct empirical evidence means that although we know something about the components of customer desired value and customer desired value change, we do not yet know if anticipating future desired value is among the components valued now. So the extant literatures suggest that customers can and do recognize when suppliers have an anticipation capability, justifying the measurement of such a construct. We now must relate that construct to other critical ones, namely customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. 2.3. Customer satisfaction and loyalty Customer satisfaction and loyalty are positively related to marketer protability and market share (Anderson, Fornell, & Lehmann, 1994; Reichheld, 1993). It has become a relatively common rule of thumb that acquiring new customers costs marketers between ve to ten times more than it does to retain current customers (Slater & Narver, 2000). Thus, many rms have developed distinct competencies in measuring customer satisfaction and similarly an entire consulting industry has emerged in the area of customer satisfaction measurement. Therefore, it is safe to assume that if CVA is positively related to customer satisfaction and loyalty, then CVA would eventually contribute to marketers' success in terms of protability and market share. Exploring the rst condition is the guiding purpose behind the two studies we conducted. Specically, recent research has explored relationships between customer value perceptions and both satisfaction and loyalty (Lam et al., 2004). Here we are interested in examining if the advantage of understanding customers' current desired value perceptions stops here or if in fact anticipating customer value makes any difference to customers. 2.4. CVA and customer satisfaction Global customer satisfaction (as opposed to transactional satisfaction) in a business-to-business context can be viewed as a positive affective state that results from a customer's appraisal of all aspects of its relationship with a supplier (Geyskens, Steenkamp, & Kumar, 1999; Jap, 2001). But, customer satisfaction has been investigated at a transaction level as well as a global level of analysis (Bolton, 1998; Cronin & Taylor, 1994). While the former refers to customers' feelings in response to a particular product or service encounter, the latter describes satisfaction that accumulates across a series of encounters and is a more fundamental indicator of a supplier's overall performance through time (Bitner & Hubbert, 1994; Rust & Oliver, 1994). Suppliers' anticipation of what customers will value is an ongoing process, and as such, we focus on satisfaction at a global level in our investigation. Exploring factors that contribute to customer satisfaction has been central to the eld of marketing. Research generally shows that suppliers who improve products and services to fulll important needs reap greater levels of satisfaction among their customers (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Beyond the offerings themselves, many have found that supplier relationship factors can positively inuence customer satisfaction, i.e. suppliers adapting to customer's changing needs (Tikkanen, Alajoutsijrvi, & Thtinen, 2000), suppliers cooperating to pursue mutual benets (Anderson & Narus, 1990), and suppliers showing a willingness to collaborate on future projects (Jap, 2001). The concept of customer value brings together product and service benets, relationship benets, and sacrices and posits that customer satisfaction is a key outcome. Specically, customer value frameworks suggest that customers' evaluation of the value they receive may lead directly to the formation of satisfaction feelings (Churchill & Surprenant, 1982; Woodruff, 1997; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996). Alternatively, it could inuence satisfaction through disconrmation

perceptions when customers compare the value they receive to one or more standards (Woodruff, 1997). Empirical evidence shows that various measures of customer value are positively correlated with satisfaction and loyalty behavior (Lam et al., 2004; Lapierre, Filiatrault, & Chebat, 1999; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002; Spiteri & Dion, 2004). Yet none of these measures includes items similar to the notion of suppliers' looking ahead to anticipate what customers value. Thus, a key question here is whether customers' perception of the value received through CVA leads to satisfaction outright and/or if customers have come to expect it to some degree (Rust & Oliver, 2000). Customer value anticipation seeks to preempt and continuously improve the total current value being created and moves the bar from asking what can I do for you today? to what should I be doing to prepare for my interactions with you tomorrow? Although studies of customer value leading to customer satisfaction stop short of testing suppliers' ability to anticipate this, some signs point to CVA as being a strategic contributor to satisfaction (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Matsuno & Mentzer, 2000). Recently, some key proponents of market orientation advocate an important expansion of the concept to better capture marketers' anticipation and satisfaction of customers' emerging needs (Narver et al., 2004). They argue that existing measures of market orientation have more to do with being responsive and do not adequately explain proactive anticipation of what customers want. As such they develop a separate but complementary construct, proactive market orientation, which includes activities like helping customers anticipate developments in their markets, exploring areas where customers have difculty expressing their needs, and brainstorming how customers use products. In justifying the need for this construct, the authors propose that discovering future needs amounts to leading customers in their satisfaction rather than merely responding to what they ask for. Still, without direct empirical evidence, this begs the question of whether customers want to be led in this way. Based on this evidence, we propose to test the following: H1. Perceived customer value anticipation positively affects customer satisfaction. 2.5. CVA and loyalty Customer loyalty is dened as a buyer's deeply held commitment to stick with a product, service, brand or organization consistently in the future, despite new situations or competitive overtures to induce switching (Oliver, 1999). It is similar to relationship commitment in buyerseller relationships where customers have an enduring intent to maintain a long-term relationship (Anderson & Weitz, 1992; Gundlach, Achrol, & Mentzer, 1995). Loyalty behavior can take on several forms, but is usually operationalized as a future intention to repurchase products and services or continue a working relationship (Dick & Basu, 1994; Fornell, 1992). Thus, customers' evaluation of what it will be like to do business in the future with a supplier is strongly tied to the level of loyalty they are willing to extend. Similar to relationship concepts like suppliers' collaboration and adaptation discussed previously (Cannon & Homburg, 2001; Cannon & Perreault, 1999), a suppliers' CVA behavior may play an important role in these evaluations. Most often loyalty is measured as a direct consequence to customer satisfaction (Heskett, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1997). But some suggest that satisfying customers may not be sufcient to create loyal customers (Fornell, 1992). For example, conditions like a customer's time constraints, nancial situation, effort perceptions, risk perceptions, or personal characteristics may contribute directly to loyalty behavior or shape the inuence of satisfaction (Lam et al., 2004; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001). Most of these factors are studied under the concept of switching barriers but also bear resemblance to certain aspects of customer value (e.g., risk in Day & Crask, 2000).

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

223

Many are also similar to conditions that might describe use situations, which are central to customer value perceptions (Woodruff, 1997). Also, studies exploring relationships between customer value, satisfaction, and loyalty report direct, positive links between customer value and loyalty, though several indicate it might be better described through the mediating factor of satisfaction (Lam et al., 2004). Thus, a critical question is whether suppliers' CVA behavior might serve as a type of relationship switching barrier that operates in part independently from satisfaction and directly inuences customer loyalty. We propose the following hypothesis to investigate this question: H2. Perceived customer value anticipation positively affects customer loyalty. 2.6. Relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty The relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty has been explained in a number of ways. Oliver (1999) describes the two as inextricably linked but in a lopsided fashion. That is, loyal customers are usually satised, but the reverse is not always true (Reichheld, 1993). Many studies report a strong connection between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993; Heskett et al., 1997; Mittal, Ross, & Baldasare, 1998; Oliver, 1980; Rust & Zahorik, 1993). Several nd that satisfaction with a supplier relationship contributes to long-term commitment (Ganesan, 1994; Geyskens et al., 1999). Thus, while most agree at a general level that satisfaction leads to loyalty, questions of how this occurs and to what extent are not as easily answered. A common assumption is that customers who experience repeated satisfaction with suppliers are motivated to continue this relationship and less likely to look elsewhere. This process has also been described to occur in phases, where loyalty builds over time from initial satisfaction to fully bonded commitment (Oliver, 1997). Still, research is equivocal on whether the link between the two is linear. Some describe satisfaction as a critical step that becomes less and less important as loyalty begins to set through other mechanisms, such as switching barriers or personal characteristics (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001). Conversely, other research shows that a customer experiencing increasing levels of satisfaction to the point that they are tremendously satised or delighted is more likely to remain in the fold than one who is just satised (Oliver & Rust, 1997). Knowledge about just how satisfaction leads to loyalty is continuing to emerge, but it is likely that different contexts (e.g., services versus industrial goods) can drive very different evaluation processes for customers (Szymanski & Henard, 2001). Also, it is possible that loyalty can have a reciprocal effect on satisfaction. For example, in some cases loyal customers are less susceptible to negative information and tend to experience greater satisfaction than non-loyal customers (Shankar, Smith, & Rangaswamy, 2003). Our main focus in this investigation was to assess whether, in this context, the link between satisfaction and loyalty would hold. Thus, hypothesis three is: H3. Customer satisfaction positively affects customer loyalty. We tested these hypotheses in two studies. We developed Study 2 based on insights we had following Study 1. Additional hypotheses and an expanded model used in Study 2 are explained next. 2.7. Additional hypotheses for Study 2 Additional hypotheses were added after conceptualizing based on a close read of buyersupplier and anticipation literature as well as informal conversations with buyers that buyers who are looking into the future and seem to have a handle on the dynamic nature of customer requirements also seem to be relatively calm in the face of

customer changes. We eventually concluded that this calmness is a distinct construct separate from CVA. This sense of being in control is apparent to customers through the calmness and lack of anxiety or uster seen in suppliers when customer changes emerge. As such, we added a fourth construct, customer value anticipation calmness, labeled as CVA-Calm, which refers to customers' perceptions of the lack of anxiety, stress and uster exhibited by suppliers as a result of customers changing what they value. We also conceptualized it to include a perception that some suppliers actually look forward to changes, possibly as opportunities. This logic is built on the notion that some suppliers embrace and seek out dynamic markets more than others do (e.g., Narver et al., 2004; Woodruff & Gardial, 1996), although we know of no other published empirical investigation of this idea. We hypothesized that customers would see a connection between suppliers' CVA capabilities and the calmness with which suppliers approached change. Additionally, we hypothesized that customers would be satised with and more loyal toward these suppliers. These additional hypotheses for Study 2 are reected in H4, H5 and H6. H4. Perceived customer value anticipation capability positively affects perceived supplier calmness about actual and potential changes in what customers' value from suppliers. H5. Perceived customer value anticipation calmness positively affects customer satisfaction. H6. Perceived customer value anticipation calmness positively affects customer loyalty. Fig. 1 depicts the hypotheses for both Study 1 and Study 2, with aspects of Study 2 using dashed lines to distinguish the additional construct and hypotheses. As modeled, we are hypothesizing that customer satisfaction mediates the effects of customer value anticipation on customer loyalty in addition to the direct relationship depicted in H2, i.e. that satisfaction plays a partial mediation role. 3. MethodologyStudy 1 In Study 1, we tested the model by surveying purchasing managers across a wide variety of industries, including manufacturing and nonmanufacturing rms, and buyers of logistics services. 3.1. Sampling Samples were randomly drawn from mailing lists provided by the National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM) and the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP). Logistics managers from the CSCMP listing were screened for their role as buyer of logistics services and asked to consider their relationships with providers of those logistics services. As such, they represented buyers of an important business service. 3.2. Measures Multi-item scales were developed for each of the constructs in the model. We developed the customer value anticipation (CVA) scale based on interpretation of the literature concerning the anticipation of future customer needs as well an extensive qualitative study we conducted on the dynamics of business customer value perceptions published elsewhere (cite temporarily withheld to maintain author anonymity). Both our qualitative eld work involving depth interviews and the literature suggest that CVA refers to suppliers looking ahead to customers' future needs. This has two aspects: processes for looking ahead and resulting evidence that they have looked ahead. Our scale is consistent with this interpretation.

224

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

Fig. 1. Hypothesized models for Study 1 and Study 2.

Consistent with our affective interpretation of customer satisfaction, we operationalized the construct using a three-item semantic differential scale similar to other affective interpretations of customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1997; Spreng et al., 1996; Westbrook, 1987; Westbrook & Oliver, 1991). The customer loyalty scale draws on the attitudinal and behavioral patronage logic of commitment described by others (e.g., Lam et al., 2004; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Both scholars and practitioners participated in initial readability tests. A pre-test survey was then mailed to 500 professionals, drawn equally from the NAPM and CSCMP databases, resulting in 102 completed surveys returned. With six incorrect addresses, this represents a 21% response rate for the pre-test. We considered both the number of completed surveys and the response rate acceptable for pre-test analyses. Subjective assessment, descriptive analyses, and exploratory factor analyses (EFA) in both SPSS and LISREL suggested the three scales were acceptable. The nal survey was mailed to a sample of 1600 professionals drawn from the remainder of the databases. Of the 1600, 21 were returned due to inaccurate addresses, leaving a sample of 1579, of which 414 were returned and found usable for a 26% response rate. Non-response bias was assessed by contacting a random sample of 20 non-respondents by telephone and asking them to answer three customer desired value change intensity questions. T-tests of group means revealed no signicant differences between respondents and non-respondents on any of the questions. We also compared early and late respondents (Armstrong & Overton, 1977) and found no signicant differences. Thus, neither non-response bias nor late response bias was considered signicant issues. 3.3. Measurement analyses Following basic descriptive analyses, including examination for coding errors, normality, skewness, kurtosis, means and standard deviations, we subjected the data set to conrmatory factor analyses (CFA) via LISREL (Jreskog & Srbo, 1996; Jreskog, Srbo, Du Toit, & Du Toit, 1999). In these analyses, items were grouped into the three a priori conceptualized scales. Modication indices (i.e., initially any greater than 5), standardized residuals (i.e., greater than 4), and t statistics (i.e., CFI, DELTA2, RNI, and 2 with corresponding degrees of freedom) agged potentially problematic items (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; MacCullum, 1986). All items were retained as a result of these

procedures. Table 1 reports items and a summary of the measurement analyses. Within the CFA setting, composite reliability was calculated using the procedures outlined by Fornell and Larcker (1981) based on the work by Werts, Lin, and Jreskog (1974). We also examined the parameter estimates and their associated t-values, and assessed the average variance extracted for each construct (Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The reliabilities for the three constructs all exceed .80 indicating excellent levels of reliability for the constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1991; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was established by calculating the shared variance between all possible pairs of constructs and verifying they were lower than the average variance extracted for the individual constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Jreskog et al., 1999). The shared variances between pairs of all possible scale combinations ranged from a low of 26% to a high of 28% between the various scale combinations. The average variances extracted ranged between 57% and 78%, all having higher average variances extracted than the

Table 1 Scale items Study 1. Scalea,b,c Item

Customer value anticipation C.R. = .80, AVE = .57, loadings range = .66.85 CVA1 Our key suppliers successfully anticipate changes in my needs. CVA2 Our key suppliers seem to be one step ahead of their competitors in predicting our needs. CVA3 Our key suppliers regularly attempt to modify their products and services in line with our changing needs. Customer satisfaction C.R. = .91, AVE = .78, loadings range = .83.91 How would you describe your feelings toward your key suppliers? SAT1 Range between terrible to delighted SAT2 Range between unhappy to happy SAT3 Range between displeased to pleased Customer loyalty C.R. = .85, AVE = .66, loadings range = .81.81 LOY1 I am loyal to our key suppliers LOY2 I go out of my way to ensure that our key suppliers are taken care of. LOY3 I am committed to using our key suppliers.
a Customer value anticipation and customer loyalty items measured on a ve-point Likert-like scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). b Customer Satisfaction items consisted of 7-point semantic differential scales. c Fit statistics: 2 = 56.4, df = 24; CFI = .98; D2 = .98; RNI = .89; RMSEA = .055.

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230 Table 2 Multi-sample (purchasing managers and logistics managers) conrmatory factor analysis results. Model 1 Multi-sample 2 df 175.89 87 Model 2 170.45 77 Model 1 and Model 2 comparison 5.44a 10

225

a Model 1 and Model 2 comparison via difference in 2 and degrees of freedom indicates no signicant difference between the models (p b .01). Thus, constructs are valid for both samples.

shared variances among all applicable pairs of scales. All parameter estimates exceed our threshold of .50. The model t was evaluated using the DELTA2 index, the relative non-centrality index, and the comparative t index. These t indices have been shown as some of the most stable t indices in LISREL models by Anderson and Gerbing (1991). Results (i.e., CFI = .98, RNI = .99, DELTA2 = .98, 2 = 56.4, 24 df) in combination with reliability and variance results suggest that the measurement scales are reliable and valid for this study. We then compared purchasing and logistics respondents. Using the aforementioned criteria, a multi-sample test of data from respondents identifying themselves as purchasing managers and data from respondents identifying themselves as logistics managers focused on the buying of logistics services, constraining the parameter estimates to be the same across the two segments (Model 1) (i.e., loadings, factor correlations and error variances), resulted in acceptable ts to the data. Allowing the loadings to be estimated independently from each other in the two samples resulted in similar t statistics (Model 2). Using the 2 difference test suggested by Gerbing and Anderson (1988), the constrained and unconstrained measurement models were found not to differ signicantly (Table 2). After the measurement analyses, we proceeded to the hypotheses testing using the rened scales. 3.4. Analyses and resultsStudy 1 The results of the hypothesis tests are provided in Table 3, including the parameter estimates and corresponding t-values, and t statistics. The hypothesized model in Fig. 1 was tested using LISREL (Jreskog & Srbo, 1996; Jreskog et al., 1999). All scale items were used in the analysis to represent the three latent constructs. The correlation matrix for the sample was used as input to the SEM analyses. All three of the individual hypotheses were supported at the p b .01 level. The broad implied hypothesis is that the structural model (Fig. 2) ts the data overall. Specically, t statistics suggest an acceptable t for the overall model (i.e., CFI = .98, RNI = .99, DELTA2 = .98, 2 = 56.4, 24 df) (Table 3).
Table 3 Results of hypotheses tests. Path/t-value H1 (CVA SAT) + t-value H2 (CVA LOY) + t-value H3 (SAT LOY) + t-value Fit indices DELTA2 RNI CFI RMSEA 2 df
a

Fig. 2. Structural model resultsStudy 1.

We then further tested the structural model by comparing the purchasing manager and logistics manager samples. A multi-sample test of data, constraining the parameter estimates to be the same across the two samples (Model 1) (i.e., loadings, factor correlations and error variances), resulted in acceptable ts to the data. Allowing the loadings to be estimated independently from each other in the two samples resulted in similar t statistics (Model 2). Using the 2 difference test suggested by Gerbing and Anderson (1988), the constrained and unconstrained measurement models were found not to differ signicantly (Table 4). These results suggest that customer value anticipation does positively affect both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, and also has a strong effect on customer loyalty by operating through customer satisfaction. Lam et al. (2004) document a similar mediating role for satisfaction between current customer value and loyalty. Additionally, both purchasing managers and logistics managers focused on contracting for logistics services were more satised and loyal to suppliers who anticipated what they valued. 4. MethodologyStudy 2 In Study 2, we were testing the same model with an extended CVA scale, a fourth construct (i.e., CVA-calm), slightly different satisfaction and loyalty measures, and a different, yet tighter, sampling frame. Since the procedures were essentially the same as Study 1, we will only address pertinent information here. 4.1. Sampling A random sample was drawn from a database purchased from a publicly available sales lead rm. A contact list of 4308 was purchased consisting of purchasing agents and executive ofcers in manufacturers of measuring and analyzing instruments, electronic equipment, and electrical equipment. Through pre-qualication telephone calls and a second wave e-mail to a random selection of 1204 of the 4308, we received 220 usable surveys for an 18 % response rate, which although
Table 4 Multi-sample (purchasing managers and logistics managers) structural equation modeling results. Model 1 Model 2 152.51 72 Model 1 and Model 2 comparison 23.38a 13

n = 404 .52 9.50 .18 2.80 .41 6.48 Supporteda Supported Supported

.98 .99 .98 .055 56.40 24

Multi-sample 2 df

175.89 85

All signicant at p b .01 or better.

a Model 1 and Model 2 comparison via difference in 2 and degrees of freedom indicates no signicant difference between the models (p b .01). Thus, theorized model holds for both samples and does not differ signicantly by type of buyer (i.e., purchasing manager versus logistics manager).

226 Table 5 Scale items Study 2.a,b

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

Thinking of a specic but typical supplier, this supplier Customer value anticipationcapability (CVA-Cap) C.R. = .94, AVE = .65, loadings range = .78.92 CVA-Cap 1 CVA-Cap 2 CVA-Cap 3 CVA-Cap 4 CVA-Cap 5 CVA-Cap 6 CVA-Cap CVA-Cap CVA-Cap CVA-Cap 7 8 9 10

Excels at anticipating changes in what we need from them before we even ask. Seems to be one step ahead of their competitors in predicting our needs. Plans well ahead of time in anticipation of changes in what we want from them. Seems to see things coming down the road before other suppliers do. Is able to understand and predict our changing needs. Seems to spend time studying changes in our business environment so they can exercise better foresight about our future needs. Presents new solutions to us that we actually need but did not think to ask about. Is always looking for clues that might reveal changes in what we value beyond what we currently ask of them. Regularly attempts to modify their products and services in line with our changing needs. Has learned how to pick up clues to changes in what we want from them.

Customer value anticipationcalmness (CVA-Calm) C.R. = .71, AVE = .63, loadings range = .48.52 CVA-Calm 1 CVA-Calm 2 CVA-Calm 3 Customer satisfaction (SAT) C.R. = .88, AVE = .80, loadings range = .95.98 SAT 1 SAT 2 SAT 3 Loyalty (LOY) C.R. = .80, AVE = .72, loadings range = .91.92 LOY 1 LOY 2 (R) LOY 3
a b

Appears relatively unustered or stressed by changes in what we want from them. Is generally calm about possible uncertainties in our relationship with them. Looks forward to some of the changes they see down the road in our relationship.

In general, I am very pleased with the products and services offered by this supplier. Overall, I feel delighted when I think of this supplier relationship. Overall, how satised are you with this supplier [very unsatised to very satised].

I feel that we are very loyal to this supplier. I regularly seek alternative suppliers that I can use instead of this supplier. I am committed to this supplier relationship.

All construct items except for SAT3 were measured on a ve-point Likert-like scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Fit statistics: 2 = 241, df = 146; CFI = .93; D2 = .93; TLI = .98; RMSEA = .07.

lower than desired is consistent with survey studies of this type. Ninety three percent (93%) of respondents were middle to senior level/ executive level managers serving as buying managers or overall business managers. Most has ten years or more of experience (74%) and worked at businesses with over $10 million USD in revenue (77%). 4.2. Measures Based on feedback from other academic professionals and business colleagues after Study 1, we expanded our thinking regarding CVA to draw from psychological descriptions of anticipation, to which we referred in the literature review earlier. This resulted in adding items that addressed suppliers CVA capabilities (CVA-cap), as well as perceived suppliers' calmness and aspects of reduced anxiety (Smeeton et al., 2005; Van Gerwin et al., 1999; Wofford & Goodwin, 1990). The items dealing with calmness, looking forward to changes, and lack of stress added from the psychology literature tap into the customer value anticipation calm construct (CVA-calm). Through item renement, we retained 13 of an original 17 item pool designed to operationalize both CVA-cap and CVA-calm. Satisfaction was initially measured with four items, with three of the four remaining in the nal scale. Loyalty was conceptualized as behavioral and attitudinal, measured initially with eight items, and measured in the nal scale with three items. All scales were measured using a Likert-like ve-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. 4.3. Measurement analysis We split the 220 sample into two samples, one for construct validation (i.e., measurement analysis, n=110) and a second for structural path analysis (n=110). For the measurement analysis, following standard descriptive assessments and corrections for reverse coding and missing

values, we ran a factor analysis in SPSS, removing a few items that were clearly not loading well, and then conrmatory factor analysis in AMOS, removing a few more that modication indices showed were still weak. The resulting measurement model had acceptable t indices (2 = 241.033, df = 146, CFI = .930, Delta2 = .931, TLI = .918) and seemed to retain desired theoretical/substantive conceptualization. Parameter estimates, average variance extracted (AVE), and shared variance analyses all supported the case that our measurement model was acceptable (see Table 5 for items and measurement results). 4.4. Analyses and resultsStudy 2 We used the second sample (n = 110) drawn from the 220 respondent sample to test our hypotheses through structural equation modeling using AMOS. The model also had acceptable t indices ( 2 = 241.1, df = 147, CFI = .931, Delta2 = .932, TLI = .920, RMSEA= .077). We found though that hypotheses H2 and H6 were not supported (i.e., parameter estimates were not statistically signicant) (Table 6). Specically, neither CVA-cap nor CVA-calm had signicant direct effects on customer loyalty. This further supports the mediating role of satisfaction on the relationship between customer value anticipation and loyalty (see Fig. 3). In addition, having a customer value anticipation capability clearly seems to drive suppliers to remain calm about potential and real customer changes. 5. Discussion We now have some empirical evidence that suppliers need to not only be better than their competitors at uncovering and creating what customers value, but need to also be good at anticipating what those customers will value in the future. We have tested CVA measurement approaches as well its effects in three contexts, i.e., a heterogeneous manufacturing buying sample, a logistics service buying setting, and a

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230 Table 6 Results of hypotheses tests Study 2. Path/t-value H1 (CVA-Cap SAT) + t-value/critical ratio H2 (CVA-Cap LOY) + t-value H3 (SAT LOY) + t-value/critical ratio H4 (CVA-Cap CVA-Calm) + t-value/critical ratio H5 (CVA-Calm SAT) + t-value/critical ratio H6 (CVA-Calm LOY) + t-value/critical ratio Fit indices CFI DELTA2 TLI RMSEA 2 df Signicance level
a

227

n = 110 .408 [3.348] .156 [1.326] .486 [3.330] .681 [5.683] .351 [2.435] .130 [.894] Supporteda Not supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported

.931 .932 .920 .077 241.101 147 .000

All supported paths signicant at p b .000.

homogenous manufacturing buying sample, and found support in all three. This has implications for both marketing managers and academics.

5.1. Implications for marketing managers Marketing managers have it tough these days. Global competition is stiff in almost every industry and sector. Differential advantages are difcult to sustain, especially when that advantage is a product one. As a result, more rms are developing knowledge and learning processes as their key source of sustainable competitive advantage. Now that many rms have developed competencies in customer value management, primarily focused on deep understanding of what customers currently value and their satisfaction levels with value creation activities, some have found a need to differentiate on

learning in other ways. Developing an expertise in anticipating changes in customers' desired value may turn out to be a way to achieve unique advantages. In those markets where what customers' value changes rapidly, it may actually be a necessity. Being good at responding to changes in what customers' value is quite different from anticipating those changes ahead of time. Given these initial ndings that at least some customers want suppliers to anticipate their needs, suppliers ought to begin thinking about exactly how they plan to accomplish this. As some have said, there are many clues to changes in customer desired value that the astute manager will piece together into a holistic image of customers' futures (Flint et al., 2002). Developing the competency to gather relevant clues and piece them together appropriately is likely to be laborious. However, this study suggests that the efforts will result in more satised and loyal customers. Customer value anticipation capabilities appear to be an operant resource that may offer competitive advantages. However, our research does not speak to how this is done. How do suppliers anticipate what their customers will value? We now know that they should be able to, but exactly what is involved in doing so? Our experience with many rms attempting to answer this question suggests that they develop skills in one of two areas if not both: (1) fairly deep collaborative relationships with customers, especially lead-users so that early warning signs of change can be seen quickly and ahead of competitors, and (2) quite different primary customer/ market data collection and analysis techniques and data mining approaches that focus on changes by customer over time. Developing these capabilities enables managers to remain calm about pending customer changes and develop a lead-time advantage over competitors. A service-dominant logic would say that the collaborative relationships with customers required for anticipation to occur are a service as are the actual supplier responses to eventual changes. At the end of the day, most suppliers will need to modify their customer/market sensing processes as well as their collaboration efforts in order to successfully and consistently move with customers over time in helping to create value with all parties involved and not be left behind. The study is not without limitations, however, and suggests signicant additional research, each discussed next. 5.2. Future research and limitations This study is limited by the relatively parsimonious way in which we measured customer value anticipation (CVA). Customer value anticipation could be conceptualized in a more complex way, e.g., tapping into additional data collection processes, outcomes, emotions, and so on. Thus, results are limited to the aspects of customer value anticipation operationalized here. The study is also limited to the sample within which we explored the CVA phenomenon. Buyers in other contexts may not value CVA as highly as this sample did. However, this opens the door for some interesting research. One interesting area is to further rene how CVA-calm might be manifested within and communicated by suppliers. For example, what does anxiety or lack thereof really mean? How do suppliers convey their calmness toward change? Is it critical that even with a CVA capability, suppliers must display a level of condence in dealing with or even excitement about customer changes? From a supplier's perspective, what does it mean to develop this attitude toward change? Does it simply emerge from a having a rm handle on what customers are likely to value later? We think that studying the interconnections between capabilities, the emotions that develop a result of developing (or failing to develop) those capabilities, and the manner in which all of it is communicated to customers has signicant research potential. Research has begun to explore the nature of customer desired value change in order to use this knowledge to construct improved

Fig. 3. Structural model resultsStudy 2.

228

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230

processes for anticipating changes in customer desired value (Flint & Woodruff, 2001; Flint et al., 2002). This program of research rests on the assumption that customers want suppliers to anticipate their needs. Findings from the study we report here suggest that this assumption has some merit. As such, future research on customer value should include suppliers' anticipation and responsiveness capabilities in addition to product, service and relationship aspects of supplier offerings. These ndings also contribute to the market orientation literature by breaking out a specic component of market orientation to determine the effects it has on customer satisfaction and loyalty. But we still have a great deal more to learn. For example, we need more detail concerning methods of anticipating what customers' value. There are many ways in which suppliers can anticipate what customers will value and distances into the future that they look. Customers may have varied opinions about these methods. We need to nd out what suppliers are specically doing in this regard and what customers think about those specic efforts. For example, what methods are marketers currently using to gather clues about potential changes in customers' desired value and how are they using their insights to improve products, services and customer relationships? We also need to know more about which methods and combinations of methods are best suited for this kind of market sensing, form data mining of behavior data to interpretation of disparate qualitative data. Future research could rene our understanding of the relationships described in this study by exploring situational factors and boundary conditions that impinge on the model. Some likely inuential conditions include, the customer's relative power in the supply chain (Gaski, 1984; Gaski & Nevin, 1985), characteristics of the buyerseller relationships (Cannon & Perreault, 1999), industry dynamism, cultural factors (Overby, Gardial, & Woodruff, 2004), a customer's time orientation for the relationship (Ganesan, 1994), a customer's time horizon for making supplier-related investments (Judge & Spitzfaden, 1995), and customers' future considerations (Lemon et al., 2002). Understanding the role of these variables might help marketers assess where to draw the line on CVA efforts. Furthermore, with some customer segments, marketers might want to set CVA standards. Specically, there is a growing consensus about the asymmetric impact of positive versus negative satisfaction experiences (Mittal et al., 1998). Knowing customers' expectations for CVA might help retention efforts. It would be interesting to explore the strategic implications of customer value anticipation for suppliers. For example, several strategists suggest that anticipating future market needs is critical input to developing rm capabilities leading to competitive advantage (Day, 1994; Srivastava, Fahey, & Christensen, 2001). Understanding how CVA knowledge about customers' future environments and needs ows through an organization and inuences strategic action, resource allocation, and additional capability development could be a signicant step in this regard. At a broader rm level, CVA processes might play a critical role in helping rms reconcile the paradoxical tensions between market and entrepreneurial orientations (Berthon, Hulbert, & Pitt, 2004; Danneels, 2003; Narver et al., 2004). A common argument from strategists is that rms can devote too much attention to being responsive to customers' demands in the here and now, and miss out on disruptive marketplace changes and future market opportunities (Christensen & Bower, 1996; Danneels, 2002). Marketers respond with the rationale that being market-oriented is much more than being market-led (Slater & Narver, 1999), yet popular scales for market-orientation place more emphasis on being responsive to current customers and markets and less attention to future markets that lie on the periphery (Danneels, 2003; Day & Schoemaker, 2004). Customer value anticipation processes might serve to reconcile this gap, in part by linking forward-looking processes and strategies to customer-centered philosophies.

Some researchers have used qualitative approaches to further the eld's understanding of customer satisfaction both in consumer and industrial customer settings (Fournier & Mick, 1999; Tikkanen et al., 2000). Their ndings suggest that customer satisfaction is a more dynamic process than most research allows for, and show that social dimensions in buyerseller relationships as well as meaning and emotion are integral facets of the phenomenon. If CVA has relational aspects that can contribute to satisfaction and loyalty in customers, future research might explore specically how CVA gets accomplished best at various times in buyerseller relationships and with different members of the buying center. Given evidence that customer desired value change occurs in a context saturated with emotion and managerial tension (Flint et al., 2002), how one looks for clues in order to anticipate what specic buying center members will value in the future is dependent on understanding how environmental variables uniquely impact individuals' emotions and desired value. Similarly, it would be interesting to see if the calmness associated with suppliers' anticipation capabilities is transferred to customers' anxiety, effectively removing some of the tension and stress business buyers often feel in connection with dynamic and seemingly uncertain environments (Flint et al., 2002). As such, CVA in practice and detail may vary extensively by customer organization, buying center members, and situations. Future research should explore how CVA in practice varies in these ways. References
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1992). The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), 1834. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and protability: Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 5366. Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for rms. Marketing Science, 12(2), 125143. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a conrmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732740. Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. (1990). A model of distributor rm and manufacturer rm working partnership. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 4258. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396402. Ballantyne, David, & Varey, Richard J. (2008). The service-dominant logic and the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 1114. Berthon, P., Hulbert, J., & Pitt, L. (2004). Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 10651090. Beverland, M., Farrelly, F., & Woodhatch, Z. (2004). The role of value change management in relationship dissolution: Hygiene and motivational factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 927939. Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 7294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the customer's relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17 (1), 4565. Cannon, J. P., & Homburg, C. (2001). Buyersupplier relationships and customer rm costs. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 2944. Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D. (1999). Buyerseller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 439460. Carter, J. R., & Narasimhan, R. (1996). Purchasing and supply management: Future directions and trends. International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 32(4), 212. Christensen, C. M., & Bower, J. L. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading rms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197218. Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491504. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). Servperf versus Servqual: Reconciling performancebased and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125131. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and rm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 10951121. Danneels, E. (2003). Tightloose coupling with customers: The enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(6), 559576. Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (2000). Value assessment: The antecedent of customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 13, 5260. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 3753. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2004). Driving through the fog: Managing at the edge. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 127142.

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230 Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99113. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 11051121. Flint, D. J. (2004). Strategic marketing in global supply chains: Four challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(1), 4550. Flint, D. J. (2006). Innovation, symbolic interaction and customer valuing: Thoughts stemming from a service-dominant logic of marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 349362. Flint, D. J., & Woodruff, R. B. (2001). The initiators of changes in customers' desired value. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 321337. Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1997). Customer value change in industrial marketing relationships: A call for new strategies and research. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(2), 163176. Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers' desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 102117. Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 621. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 3950. Fournier, S., & Mick, D. G. (1999, October). Rediscovering satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 63, 524. Gale, B. T. (1994). Managing customer value. New York: Free Press. Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 119. Gaski, J. F. (1984). The theory of power and conict in channels of distribution. Journal of Marketing, 48(3), 929. Gaski, J. F., & Nevin, J. R. (1985). The differential effects of exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 130142. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186192. Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 223238. Golfetto, F., & Gilbert, M. (2006). Marketing competencies and the sources of customer value in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8), 904912. Gronroos, C. (1994, Aug). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Asia-Australia Marketing Journal, 2, 929. Gummesson, E. (1994, Aug). Broadening and specifying relationship marketing. AsiaAustralia Marketing Journal, 2, 3143. Gundlach, G., Achrol, R., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment in exchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 7892. Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1997). The service prot chain. New York: The Free Press. Jap, S. D. (2001). Pie-sharing in complex collaboration contexts. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 8699. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 5370. Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in a sense-and-respond era: The role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219233. Johnson, P. F., Klassen, R. D., Leenders, M. R., & Fearon, H. E. (2002). Determinants of purchasing team usage in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 20 (1), 7789. Johnson, P. F., & Leenders, M. R. (1998). The inuence of organizational factors on purchasing activities. International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 34(3), 1019. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbo, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International, Inc. Jreskog, K. G., Srbo, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Chicago, IL: Scientic Software International, Inc. Judge, W. Q., & Spitzfaden, M. (1995). The management of strategic time horizons within biotechnology rms: The Impact of cognitive complexity on time horizon diversity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 4(2), 179196. Kandampully, J., & Duddy, R. (1999). Competitive advantage through anticipation, innovation and relationships. Management Decision, 37(1), 5156. Lam, S. Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293311. Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3), 122143. Lapierre, J., Filiatrault, P., & Chebat, J. (1999). Value strategy rather than quality strategy: A case of business-to-business professional services. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 235246. Lemon, K. N., Barnett, T. W., & Winer, R. S. (2002). Dynamic customer relationship management: Incorporating future considerations into the service retention decision. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 114. MacCullum, R. C. (1986). Specication searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 107120. Madhavaram, S., & Hunt, S. D. (2008). The service-dominant logic and a hierarchy of operant resources: Developing masterful operant resources and implications for marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 6782. Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. T. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientationperformance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 116.

229

Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131142. Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 3347. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038. Morrison, I., & Schmid, G. (1994). Future tense: The business realities for the next ten years. New York: William Morrow. Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (5), 334347. Noordewier, T. G., George, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyervendor relationships. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 8093. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460469. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 3344. Oliver, R. L., & Rust, R. T. (1997). Customer delight: Foundations, ndings, and managerial insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 311336. Overby, J. W., Gardial, S. F., & Woodruff, R. B. (2004). French versus American consumers' attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: A cross-national comparison. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 437460. Pagell, M., & Das, A. (1996). Motivating the purchasing professional. International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 32(3), 2734. Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lesson's FROM America's best-run companies. New York: Warner Books Inc. Reichheld, F. F. (1993). Loyalty-based management. Harvard Business Review, 71(2), 6471. Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: New directions in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (2000). Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 8694. Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193215. Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and ofine environments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20 (2), 153175. Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Baker, T. L. (1998). Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: The distributor perspective. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 99111. Simpson, P. M., Siguaw, J. A., & Baker, T. L. (2001). A model of value creation: Supplier behaviors and their impact on reseller-perceived value. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(2), 119134. Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1537. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 120127. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1999). Market-oriented is more than being customer-led. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 11651168. Smeeton, N. J., Williams, A. M., Hodges, N. J., & Ward, P. (2005). The relative effectiveness of various instructional approaches in developing anticipation skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 98110. Spiteri, J. M., & Dion, P. A. (2004). Customer value, overall satisfaction, end-user loyalty, and market performance in detail intensive industries. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 675687. Spreng, R. A., MacKenzie, S. B., & Olshavski, R. W. (1996). A reexamination of the determinants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 1532. Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., & Christensen, H. K. (2001). The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 27(6), 777802. Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 1635. Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijrvi, K., & Thtinen, 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. Trent, R. J., & Monczka, R. M. (1998). Purchasing and supply management: Trends and changes throughout the 1990s. International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 34(4), 211. Ulaga, W. (2001). Customer value in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(4), 315. Ulaga, W. (2003). Capturing value creation in business relationships: A customer perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 677693. Van Gerwin, L. J., Spnhoven, P., Van Dyck, R., & Diekstra, F. W. (1999). Construction and psychometric characteristics of two self-report questionnaires for the assessment of fear of ying. Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 146158. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 117. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 110. Weitz, B. A., & Bradford, K. D. (1999). Personal selling and sales management: A relationship marketing perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 241254.

230

D.J. Flint et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 219230 Christopher P. Blocker (Ph.D., University of Tennessee) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Marketing at Baylor University and is a member of the Keller Research Center in the Hankamer School of Business. His research interests focus on the dynamics of customer value and its implications for relationship management across a variety of contexts ranging from cross-national organizational relationships to impoverished consumers within base of the pyramid markets. Dr. Blocker's work appears in journals such as Industrial Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing and Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. Philip J. Boutin, Jr. (Ph.D. Candidate, University of Tennessee) is a marketing major with a global strategic management minor. He has degrees in communications, marketing and international business from the University of New Hampshire and Southern New Hampshire University, has over 12 years of experience in marketing, communications, and sales for multiple organizations in the for-prot and non-prot sectors. His research interests include: Business-to-Business Marketing, Buyer Behavior (Business & Consumer), Customer Value, Electronic Commerce, Foreign Direct Investment, Global Outsourcing & Offshoring, Integrated Marketing Communications, International/Multinational Marketing, Internet/Web Marketing, Market Entry Strategies, Marketing Management, and Strategic Marketing.

Werts, C. E., Lin, R. L., & Jreskog, K. G. (1974). Interclass reliability estimates: Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 2533. Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 258270. Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensions of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 8491. Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1990). Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice decision style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 603612. Woodruff, R. B. (1997). Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 139154. Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (1996). Know your customer: New approaches to understanding customer value and satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Business. Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The transformation of industrial selling: Causes and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(5), 327338. Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. In Valerie A. Zeithaml (Ed.), Review of marketing (pp. 63123). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21 (1), 112. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 3146. Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. (1990). Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free Press. Daniel J. Flint (Ph.D. University of Tennessee) is Proftt's, Inc. Associate Professor of Marketing and Director of the Marketing PhD Program in The Department of Marketing and Logistics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He has published in both marketing and logistics journals such as The Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Marketing Theory, Services Marketing Quarterly, and International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, regularly presents at global conferences and reviews manuscripts for at least a dozen journals. Dr. Flint's areas of interest currently are in customer value dynamics, shopper marketing, value co-creation, market intelligence and supply chain management innovation.