Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Emerald Article: Customer intimacy

Jrgen Kai-Uwe Brock, Josephine Yu Zhou

Article information:
To cite this document: Jrgen Kai-Uwe Brock, Josephine Yu Zhou, (2012),"Customer intimacy", Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 5 pp. 370 - 383
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236043
Downloaded on: 24-12-2012
References: This document contains references to 76 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 329 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Jrgen Kai-Uwe Brock, Josephine Yu Zhou, (2012),"Customer intimacy", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 5
pp. 370 - 383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236043
Jrgen Kai-Uwe Brock, Josephine Yu Zhou, (2012),"Customer intimacy", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 5
pp. 370 - 383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236043
Jrgen Kai-Uwe Brock, Josephine Yu Zhou, (2012),"Customer intimacy", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 5
pp. 370 - 383
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236043

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSIDADE CATOLICA DE BRASILIA
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Customer intimacy
Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock
Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK, and

Josephine Yu Zhou
International University of Applied Sciences Bad Honnef Bonn, Bad Reichenhall, Germany
Abstract
Purpose The term customer intimacy has been used both in academia and business, albeit lacking clear definition and empirical validation. The
authors in this paper aim to develop a measure of customer intimacy in business-to-business contexts and to assess its reliability and validity, as well as
its relevance, within a nomological relationship marketing network.
Design/methodology/approach A multi-method (qualitative/exploratory and quantitative/confirmatory structural modelling), multi-staged (test,
re-test) research approach is used and applied in the UK and Germany.
Findings The results show that customer intimacy is a second order construct reflected by the three formative dimensions of mutual understanding,
closeness, and value perception. The results also show that customer intimacy is a relevant relationship indicator, distinct from the central relationship
indicators of trust and commitment. It impacts relationship commitment levels, customer induced word-of-mouth, repurchase intentions, information
disclosure, customer availability, and leads to an advisor status with the customer. Moreover, customer intimacy mediates relationship marketings
central trust commitment link.
Research limitations/implications The main limitations that should be addressed by future studies are: reliance on the key informant technique on
one side of the supplier-buyer dyad; cross-sectional design.
Practical implications This study shows that achieving and managing customer intimacy is a relevant managerial goal and task for firms and shows
managers how it can be measured and managed.
Originality/value. This study, for the first time, presents a measure for customer intimacy and assesses its quality and impact empirically. The
measure will be of significant value in making customer-centric, relationship management approaches more accountable.
Keywords Customer intimacy, Relationship marketing, Trust, Commitment, Business-to-business marketing, Customer orientation, United Kingdom,
Germany
Paper type Research paper

definition of customer intimacy and refine and validate it in

two business-to-business contexts. Specifically we address the
following four key research questions:
1 What is customer intimacy?
2 What drives customer intimacy?
3 How does customer intimacy relate to existing key
relationship constructs?
4 What impact does customer intimacy have on key
relationship outcome variables?

1. Introduction
Four out of ten CEOs believe that customer intimacy will provide the greatest
opportunity for revenue growth . . . (IBM, 2004, p. 20).

In recent years, practitioners and consultants have referred to

gaining customer intimacy as a relevant indicator for strong
relational customer ties and customer insight, especially in
business-to-business markets (e.g. Aufreiter et al., 2000;
Cruz, 2006; Eisenfeld et al., 2004; IBM, 2004). The term
customer intimacy itself was coined and popularized in the
management literature by Treacy and Wiersema in, 1993. In
Academia this interest in customer intimacy has not yet
occurred. Although several authors refer to it in their writings
(e.g. Aaker et al., 2004; Akcura and Srinivasan, 2005;
Fournier et al., 1998; Johnson et al., 2006; Price and Arnould,
1999; Rust et al., 2000, p. 60) to the best of our knowledge no
rigorous conceptualization and assessment exists.
This leads us to the critical question, Is such neglect
warranted? Drawing on relationship marketing literature and
interpersonal relations literature we develop a working

The remainder of this article is organized as follows: In the

next section, existing perspectives on intimacy are reviewed.
Then, the analytical framework of the paper is presented and
research hypotheses are proposed. The third section presents
the applied methodology and data collection procedures. This
is followed by a presentation of the results and an assessment
of the hypotheses. Finally, key results and their theoretical
and managerial implications are discussed. Limitations and
directions for future research close the article.
The authors thank Fujitsu Siemens Computers for financial support of
this research and the Department of Marketing at the University of
Strathclyde, especially Dr Stephen Tagg, for support in parts of the
empirical phase of this project. They also thank Professors Jagdish Sheth,
Werner Reinartz, Thorsten Henning-Thurau, and Gillian Hogg for their
participation in parts of this project, and Professor Florian v. Wangenheim
for comments on an earlier version of this paper. Special thanks go to
Professor Wynne Chin for providing the PLS software and explaining the
PLS method.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

27/5 (2012) 370 383
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/08858621211236043]

370

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

2. Perspectives on intimacy

Drawing on social exchange theory and transaction cost

theory, of particular importance are trust (Crosby et al., 1990;
Doney and Cannon, 1997; Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan and
Hunt, 1994) and commitment (Anderson and Weitz, 1992;
Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Trust is a
necessary foundation in enduring business-to-business
relationships (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Dwyer et al.,
1987; Morgan and Hunt, 1994) due to high
interdependencies and commitment-based opportunity cost
that are characteristics of relationships in industrial markets
(Iyer et al., 2005; Wuyts and Geyskens, 2005). Commitment
requires the development of trust (Dwyer et al., 1987; Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). The deployment of relationship specific
assets, as well as the coinciding emergence of relational norms
such as solidarity, mutuality, and flexibility (Kaufmann and
Dant, 1992), is a characteristic example of such commitment.
Due to their relationship specificity committed relationship
partners face high opportunity cost that they are only willing
to sustain if they can be confident that this dependency is not
exploited and that overall future relationship benefits
outweigh associated costs. This in turn explains the
importance of customer intimacy attributed by practitioners
(e.g. Aufreiter et al., 2000; Cruz, 2006; Eisenfeld et al., 2004;
IBM, 2004). Without perceived value and a close and
understanding relationship, commitment is less likely to
occur. Consequently, besides developing a measure of
customer intimacy, the assessment of this implied
relationship to trust and commitment will be a central part
of this study.

Collins Dictionary defines intimacy as close or warm

friendship or understanding; personal relationship (Collins
English Dictionary, 1994, p. 809). The noun intimacy has its
etymological roots in the Latin terms intimatus, meaning
closely acquainted, very familiar, and intimus, which means
inmost or close friend. Reasoning by analogy suggests that
customer intimacy is referring to a close and understanding
relationship between buyers and suppliers. Consequently we
applied relationship marketing as the theoretical frame and
one of the literature streams analyzed.
2.1 Intimacy and relationship marketing
The focus on relational rather than transactional economic
exchanges in marketing emerged in the 1980s (Berry, 1983;
Dwyer et al., 1987). At the outset, intimacy was an integral
albeit implicit concept (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987, p. 14).
Despite this early reference the concept customer intimacy
remained largely dormant and unspecified, although various
academic contributions refer to attaining customer intimacy
as an important aspect to develop and maintain successful
customer relationships (e.g., Akcura and Srinivasan, 2005;
Fournier et al., 1998; Johnson et al., 2006; Price and Arnould,
1999; Rust et al., 2000, p. 60). At present, to the best of our
knowledge, no grounded definition currently exists. Only
papers by Aaker et al. (2004), Frenzen and Davis (1990), and
Yim et al. (2008) consider customer intimacy, all in a
consumer service context. None of the studies provide
evidence of a thorough construct development process.

3. Customer intimacy: analytical framework and

hypotheses

2.2 Intimacy in interpersonal relations

Since the 1970s the interpersonal relations literature has
discussed, conceptualized, and measured intimacy from a
non-economic perspective (e.g. Descutner and Thelen, 1991;
Hook et al., 2003; Miller and Lefcourt, 1982; Orlofsky et al.,
1973; Repinski and Zook, 2005; Schaefer and Olson, 1987;
Sternberg, 1997). Intimacy in this literature stream is mainly
viewed as closeness in personal relationships (e.g. Repinski
and Zook, 2005; Sternberg, 1997). Such relationships are
characterized by high levels of mutual understanding and
attitudinal congruence (Heller and Wood, 1998), which
involves the positive validation of relationship partners
(Kouneski and Olson, 2004). As such, intimacy is the
outcome of a process, emerging over time (Heller and Wood,
1998; Kouneski and Olson, 2004). Of note is the
characteristic positive validation aspect of intimacy. Without
positive validation intimacy cannot emerge and develop
(Kouneski and Olson, 2004). In economic exchanges,
appreciation is congruent with value perceptions (e.g.
Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Woodall, 2003).
Given the above, we propose the following working
definition of customer intimacy:

We develop and assess customer intimacy within a

nomological framework of antecedents, outcomes, and
related relationship marketing constructs. Figure 1 exhibits
the framework. Next, we develop the research hypotheses.
3.1 The nature of the customer intimacy construct
Given the above, customer intimacy should be best
operationalized as a second order factor with three reflective
first order factors, namely closeness, value perception, and
mutual understanding. This implies that customer intimacy
emerges as, jointly, customer perceptions of relationship
closeness, positive relationship value, and mutual relationship
partner understanding develop.
H1.

Customer intimacy is a second order relationship

construct with three reflective first order factors
closeness,
value
perception,
and
mutual
understanding.

Customer intimacy as a construct reflects different

relationship aspects from trust and commitment. We
surmise that trust is a necessary foundation for successful
long-term business-to-business relationships to emerge and
develop (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Dwyer et al., 1987;
Morgan and Hunt, 1994), with customer intimacy referring
to central qualitative aspects of a trusted relationship, namely
closeness, value perception, and mutual understanding. As a
consequence, commitment might then be best seen as
tangible and intangible investments (see Gundlach et al.,
1995) into an intimate relationship. This refines the central
proposition of the commitment-trust theory (Morgan and

Customer intimacy is a customers perception of having a very close and

valuable relationship with a supplier, characterized by high levels of mutual
understanding.

2.3 Customer intimacy and business-to-business buyersupplier relations

Research on buyer-seller relationships in business markets has
not yet considered the role of customer intimacy explicitly.
The existing body of literature stresses the importance of a
variety of key elements in business-to-business relationships.
371

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Figure 1 Analytical framework

Hunt, 1994) suggesting that trust is a major determinant of

commitment by arguing for customer intimacy acting as a
mediator to this central relationship. If this logic holds, the
following derived hypotheses should find empirical support:

H2 we surmise that customer intimacy should also positively

influence the degree of customer WOM. Stated formally:

Customer intimacy is a distinct relationship construct

from the trust construct.
Customer intimacy is a distinct relationship construct
from the commitment construct.
Trust is positively related to customer intimacy
(antecedent to customer intimacy).
Commitment is positively related to customer
intimacy (outcome of customer intimacy).
Customer intimacy mediates the trust and
commitment relationship.

Expectations as to the continuation of a relationship in the

form of repurchase intentions is another widely studied and
influential outcome variable within the relationship marketing
literature (Palmatier et al., 2006). Again, both trust and
commitment were shown to positively influence repurchase
intentions (Palmatier et al., 2006). Following the logic behind
H4 we surmise that customer intimacy also positively
influences repurchase intentions. Formally we propose:

H2a.
H2b.
H2c.
H2d.
H2e.

H4.

H5.

Customer intimacy is positively related to customer

repurchase intentions.

In business-to-business open information exchange is

important and characteristic of relational exchanges (e.g.
Cannon and Perreault Jr, 1999). We surmise that the
likelihood to disclose sensitive or confidential information
increases with higher levels of customer intimacy. Maintaining
information asymmetries would be incongruent specifically
with the closeness aspect of customer intimacy. Therefore H6
states:

3.2 Antecedents of customer intimacy

The review of the literature stresses the importance of mutual
understanding as a defining element of customer intimacy. An
important basis for understanding to develop is the
development of customer knowledge (Joshi and Sharma,
2004). Only through an iterative process of learning about a
customers preferences and needs can understanding, that is
the knowledge of why for example a customer preference
exists, develop over time. Given that we defined customer
intimacy as a perceptual construct, perceived customer
knowledge of the product/service supplier should operate as
an additional antecedent. Without some level of customer
knowledge it is unlikely that a customer considers a product/
service supplier to exhibit customer understanding and
thereby customer intimacy. Consequently H3 stipulates:
H3.

Customer intimacy is positively related to customer

word-of-mouth communication.

H6.

Customer intimacy is positively related to sensitive

information disclosure.

4. Methodology and data collection

We employed a multi-phased qualitative and quantitative
research approach.
In phase 1, we conducted exploratory, qualitative interviews
with a heterogeneous convenience sample of experts from
different domains and countries. In total we interviewed 20
experts. Five leading academics in the field of relationship
marketing from the US and Europe, three consultants that
have published articles on customer intimacy, and 12 business
managers from different customer facing functions,
hierarchical levels, and countries (UK, Germany, Denmark,
US). In a two-rounded Delphi-like setting we asked them two
open questions:
1 What is customer intimacy in your view?; and
2 What do you consider to be an indication of customer
intimacy?

Customer knowledge is positively related to customer

intimacy.

3.3 Outcomes of customer intimacy

In addition to commitment, we consider three additional
outcomes of customer intimacy.
A widely studied outcome variable within the relationship
marketing literature is word-of-mouth (WOM) (Palmatier
et al., 2006). WOM is influential in growing a firms customer
revenue (e.g. Reichheld, 2003) and its overall long-term value
(Villanueva et al., 2008). Both trust and commitment
positively influence WOM (Palmatier et al., 2006). Given
372

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

In addition, to the expert interviews ten customer interviews

were also conducted with clients of the sponsoring
organization. Again, we interviewed firm representatives
from different levels and countries. The data analytical
procedures followed the guidelines of Miles and Huberman
(1994).
In phase 2, we tested the results empirically. We used the IT
industry as the context, assessing perceived customer
intimacy with key informants in charge of strategic IT
procurement decisions. This context was purposely chosen
for its generalizability. It covers a broad set of industries and
organizations (e.g. Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). Data
were collected from a sample of large UK firms. We used a
commercial sample frame from MIS, which lists all firms in
the UK. Employees with IT procurement authorities were
contacted and interviewed via CATI or a web-based
questionnaire. In order to reduce common method bias ex
ante (Podsakoff et al., 2003) clear survey guidelines were
given, item order was randomized, different scales were used,
response anonymity was assured, items pre-tested for
ambiguity, and only a limited number of items were shown
per screen. Of the 1,200 contacted firms 155 responded. 141
questionnaires could be used, yielding an effective response
rate of 12 per cent. Appendix 1 (Table AI) lists the constructs
and items.

firms and industry composition), and survey method

(interviewers equipped with notebooks). Tests for nonresponse and common method bias were conducted along
the lines of research phase two. The results showed no
significant non-response or common method bias. Of the 600
visitors contacted, 100 usable responses could be obtained.

5. Results
5.1 Phase 1: exploratory interviews with experts and
customers
Overall, the thematic categories (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
that emerged supported and helped to further elaborate our
working definition of customer intimacy, especially by
specifying its dimensions. Table I lists some exemplary
statements.
All three dimensions of customer intimacy synthesized from
the literature featured in the recorded statements, lending
support to our initial, rather expansive working definition. It
also shows that the purely affect-based conceptualization of
intimacy by Yim and colleagues (2008) reflects only a partial
aspect of what customer intimacy might actually be.
The perception of the two dimensions value and closeness
revealed some specific insights. The dimension value, as
exemplified for example by the quote of Peter, should not only
refer to economic value, but also other aspects of value such
as emotional value. This substantiates previous arguments
stating that affective value is also an important aspect of value
perception (Woodall, 2003). Thus, value takes a more holistic
meaning and its subsequent operationalization needed to
reflect this. Details concerning the dimension closeness
turned out to be rather controversial. Although it featured
in quite a few statements, various interviewees considered it
vital that the relationship be of a personal or even private
nature to be considered close. Others explicitly, and
unprompted, opposed such a view, as can be seen in
Michaels quote. As a consequence of the mixed picture that
emerged, we included an item that represents the existence of
personal relationships, but left that part of the definition of
customer intimacy unchanged. With regards to the overall
nature of closeness a more consistent picture emerged.
Respondents viewed it as a representation of numerous direct
and personal contacts between the supplier and the customer,
at different levels, and with a sense of commonality or as
Robert puts is a friendly/friendship type. The remaining
dimension, mutual understanding, was seen very similar by all
respondents. They stressed the importance of understanding
to reflect more than mere customer knowledge (e.g. see
comments by Steve and Robert in Table I) and they all listed a
variety of attributes they considered vital for mutual
understanding to be of key relevance. Reflecting those
insights we kept the working definition of customer intimacy
unchanged and detailed its dimensions (see Appendix 2,
Table AII).
The second goal of research phase one was to generate
indicators of customer intimacy by asking interviewees what
they would consider to be indications of customer intimacy.
The interviews led to an initial set of 57 indicators for
customer intimacy and its dimensions, which was further
amended by potentially fitting indicators from the literature.
Each indicator was subsequently rated by a group of
academics and practitioners in terms of construct fit,
dimension fit, and clarity in wording. Only indicators that

4.1 Characteristics of the sample

The average firm size was 10,429 employees though the vast
majority of firms were smaller (mode: 1,000 employees). In
terms of industry membership 42 per cent were in services, 28
per cent in the public sector, 10 per cent in manufacturing,
and 20 per cent in other sectors such as media or retail/
wholesale. All key respondents were in charge of IT
procurement (63 per cent manager level, 18 per cent
director level, and the rest at the head of division level (16
per cent) or above).
4.2 Non-response, sample generalizability, and
common method bias
Potential non-response bias was assessed by comparing early
vs late respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977) on two
indicators: size of the firm and industry sector. No significant
differences were found, suggesting that non-response bias is
not a serious concern. Also, we compared the overall sample
characteristics with the sample frame to assess sample
generalizability. This was done by comparing the size
distribution of firms in the sample with that in the overall
sample frame. The results show that the sample did not
exhibit significant departures from characteristics of the
sample frame, suggesting that the results derived from the
sample can be generalized to the population of large UK
firms. Due to our reliance on single source surveys, we also
controlled for potential common method bias ex post. This
was done via Harmans single-factor test, as well as the singlecommon-method-factor approach (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The findings suggest that a strong common method bias is
unlikely1.
In phase 3, we re-tested the model. This was done in a
maximally different, albeit comparable setting. The re-test
differed compared to the original survey in terms of time (one
year after the original survey), country (Germany), sample
frame (convenience sample: IT procurement decision-makers
participating at a trade show), sample characteristics (size of
373

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Table I Exemplary statements and thematic categories

Name
(synonym)

Sample

Statement

Thematic category

Carl

Consultant

Closeness value

Marian

Manager

Mike

Manager

Steve

Academic

Peter

Academic

Paul

Academic

Michael

Customer

Robert

Customer

Customer intimacy is a term that refers to a close relationship, in which both parties to
the relationship take value out of it
. . . being capable to understand the customers problems and able to select the right
values for the customer
An especially intensive, personal customer relationship beyond the business
relationship . . .
Customer intimacy is about understanding the customer, not just knowing the customer
. . . It is about understanding what a customer really wants . . . This is often different to
what a customer says . . .
Customer intimacy is an on-going business relationship characterized by mutually
perceived economic value, customer perceived emotional value and customer perceived
associative value
State of being in a very private, personal relationship, which involves more than the
dyad
Customer intimacy refers to a good relationship and partnership with a customer based
on mutual understanding and closeness . . . a personal relationship is not so important
Customer intimacy . . . is hard to define by words. You feel it. It is a relationship
characterized by a less official nature, more a friendly/friendship type, less distant. It is
about customer needs understanding, knowing and thinking like the customer . . . It is a
desirable state

were, on average, rated high on each of the three rating

categories and that exhibited high levels of inter-rater
agreement were kept for stage two of the research. For the
inter-rater agreement the average deviation index and its
proposed upper limit for item acceptance was used (Burke
and Dunlap, 2002). This process, which was repeated twice
led to a set of 21 indicators. A semantic pre-test of this set of
indicators using sample frame members reduced the set
further; to a final set of 14 indicators that were used in
research phase two.
During the course of this research phase two additional
important findings emanated. First, the descriptions of
customer intimacy given by the sample of managers yielded
potential outcome variables of customer intimacy, two of
which we did not consider ex ante and added to research
phase two. Availability was the first and advisor status the
second. Availability refers to the availability of the customer
when the suppliers calls or visits. According to various
managers customer unavailability is a key barrier to develop
business in small and smaller customer accounts, while it is
usually not a problem at all in their key account relationships.
Consequently they argued that achieving customer intimacy
should increase the likelihood of the customer being available
when the supplier intents to interact. The second outcome
variable, advisor status, refers to a desired relationship state
cited by both the managers and consultants. According to
their view the ultimate role a supplier can play is the role of a
trusted advisor, where customers proactively ask the supplier
for advice before decisions are made and budget is allocated.
They reasoned that customer intimacy might be a potential
path to achieving such a status. We incorporated both new
outcome variables, availability and advisor status, in the next
research phase (as ex post H7 and H8).
The second finding that emanated from this phase of the
research concerns the nature of the customer intimacy

Understanding value
Closeness
Understanding

Value

Closeness
Understanding closeness
Closeness understanding

indicators generated. Rather than reflecting each of the three

dimensions of customer intimacy, with characteristic high
content overlap, most of the indicators appeared to be
formative, with characteristic low content overlap, of its
dimensions. At this stage of the research we therefore
suspected that the three dimensions of the focal construct are
possibly captured best by formative indicators, while the three
dimensions themselves are reflective first order factors of the
second order factor customer intimacy. Thus, customer
intimacy might be a type III multidimensional construct
(Jarvis et al., 2003).
5.2 Phase 2: empirical validation and hypothesis testing
Before testing the focal construct and the hypotheses stated
we needed to establish whether the results of phase one,
suggesting a formative indicator approach to the three
dimensions of customer intimacy, is warranted. We followed
recommendations in the literature and analyzed the
correlation matrix of the customer intimacy indicators first
and the variance inflation factor second (Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001). The correlation matrix largely confirmed
the formative nature of the indicators. The majority (58 per
cent) of the 91 bi-variate correlations exhibited small effects
sizes and none of the correlations exhibited a large effect size.
Similarly, the variance inflation factor came to a maximum of
2.04, below the suggested threshold of 3.33 for formative
constructs (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006). In addition,
we performed an exploratory factor analysis. The poor results
provided additional confirmation to our formative
conceptualization of the three dimensions of customer
intimacy2.
To test the customer intimacy construct and its nomological
relationship with the other variables of this study the
component-based Partial Least Squares (PLS) structural
modelling technique was applied using PLS-Graph (Chin and
Frye, 2001). PLS has several strengths in comparison to
374

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

covariance, full information based structural modelling

techniques that made it appropriate for this empirical
investigation. First, the less demanding sample size
requirements of PLS allowed for its use in this study. With
141 (test) and 100 (re-test) usable observations to assess the
full model it exceeded the minimum requirements of ten
times the scale with the largest number of indicators (Chin
and Frye, 2001). Second, the PLS method can handle
formative indicators (Hsu et al., 2006) which are required for
the dimensions of the focal construct of this study. For
covariance-based structural modelling technique the inclusion
of formative measures is problematic and has been shown to
lead to identification problems (MacCallum and Browne,
1993). Third, only PLS can estimate scores for formative
latent constructs (Hsu et al., 2006), a requirement of this
study.

indicators for each construct exist (Chin et al., 2003), which

was the case here.
Following traditional reliability assessment guidelines,
researchers are usually asked to report on the internal
consistency of the construct (Churchill, 1979). However, for
constructs that consist of formative indicators such an
approach is not applicable (Diamantopoulos and
Winklhofer, 2001). Formative indicators are assessed by
their empirically derived weights to gauge their relevance in
the measurement model (Chin, 1998). Although no
minimum thresholds for weights have been established, the
statistical significance of the weights can be used to determine
their relevance in forming the latent variable (Chin and Frye,
2001). These were estimated using the bootstrap re-sampling
technique. 1,000 sub-samples were used to estimate the
parameter means and standard errors. This process led to the
elimination of additional items and resulted in a total of ten
items forming the three dimensions of customer intimacy.
Four items formed the dimension mutual understanding, four
items formed closeness, and two items formed the value
dimension (see Appendix 1 (Table AI) for an item overview).
Since it is important that the final item list still captures the
complete conceptual domain of each dimension
(Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001), a closer look at
the items content is warranted. The four mutual
understanding items capture key aspects in business-tobusiness relationships, namely customer/supplier culture,
needs, product/service offerings, and decision-making
structures (e.g. Cannon and Perreault, 1999; Palmatier et al.,
2008; Ulaga and Eggert, 2006; Wuyts and Geyskens, 2005).
The two value perception items also capture the essence of its
defined domain. Both, the rational and the emotional side of
value perception, are still captured. The four closeness items
also represent the concept of closeness rather well. Of note is
that the rather controversial socialization aspect of closeness,
which was suggested by some respondents in research phase
one, exhibited significant weights too. Overall, we can attest
that the ten items capture the central aspects of each
dimension adequately.
The empirical results support our assessment:
.
the resulting dimensions exhibited high R2s;
.
strong second order factor loadings; and
.
the dimensional correlations are below their respective
second order factor loadings.

5.2.1 Assessing the multidimensional nature of customer intimacy

A necessary condition for the definition of a multidimensional
construct is that the relations between the overall construct
and its dimensions, or first order constructs, are specified
(Law et al., 1998). Jarvis et al. (2003) distinguish between
four types of second order constructs. This typology is based
on the reflective or formative conceptualization of the first and
the second order construct:
.
Type I constructs consist of reflective second order and
reflective first order constructs.
.
Type II constructs consist of formative second order and
reflective first order constructs.
.
Type III constructs consist of reflective second order and
formative first order constructs.
.
Type IV constructs consist of formative second order and
formative first order constructs.
Given the preceding discussion, customer intimacy is
surmised to be best conceptualized as a type III construct.
Empirical support for such a conceptualization is given if the
following six characteristics hold (Chin and Gopal, 1995;
Fornell and Larcker, 1981):
1 the constituting dimensions of the second order construct
(the first order constructs) are significantly correlated but
only limited so3;
2 the indicator weights for each dimension are significant;
3 the R2 of each dimension exceeds 0.5;
4 the construct reliability of the second order construct
exceeds 0.7;
5 its AVE (average variance extracted) exceeds 0.5; and
6 the dimensions loading are significant, ideally exceeding
the interdimensional correlations.

This supports the proposed dimensionality of the customer

intimacy construct (see Tables II and III). Finally, the
composite reliability and AVE of customer intimacy itself also
exceeds recommended thresholds as shown in Table II
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In summary, the
operationalization of customer intimacy resulted in a reliable
second order construct, with three reflective dimensions. This
supports research H1. The other constructs, mainly trust and
commitment, also exhibited good levels of reliability (see
Table II)4.

Within the PLS measurement model two methods to assess

second order constructs have been proposed. The repeated
indicators method (Chin et al., 2003) or the latent variable
score method (Bagozzi, 1985; Chin et al., 2003). The former
repeats the use of the formative indicators for both the second
order construct and the first order constructs. The latter uses
the PLS algorithm to create a latent variable score for each
first order construct. Since the resulting latent variable scores
reflect the underlying construct more accurately than any of
the individual constructs (Chin et al., 2003), we applied the
latent variable score method. In addition, the repeated
indicators method can lead to unstable estimates if an inflated
indicator to constructs ratio and an unbalanced number of

5.2.2 Assessment of rival models of customer intimacy

Two rival models to the one proposed and tested were
considered. For each model we applied Kettenrings goodness
of fit measure as proposed by Tenenhaus and Hanafi (2010)
to assess the predictive relevance of the competing models, as
well as indicators of reliability and validity for different
construct conceptualizations.
375

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Table II Construct assessment results I

Item loadings
(t-values)

Construct/items *, dimensions

Trust
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
Commitment
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Repurchase intention
Item 1
Item 2
Customer intimacy
Mutual understanding
(test: R2 0.56; re-test: R2 0.56)
Closeness
(rest: R2 0.50; re-test: R2 0.50)
Value perception
(test: R2 0.67; re-test: R2 0.79)

Composite reliability
Test
Re-test
(n 5 141)
(n 5 100)
0.924

0.884

0.875

0.877

AVE

0.904

0.848

Test
(n 5 141)

Re-test
(n 5 100)

0.669

0.613

0.657

0.868

0.777

0.902

0.703

Test
(n 5 141)
Loadings

Re-test
(n 5 100)
Loadings

0.803
0.805
0.892
0.819
0.778
0.789

(26.169)
(21.984)
(59.065)
(25.846)
(22.242)
(19.821)

0.777
0.673
0.828
0.775
0.814
0.846

(17.655)
(9.115)
(25.678)
(14.754)
(22.614)
(26.471)

0.830
0.803
0.698
0.899

(23.552)
(19.231)
(11.231)
(56.681)

0.894
0.842
0.517
0.755

(36.466)
(19.193)
(4.843)
(11.940)

0.860
0.899

(20.999)
(31.528)

0.863
0.886

(17.855)
(34.125)

0.817

(22.574)

0.775

(17.686)

0.845

(25.039)

0.897

(39.876)

0.853

(45.991)

0.932

(71.465)

0.590

0.767

0.755

Notes: *Item details are listed in Appendix 1 (Table AI)

clear what all the constituting dimensions of this construct are

(Palmatier et al., 2006; Palmatier et al., 2008), the present
study does include at least two constructs that have been
central in this stream of research, namely trust and
commitment. Therefore we modelled customer intimacy as
a third dimension of relationship quality, using its derived
latent scores as described above. Lacking specific guidelines as
to the exact multi-dimensional nature of relationship quality
we conceptualized the three dimensions to be reflective. The
rational for assuming a reflective relationship is grounded in
past empirical observations that showed significant factor
correlations between commitment and trust (e.g. Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). The correlations between trust, commitment,
and customer intimacy found in this study further support
such a conceptualization. The results show that while the
construct relationship quality performed well (composite
reliability 0.909; AVE 0.770), the quality of the model as
measured by Kettenrings goodness of fit measure
deteriorated (from 0.42 to 0.38).
Overall, the assessment of the two rival models show that the
original conceptualization of customer intimacy as a separate
type-III multi-dimensional construct is the strongest in terms of
predictive relevance and construct conceptualization.

Table III Construct assessment II: interdimensional correlations

customer intimacy

Sample

Dimension

Test

Mutual understanding
Closeness
Value perception
Mutual understanding
Closeness
Value perception

Re-test

Correlations to dimension
loadings
MU
CL
VP
MU
CL
VP
MU
CL
VP

0.817
0.632
0.514
0.775
0.493
0.606

0.845
0.535

0.853

0.897
0.787

0.932

Customer intimacy as a first order, formative construct:

customer intimacy was conceptualized as a multidimensional
construct, but it could also be conceptualized and
operationalized as a first order, formative construct, with
each of the ten indicators directly causing customer intimacy.
The results showed poor fit. The AVE of customer intimacy
was low (0.398) and only three of the ten indicators had
significant weights.
Customer intimacy as a relationship quality dimension:
some authors have challenged the assumed central role of the
constructs trust and commitment in relationship marketing,
arguing for a broader aggregate relationship construct, usually
termed relationship quality (e.g. Crosby et al., 1990; DeWulf
et al., 2001; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Though it is not

5.2.3 Assessment of H2-H8

H2a and H2b propose that trust and commitment are distinct
constructs from customer intimacy. To assess this, we estimated
their discriminant validity from the customer intimacy
construct following the proposal of Fornell and Larcker
376

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

(1981) stating that the squared construct correlations should be

smaller than the respective construct AVEs. Table IV shows that
this test is met. All of the squared construct correlations are
smaller than the construct AVEs. As hypothesized, trust and
commitment can be considered distinct from customer
intimacy. The data therefore support both H2a and H2b.
H2c proposes that trust is positively related to customer
intimacy. Table V shows that the result of the path analysis
confirms this hypothesis. The path from trust to customer
intimacy is significant and positive. Related to this, H2d
proposes that customer intimacy is positively related to
commitment. This hypothesis also finds empirical support.
The customer intimacy to commitment path is significant and
positive (see Table V). H2c and H2d also proposed that trust
is an antecedent to customer intimacy and commitment and
outcome of customer intimacy. Given this logic we proposed
in H2e that customer intimacy mediates the trust
commitment relationship. To test for mediation we followed
the logic of Baron and Kenny (1986) to model and test three
path models. The direct trust to commitment path model, the
direct customer intimacy to commitment path model, and the
joint trust and customer intimacy to commitment model
controlling for the trust to customer intimacy path. Mediation
is confirmed if the direct paths for models one and two are
significant and the trust to commitment path in the third
model is significantly reduced, ideally becoming insignificant
or approaching zero as evidence for complete mediation
(Baron and Kenny, 1986). Significance is assessed using the
Sobel test (Baron and Kenny, 1986). The results support the
mediation hypothesis. Although the trust to commitment path

in the mediated model is still significant, its strength is

reduced by nearly 50 per cent (down from 0.644 to 0.347)
and the Sobel test is significant (Sobel test value 4.761, p:
0.000; see Table V). Thus, customer intimacy mediates the
trust commitment relationship, supporting H2e.
H3 proposes that customer knowledge is positively related
to customer intimacy. Table five shows that the data support
this hypothesis too. The path from customer knowledge to
customer intimacy is significant and positive.
H4 to H6, and ex post H7 and H8, relate to outcomes of
customer intimacy. Table V shows that all of the hypothesized
outcome variables of customer intimacy are significant and
positive. Customer intimacy is positively related to WOM,
repurchase intentions, information disclosure, customer
availability, and an advisor status.
In summary, the results of research phase two showed that
customer intimacy is a type III construct (Jarvis et al., 2003)
and a distinct relationship construct from the two central
relationship marketing constructs trust and commitment. It is
driven by customer knowledge and exhibited significant and
positive directs effects on a variety of important relationship
outcome variables, namely WOM, repurchase intentions,
information disclosure, customer availability, and advisor
status with the customer. Moreover, customer intimacy
mediates the central trust commitment relationship.
5.3 Phase 3: empirical re-validation
The results of the re-test largely confirmed the factor
structure and nomological network of phase two (see Tables
II, III, IV, and V), but for the following notable difference.

Table IV Construct assessment III: discriminant validity

Sample

Construct

Hypothesis

Test

Trust
Commitment
Customer intimacy
Trust
Commitment
Customer intimacy

H2a supported
H2b supported

Re-test

AVE to construct correlation2

Tr.
Co.

0.669
0.387
0.517
0.613
0.488
0.488

Tr.
Co.
C.i.
Tr.
Co.
C.i.

H2a supported
H2b supported

C.i.

0.657
0.410

0.703

0.590
0.423

0.755

Table V Results of the PLS path analysis hypothesis assessment

Standardized path loading
(t-values)
Re-test
Test
(n 5 100)
(n 5 141)

Path

Hypothesis

Trust ! Customer intimacy

Customer intimacy ! Commitment
Trust ! Customer intimacy ! Commitment
(mediation test, customer intimacy as mediator)
Customer knowledge ! Customer intimacy
Customer intimacy ! WOM
Customer intimacy ! Repurchase intentions
Customer intimacy ! Information disclosure

4.7605
0.280
0.606
0.405
0.246

Customer intimacy ! Customer availability

0.423

(5.844)

0.513

(5.809)

Customer intimacy ! Advisor status

0.388

(5.891)

0.282

(3.038)

0.639
0.583

(13.106)
(10.949)
Sobel test:
( p 0.000)
(4.022)
(13.226)
(5.464)
(2.539)

377

0.664
0.623
3.0602
0.177
0.511
0.623
0.210

(11.740)
(8.899)
Sobel test:
( p 0.002)
(2.450)
(6.341)
(10.326)
(2.112)

2c
2d

Supported
Supported

2e
3
4
5
6
7
(ex post)
8
(ex post)

Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Two of the ten items of customer intimacy failed to achieve

significant weights: the perceived mutual understanding of
decision-making structures and the socialize item of the
closeness dimension. While for both items this might be the
result of lower statistical power of the re-test and although the
exclusion of both items does not significantly alter the defined
domain of each dimension, the result for the controversial
socialize item of research phase one warrants further
discussion. We will pick up on this in the proceeding
discussion section.
In summary, the results of research phase 3 confirmed that
customer intimacy is a type III construct (Jarvis et al., 2003)
and a distinct relationship construct from the two central
relationship marketing constructs trust and commitment.
Research phase 3 also confirmed that it is driven by customer
knowledge and that it impacts significantly and positively a
variety of important relationship outcome variables5. Also,
and consistent with the original sample, the re-test showed
that customer intimacy mediates the central trust
commitment relationship.

intimacy. The finding that value perceptions, an element of

customer intimacy, mediate the trust loyalty link in consumer
contexts (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002) provides further evidence
supporting this view.
Third, we add advisor status as a new customer-focused
relationship outcome variable together with customer
availability. Following the view that customers are essentially
always also co-producers (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), both
outcome variables should play a vital role in relationship
marketing due to their customer engagement nature. Given
the operationalization of advisor status, customers
considering their supplier to be one are proactive with
regards to communication of their future needs and customer
availability increases the likelihood of information exchange
between supplier and buyer. As such, we surmise that
customer intimacy might play a central role in the customer as
co-producer view of relationship marketing.
Fourth, while the central constructs of this study exhibit
stable characteristics with regards to their reliability and
validity, the nomological structure overall differed in parts and
customer intimacys construct domain differed in one detail too.
Due to the purposely chosen difference in context of both
studies, we suspect that those results are a reflection of
moderators we did not control for. Those moderators must be
rather specific compared to the higher-level moderators usually
found in the relationship marketing literature (e.g. Palmatier
et al., 2006), given the fact that both studies concerned productbased, direct exchanges amongst organizations. We can only
speculate what those micro moderators might be, but one is
likely to relate to culture. The first study explored customer
intimacy in the UK and the second study explored customer
intimacy in Germany. According to one recent culture model
(Schwartz, 1999) Germany is representative of a Western
European cluster while the UK represents an English speaking
cluster. Both differ on various cultural values. This difference
might explain the inclusion of the socialize item of closeness
in one sample (UK) and not the other (Germany). Post-survey
interviews with some practitioners support this argument. For
them, it is standard practice in the UK to meet after work, while
they considered this rather unusual for German business men.
As a consequence, social, friendship like relationships might be
less likely to emerge in Germany compared to the UK,
explaining the inclusion of the socialize item in one case and
the exclusion in the other. Consistent findings in the
international business literature demonstrating the influential
role of cultural aspects in exchange relationships (e.g. Katsikeas
et al., 2009) are supportive of this line of argument.

6. Discussion
Academics and practitioners alike promote the focus on
relational rather than transactional economic exchanges. One
relationship attribute characteristic of a relational rather than
transactional exchange is customer intimacy. Although its idea
featured implicitly since relationship marketing emerged in
the 1980s (e.g. Dwyer et al., 1987) and explicitly since Treacy
and Wiersema (1993) coined the term over 15 years ago, no
rigorous conceptualization and empirical assessment exists to
date. This research extends the relationship marketing
literature by conceptualizing, measuring, and assessing
customer intimacy. Several of our findings offer important
theoretical and managerial implications.
6.1 Contributions to theory
With regards to theoretical contributions we see four key
implications of our findings.
First and foremost, the results of this study support the
notion that customer intimacy is important and a distinct
relationship attribute. It positively impacts relationship
commitment levels, behavioural loyalty/ repurchase
intentions, customer availability, advisor status, and,
customer induced WOM. As such, we add a new and
relevant relationship marketing construct to the literature,
thereby addressing Palmatiers recent call (Palmatier et al.,
2008) for additional relationship attributes that can account
for relationship marketings effect on performance beyond
established measures such as commitment and trust.
Second, the findings suggest that the group of key relational
mediators as synthesized by Palmatier and colleagues
(Palmatier et al., 2006) is itself composed of at least one
intra-group mediator. Customer intimacy mediates the trust
commitment path. This is an interesting observation that not
only details relationship marketing theory and its central
trust-commitment path further, but it also might help to
explain some findings of the past. For example, Doney and
Cannon (1997) found that trust often operates as an order
qualifier not an order winner. Trust levels failed to direct
impact current supplier choice in their study. Given the found
role of customer intimacy in this study we surmise that the
trust supplier choice link might be mediated by customer

6.2 Managerial implications

The results of our study have clear implications for
practitioners. We show for the first time:
.
what customer intimacy is;
.
how it can be measured;
.
what causes customer intimacy; and
.
what impact does it have.
With this we could demonstrate that achieving and managing
customer intimacy is a relevant managerial goal and task.
With regards to the measurement of customer intimacy, a
basis for its management, the rather economic measure of
customer intimacy developed here should be seen as an ideal key
performance indicator for managers. It allows tracking its
development over time and benchmarking it versus key
378

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

competitors. Related to this, we also consider the construct at

the item level to be much more informative and actionable for
managers compared to the more abstract items used in
traditional reflective marketing scales such as trust and
commitment scale.
With regards to the causes of customer intimacy the results
suggest that managers should aim at both building a trusted
relationship and developing customer knowledge with their
strategic business partners in order to truly understand their
motives and behaviour. Mere customer knowledge is not
enough. Managers should move beyond the what for
example, what is the installed product base of the customer
and understand more about the why. Why does a customer use a
given product? Why does a customer work with a given
competitor? Or, why has a customer stopped using a given
offering? Managers should note that this in-depth
understanding of the customer should be mutual for customer
intimacy to emerge. Especially diversified firms should make
sure that their customers also understand them, their product/
services portfolio, their business needs, and their business
culture. Besides increasing the intimacy of the business
relationship, such mutual understanding, if shared across the
firm, should also increase the likelihood of business synergies
across business units of diversified firms. Related to this,
managers should also embrace the often forgotten value of nonrational relationship aspects. The value perception dimension
of customer intimacy is not purely rational. Emotional motives,
simply enjoying the relationship with the supplier, also matter.
Of the various outcomes variables of customer intimacy,
managers should specifically note its impact on advisor status,
a central managerial goal in at least the IT industry. As the
managers themselves stated during the interviews, when
customers view a supplier as a trusted advisor they become
more open, responsive, communicative, and pro-active.
Relationship marketing and sales efforts should therefore
lead to higher levels of conversion and, subsequently, higher
returns on marketing.
In summary, the results suggest that managers are well
advised to add customer intimacy in their relationship
management tools and systems as a leading key performance
and comparative benchmark indicator in order to monitor and
manage desired outcome variables such as word-of-mouth,
loyalty, availability, and advisor status more effectively.

study using manipulative variables can explore this. Third,

since the nomological network assessed focussed on a limited
number of variables and the commitment-trust framework,
future research should explore additional nomological
networks such as the relational norms framework
(Kaufmann and Dant, 1992; Blois and Ivens, 2007), as well
as additional antecedents and outcomes of customer intimacy.
Especially an assessment of the financial or competitive
outcomes of customer intimacy might be an interesting
research path for the future. Such studies should incorporate
an assessment of the suggested hierarchical nature of
relationship outcome variables. Does such a hierarchy exist
and, if so, how is it structured? Finally, the given research
setting is limited to a business-to-business context. Future
research should explore the role of customer intimacy in other
marketing relationships such as business-to-consumer or
lateral marketing relationships.

Notes
1 The exploratory, unrotated factor analysis of all survey
variables did not reveal one general factor (10 factors with
eigenvalues over 1). Comparison of the standardized
parameter estimates in a constrained full-information
structural model (Podsakoff et al., 2003) when common
method variance was and was not controlled for revealed
that construct relationships were unaffected.
2 E.g. six factors with eigenvalues larger than one were
extracted with nearly half of the items exhibiting high
cross-loadings on at least two factors.
3 The dimensions in a type III second order construct
should correlate significantly, because they collectively
reflect the higher order factor. Only if the dimensions
cause the higher order factor i.e. a type II or IV
construct according to the Jarvis, Mackenzie, and
Podsakoff 2003 taxonomy is a correlation across the
dimensions not required. Yet too strong a correlation
between the dimensions constitutes a conceptual
violation, because this would signal uni-dimensionality
and a multidimensional construct conceptualization
should be abandoned. To the best of our knowledge no
cut-off points for interdimensional correlations have been
established. We suspect correlations in the range of 0.4 to
0.8 (12 percent-64 percent explained variance) to be
indicative of dimensions reflecting a second order factor.
4 We also conducted a separate confirmatory factor analysis
with the three focal constructs customer intimacy, trust,
and commitment using the PLS-derived latent variable
scores for the three customer intimacy dimensions as
manifest variables. The model was estimated using the
maximum likelihood method. The results indicated
acceptable model fit considering the small sample size
with less than 200 cases (e.g., Bentler and Yuan, 1999):
x2 1.93;
GFI 0.88;
AGFI 0.82;
Normed
CFI 0.94; RMSEA 0.08; NFI 0.89; IFI 0.95;
TLI 0.93.
5 We analyzed all hypothesized outcome variables of
customer intimacy also at the level of its constituting
dimensions for both the original and the re-test sample.
Only in one of the ten tests did a dimensional assessment
lead to a significant increase in the explained variance of
the outcome variable (F-value 10.769, p.: 0.000; for
WOM). Since this increase occurred only in the original
sample and could not be repeated in the re-test sample we
conclude that the conceptualization and assessment of
customer intimacy as a multi-dimensional, second order
level is well justified.

6.3 Limitations and further research

Naturally, this research has several limitations that should be
addressed by future studies. First, this study relied on the key
informant technique on one side of the supplier-buyer dyad.
Future research should try to assess the perception of
customer intimacy within the complete buying centre of the
customer. Perceptions might differ by buying centre roles
leading to differentiated impacts on various relationship
outcome variables. A simultaneous assessment of both sides
of the supplier-buyer dyad might also be a fruitful future
research route to understand better the role of customer
intimacy. Related to this, future research should also explore
whether differences exist when the firm versus the employee
level is examined. Past research has shown that differences
exist (e.g. Doney and Cannon, 1997). This might also apply
to the role of customer intimacy. Second, due to its crosssectional nature this study could only infer causation. For
example, does customer intimacy lead to commitment or does
commitment lead to customer intimacy? Only a longitudinal
379

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

References

DeWulf, K., Odekerken-Schroder, G. and Iacobucci, D.

(2001), Investments in consumer relationships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 33-50.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), Index
construction with formative indicators, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 269-77.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), Formative
versus reflective indicators in organizational measure
development, British Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 263-82.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), An examination of
the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 35-51.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing
buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Eisenfeld, B.L., Apfel, A.L. and Smith, M. (2004), Choosing
Metrics for Customer Relationship Management, Gartner
Research Note, Gartner, Stamford, CT.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S. and Mick, D.G. (1998),
Preventing the premature death of relationship
marketing, Harvard Business Review,, January-February
pp. 42-51.
Frenzen, J.K. and Davis, H.L. (1990), Purchasing behavior
in embedded markets, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 17, pp. 1-12.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), The
structure of commitment in exchange, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Heller, P.E. and Wood, B. (1998), The process of intimacy:
similarity, understanding and gender, Journal of Marital
and Family Therapy, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 273-88.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P. and Gremler, D.D.
(2002),
Understanding
relationship
marketing
outcomes, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 4, February,
pp. 230-47.
Hook, M.K., Gerstein, L.H., Detterich, L. and Gridley, B.
(2003), How close are we? Measuring intimacy and
examining gender differences, Journal of Counselling
& Development, Vol. 81, Fall, pp. 462-72.
Hsu, S-H., Chen, W-H. and Hsieh, M-J. (2006), Robustness
testing of PLS, LISREL, EQS and ANN-based SEM for
measuring customer satisfaction, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 355-71.
IBM (2004), Your Turn: The Global CEO Study 2004, IBM.
Iyer, A.V., Schwarz, L.B. and Zenios, S.A. (2005), A
principal-agent model for product specification and
production, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 106-19.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), A
critical review of construct indicators and measurement
model misspecification in marketing and consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 199-218.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2006), The
evolution of loyalty intentions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 2, pp. 122-32.
Joshi, A.W. and Sharma, S. (2004), Customer knowledge
development, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 4,
pp. 47-59.

Aaker, J., Fournier, S. and Brasel, S.A. (2004), When good

brands do bad, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, June,
pp. 1-16.
Akcura, M.T. and Srinivasan, K. (2005), Customer intimacy
and cross-selling strategy, Management Science, Vol. 51
No. 6, pp. 1007-12.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1992), The use of pledges to
build and sustain commitment in distribution channels,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Aufreiter, N., Lawver, T., Ouillet, P.-Y. and Scott, M.K.
(2000), 60-Minute Marketing. McKinsey Marketing Practice,
McKinsey & Company.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1985), Expectancy-value attitude models: an
analysis of critical theoretical issues, International Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 43-60.
Baron, S. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 6,
pp. 1173-82.
Bentler, P.M. and Yuan, K.H. (1999), Structural equation
modelling with small samples: test statistics, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 34, pp. 181-97.
Berry, L.L. (1983), Relationship marketing, in Berry, L.L.,
Shoshack, G.L. and Upah, G. (Eds), Emerging Perspectives
on Services Marketing, AMA, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-8.
Blois, K.J. and Ivens, B.S. (2007), Method issues in the
measurement of relational norms, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 556-65.
Burke, M.J. and Dunlap, W.P. (2002), Estimating interrater
agreement with the average deviation index, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 159-72.
Cannon, J.P. and Perreault, W.D. Jr. (1999), Buyer-seller
relationships in business markets, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 439-60.
Chin, W.W. (1998), Issues and opinion on structural
equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, March, pp. vii-xvi.
Chin, W.W. and Frye, T. (2001), PLS-Graph Users Guide
Version 3.0.
Chin, W.W. and Gopal, A. (1995), Adoption intention in
GSS: relative importance of beliefs, Data Base for Advances
in Information Systems, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3, pp. 42-64.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), A
partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for
measuring interaction effects, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 189-217.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 16, pp. 43-60.
Collins English Dictionary (1994), Harper Collins Publishers,
Glasgow.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990),
Relationship quality in services selling, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 68-81.
Cruz, A. (2006), Product versus Brand: The Battle for Customer
Intimacy and High Performance, Accenture Report,
Transportation and Travel Services Practice.
Descutner, C.J. and Thelen, M. (1991), Development and
validation of a fear-of-intimacy scale, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 3, pp. 218-25.
380

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Katsikeas, C.S., Skarmeas, D. and Bello, D.C. (2009),

Developing successful trust-based international exchange
relationships, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 132-55.
Kaufmann, P.J. and Dant, R.P. (1992), The dimensions of
commercial exchange, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 171-85.
Kouneski, E.F. and Olson, D.H. (2004), A practical look at
intimacy: ENRICH couple typology, in Mashek, D.J. and
Aron, A. (Eds), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 117-33.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.-S. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), Toward a
taxonomy of multidimensional constructs, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-55.
MacCallum, R.C. and Browne, M.W. (1993), The use of
causal indicators in covariance structure models,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 114 No. 3, pp. 533-41.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data
Analysis An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Miller, R.S. and Lefcourt, H.M. (1982), The assessment of
intimacy, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 46,
pp. 514-8.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitmenttrust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 20-38.
Orlofsky, J.L., Marcia, J.E. and Lesser, I.M. (1973), Ego
identity status and the intimacy versus isolation crisis of
young adulthood, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 27, pp. 211-9.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2006), Factors influencing the effectiveness of
relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 4, pp. 136-53.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K.R.
(2008), Interfirm relational drivers of customer value,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 76-89.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff,
N.P. (2003), Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Powell, T.C. and Dent-Micallef, A. (1997), Information
technology as competitive advantage: the role of human,
business and technology resources, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 375-405.
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), Commercial
friendships: service provider-client relationships in
context, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, October, pp. 38-56.
Reichheld, F.F. (2003), The one number you need to grow,
Harvard Business Review, December, pp. 1-11.
Repinski, D.J. and Zook, J.M. (2005), Three measures of
closeness in adolescents relationships with parents and
friends: variations and developmental significance, Personal
Relationships, Vol. 12, pp. 79-102.
Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. and Lemon, K.N. (2000), Driving
Customer Equity, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schaefer, M.T. and Olson, D.H. (1987), Personal
assessment of intimacy in relationships, in Fredman, N.
and Sherman, R. (Eds), Handbook of Measurements for
Marriage and Family Therapy, Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 210-3.

Schwartz, S.H. (1999), A theory of cultural values and some

implications for work, Applied Psychology: An International
Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Grewal, D. and Godfrey, A.L.
(2005), Do satisfied customers buy more? Examining
moderating influences in a retailing context, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 26-43.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), Consumer
trust, value and loyalty in relational exchanges, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Sternberg, R.J. (1997), Construct validation of a triangular
love scale, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 313-35.
Tenenhaus, M. and Hanafi, M. (2010), A bridge between
PLS path modeling and multi-block data analysis, in
Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds),
Handbook on Partial Least Squares (PLS): Concepts, Methods
and Applications, Springer, Berlin.
Treacy, M. and Wiersema, F. (1993), Customer intimacy
and other value disciplines, Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 84-93.
Ulaga, W. and Eggert, A. (2006), Value-based differentiation
in business relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70
No. 1, pp. 119-36.
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Villanueva, J., Yoo, S. and Hanssens, D. (2008), The impact
of marketing-induced versus word-of-mouth customer
acquisition on customer equity growth, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 48-59.
Woodall, T. (2003), Conceptualising value for the
customer: an attributional, structural and dispositional
analysis, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 7 No. 9.
Wuyts, S. and Geyskens, I. (2005), The formation of buyersupplier relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4,
pp. 103-17.
Yim, C.K. (Bennett), Tse, D.K. and Chan, K.W. (2008),
Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and
passion, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 6,
pp. 741-56.

Further reading
Desiraju, R. and Moorthy, S. (1997), Managing a
distribution channel under asymmetric information with
performance requirements, Management Science, Vol. 43
No. 12, pp. 1628-44.
Grayson, K. (2007), Friendship versus business in marketing
relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71 No. 4,
pp. 121-39.
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), Customeremployee rapport in service relationships, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Levitt, T. (1983), After the sale is over . . ., Harvard Business
Review, September-October, pp. 87-93.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. and Deshpande, R. (1992),
Relationships between providers and users of market
research, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 314-28.
Rindfleisch, A. and Moorman, C. (2001), The acquisition
and utilization of information in new product alliances,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
381

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Appendix 1
Table AI 5 Overview of construct items
Constructs, individual items, (source)

Trusta (items 1-6)

Commitmenta (items 1-4)

Repurchase intentionsb (Items 1 1 2)

WOM (Word-of-mouth)c
Customer knowledged
Availabilityd
Advisor statusd
Share informationd
Customer intimacyd
Mutual understanding (items 1-4);
(t 5 test, rt 5 retest)

Closeness (items 1-4); (t 5 test,

rt 5 retest)

Value perception (items 1 1 2);

[t 5 test, rt 5 retest]

, Supplier . keeps promises it makes to our firm.

We believe the information , supplier . provides to us.
, Supplier . is genuinely concerned that our business succeeds.
When making important decisions , supplier . considers our welfare as well as its own.
We trust , supplier . keeps our best interests in mind.
, Supplier . is trustworthy.
(Adapted from Doney and Cannon, 1997; two reverse-scored items omitted from their original scale)
The relationship that my firm has with , supplier . is something we are very committed to
The relationship that my firm has with , supplier . is something my firm intends to continue far into the
foreseeable future
The relationship that my firm has with , supplier . deserves our firms maximum efforts to maintain
Our firm has consistently invested in people and resources to support the relationship with , supplier .
(Adapted from Morgan and Hunt, 1994)
How likely is your firm to procure more often from , supplier . in the future
How likely is your firm to continue procuring from , supplier . in the future
(Adapted from Seiders et al., 2005)
How likely is it that you would recommend , supplier . to a friend, colleague, or acquaintance?
(Reichheld, 2003)
Does the , supplier . know your existing IT landscape . . . not at all . . . completely?
(Interviews with practitioners)
When a representative of the , supplier . calls . . . you never have time . . . you always have time?
(Interviews with practitioners)
Do you ask the , supplier . for advice on planned IT infrastructure changes . . . never . . . every time?
(Interviews with practitioners)
To share IT budget details with the , supplier . is . . . unthinkable . . . absolutely no problem?
(Interviews with practitioners)
The , supplier . and your firm have . . . no understanding of each others business culture . . . full
understanding? (t rt)
The , supplier . and your firm have . . . no understanding of each others business needs . . . full
understanding? (t rt)
The , supplier . and your firm have . . . no understanding of each others product/service offerings . . . full
understanding? (t rt)
The , supplier . and your firm have . . . no understanding of each others decision-making structures . . . full
understanding? (t)
Do you have open and frank business conversations with the , supplier . . . . never . . . always? (t rt)
When working with the , supplier . . . . you never have a strong sense of a common bond . . . you always
have . . .? (t rt)
Do you engage with the , supplier . . . . only at an operational level. . . at all levels, including top
management? [t rt]
Do you socialize with representatives of the , supplier . outside your business dealings . . . never. . .
regularly? [t]
Do you consider your overall relationship with the , supplier . as . . . not valuable . . . very valuable? (t rt)
Do you enjoy interacting with representatives of the , supplier . . . . never . . . always? (t rt)
(Developed in this study)

Notes: aSeven-point Likert scale; bSeven-point semantic differentials scale; c11-point scale; d Seven-point phrase completion scale

382

Customer intimacy

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock and Josephine Yu Zhou

Volume 27 Number 5 2012 370 383

Appendix 2
Table AII 6 Definitions of customer intimacy dimensions
Mutual understanding
Closeness
Value perception

A customers perception of comprehending each other the sellers and the buyers firm on various attributes
relevant to the business relationship
A customers perception of the firm having extensive person-to-person contact with a supplier, at different
functional levels, characterized by open personal and working relationships
A customers perception of the firm deriving value from the relationship with the supplier, whereas value is
understood as rational, economic, as well as, emotional, felt advantages arising out of the relationship

Research, Journal of International Entrepreneurship, International

Journal of Market Research, and International Small Business
Journal. Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: Juergen.brock@strath.ac.uk
Josephine Yu Zhou (PhD) is a full Professor for Hospitality
and Strategic Management at the International University of
Applied Sciences Bad Honnef Bonn, Campus Bad
Reichenhall, Germany, and founder and Managing Director
of Zhou Coansulting (www.coansulting.com), a consulting
firm. Her research interests include international business,
services marketing, and strategic management. She has
published in Industrial Marketing Management, Internet
Research, and the Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management.

About the authors

Jurgen Kai-Uwe Brock (PhD) is co-founder and Managing
Director at BeG (www.beg-projekte.com) a project
development firm and co-founder of Zhou Coansulting
(www.coansulting.com), a consulting firm. He serves as
Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Marketing,
University of Strathclyde, UK, and is a Guest Lecturer at the
Technical University of Munich, Germany. His research
interests include international business, the internet, strategic
management, (relationship) marketing, technology and
innovation management, and channel marketing and
management. He has published in Industrial Marketing
Management, Journal of International Business Studies, Internet

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

383