jbm vol. 2, 2008/1 DOI 10.

1007/s12087-007-0018-1

41

Gabler Verlag 2008

Integrated Model of Marketing Quality (MARKET-Q) in the B-to-B Sector

Carsten Baumgarth

Abstract In the past, product quality and relationships were the main concepts for a differentiation strategy in b-to-b markets. Currently, the brand is discussed as an additional concept in the b-to-b sector. In the past, the literature mostly analysed these marketing concepts in an isolated way. This paper presents for the b-to-b sector a new marketing quality model (MARKET-Q) which integrates product quality, relationship quality, and brand quality in a single framework. Furthermore, the results of empirical tests of this model are presented in this paper. A main study and two replications clarify the general procedure and the validity of the model. Additionally, the empirical studies underpin the high relevance of brands in the b-to-b sector. Keywords marketing quality strategic orientations product quality relationship quality brand quality, PLS Introduction Caterpillar is one of the worlds leading manufacturers of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines and industrial gas turbines. A first success factor of this b-to-b company is the high product quality. As an example, Caterpillar has introduced over 3,700 patents since 1997. The close and trusting personal relationship between Caterpillar and its customers is a second success factor. For example, Caterpillar has a dealer network in 200 countries and rental services are offered through more than 1,500 outlets (www.cat.com). Finally, the Caterpillar brand is the third main success factor. Caterpillar

C. Baumgarth () Marmara University Istanbul, German Speaking Department of Business Administration Anadoluhisari-Istanbul, Turkey E-Mail: cb@baumgarth-brandconsulting.de

42

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

is one of the strongest brands worldwide. In the current ranking Interbrands Best Global Brands Caterpillar achieves rank 70 with a brand equity of around $ 4 billion (Berner and Kiley 2005). This success story shows that a b-to-b company can choose different strategic approaches for gaining a competitive advantage. Apart from cost and price advantages the manufacturer can offer quality advantages (e. g., Porter 1980). This quality advantage could be based on three different concepts: outstanding product quality, good personal customer relationships and a strong brand. The first option outstanding product quality is connected with the psychological construct of customer satisfaction. This construct has a long tradition in the b-to-b area (Sharma, Niedrich, and Dobbins 1999). Numerous studies have proved a relationship between customer satisfaction and market performance (Rust and Zahorik 1993, Anderson, Fornell, and Lehmann 1994). Since the nineties with relationship management and the construct of relationship quality a second marketing concept for the explanation of market performance has moved into the centre of scientific and practical interest. Numerous works in the b-to-b area have analysed the relationship quality and its influence on market success (Han, Wilson, and Dant 1993, Parsons 2002). In the current b-to-b discussion, the interest in the new topic brand management is increasing (Malaval 2001, Mudambi 2002). Brand management is connected with the constructs of brand strength and brand equity, respectively (Hutton 1997). The economic relevance of brands in the b-to-b area is also shown by the high brand equities of b-to-b brands (Berner and Kiley 2005). Prior work has discussed these approaches in an isolated way. For example, the relationship literature has propagandized a paradigm shift from a transactional to a relationship approach (Brodie et al. 1997). Furthermore, the brand literature neglects the relevance of personal relationships. In summary, practical examples and first conceptual ideas underpin the relevance of the three different approaches product advantages, good personal relationships and /or strong brands. Our purpose is to develop such an integrated marketing quality model for the b-to-b sector. More specifically, we have two objectives. Firstly, we develop a framework with the three separated marketing quality dimensions. This framework is flexible and managers can adapt this approach to their specific situations. Secondly, we analyse empirically the relative importance of the three quality layers for various markets. This analysis addresses the question of how important is the new management concept brand management in the b-to-b context in comparison to the classical concepts of product and relationship management. The organization of the article is as follows: we begin with a brief literature review. Based on this, we introduce the new model MARKET-Q, which integrates the different marketing concepts and various performance indicators. Following this, we present the design and the results of an empirical test of this new model in one typical b-to-b market. Furthermore, we provide the main results of two further replication studies in the b-to-b context. We conclude this article with a discussion of limitations, managerial implications and suggestions for further research.

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

43

Literature Review Past research has focussed on two distinct approaches to integrate the various marketing concepts in one single framework: (1) The strategic orientations, and (2) The behavioural models. The strategic orientation approach, which is based on the work of Miles & Snow (1978), paraphrases the corporate philosophy or the way of doing business (Zhou, Yim, and Tse 2005). This approach is characterized by an internal and management-oriented view. In the literature, three research streams can be identified. The first direction analyses a certain orientation of the management, e. g. market orientation, (Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). In contrast, the second and third directions compare different strategic orientations with each other. The difference between the two directions is the abstraction level. The first view compares fundamental strategic orientations. For example, Miles and Arnold discuss the differences between market and entrepreneurial orientation in the furniture industry (Miles and Arnold 1991). Baker and Sinkula analyse the synergistic effect of market and learning orientation on the organizational performance (Baker and Sinkula 1999) and Gatignon and Xuereb investigate the relationship between various strategic orientations (customer, competitor, technological) and innovation performance (Gatignon and Xuereb 1997). The second comparative approach focuses on a single strategic orientation and analyses the relative importance of different types. In the work of Coviello et al. the marketing orientations transaction, database, interaction and network marketing are analysed (Coviello et al. 2002). Noble et al. analysed the relative influence of various elements of market orientation (customer orientation, competitor orientation, inter-functional coordination, profit focus, long-term focus, private label brand focus, national brand focus) and other strategic orientations (production orientation, selling orientation) on the firm performance (Noble, Sinham, and Kumar 2002). This third research stream is a good starting point for the development of an own marketing quality model. However, all the models of strategic orientation focus with an internal view on the management side. In contrast, the new marketing quality model should consider the customer evaluation of the different marketing approaches. Furthermore, the existent strategic orientation models analyse only a part of the possible marketing approaches. The behavioural models integrate the effects of different marketing concepts in a single framework. This group of models is characterized by a customer evaluation of the marketing concepts. A first direction is the transformation of a construct from one area to another one. For example, Fournier (1998) combines relationship management and relationship quality with a brand-oriented view. These approaches cant analyse the relative importance of different marketing orientations on the market performance. A further group of approaches integrates the product quality and the relationship quality in a single framework. For example, Leuthesser (1997) has developed and empirically tested in bto-b markets a model which analyses the influence of relationship quality and product quality (offering quality, availability of suppliers) on the share of business. Further mod-

44

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

els are developed in a service context by Bittner and Hubbert (1994) and Henning-Thurau and Klee (1997). These models neglect completely the concept of brand management. The last group of models considers more than two marketing concepts. The most prominent model of this type is the customer equity model of Rust and colleagues (Lemon et al. 2004, Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml 2004). This model analyses the effects of value, brand and retention equity on the customer equity. In comparison to the other model, this is a comprehensive quality model. Independently of the problem of the calculation of the customer equity, the model also neglects the personal relationship between customers and the employees of the company. The relation equity element of this model is limited to institutionalized customer loyalty programmes. Particular to the b-to-b context, the personal level is an important building block of a successful marketing concept. In sum, the new b-to-b marketing quality model considers the aspects of the comparison of various marketing orientations in a single framework. Furthermore, the new model is based on the behavioural and customer-oriented evaluation of the marketing management. A more direct evaluation of the market performance (customer behaviour intentions) and the additional consideration of personal relationships supplement the existing frameworks. MARKET-Q Model The framework conceptually consists of a management level and a quality level as well as a performance level. Additionally, the new marketing quality model is based on the three layers of product, relationship, and brand. The main emphasis of this paper is on the quality level and on the relations between the quality layers and the market performance. Product quality Product quality is an established explanation approach in the b-to-b area for economic success. The assumption is that b-to-b business is the result of rational decisions at the product level. In the literature, there is a disagreement on whether product quality and customer satisfaction are synonyms (Garvin 1984) or different constructs (HenningThurau and Klee 1997). Furthermore, the scope of the constructs of customer satisfaction and product quality is unclear. In most cases the customer satisfaction shows a larger scope by the integration of relational factors (e. g. relationship satisfaction). The new marketing quality model which will be presented in this paper is based on clear distinctive constructs. Relational aspects are taken into account in the construct of relationship quality. Therefore, the layer of product quality focuses only on the satisfaction with the core product. The satisfaction with a product is the result of a multi-attribute comparison process between the expected and the received performances. Due to the multi-attributive character of customer satisfaction, it is required to identify single attributes of product quality. Reviews of different attribute catalogues of product quality (Garvin 1984) and customer satisfaction (Sharma et al. 1999) shows two central dimensions: the core product (e. g. durability, function ability) and the transaction process of the transition (e. g. delivery time,

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

45

delivery reliability) (Mittal and Lassar 1998). Therefore, product quality is modelled as a second-order construct in our quality model. A further standardization of product quality is not possible because the different business lines and companies are characterized by a high heterogeneity. Relationship quality Besides product quality as the quality of the transaction object, the relationship layer is taken into account by the construct of relationship quality. Despite the fundamental agreement about the necessity of a good business relation, no dominating conceptualization of the construct of relationship quality exists (Dorsch, Swanson, and Kelley 1998, Naud and Buttle 2000, Henning-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler 2002). Firstly, the object of relationship is unclear. Some definitions consider all objects as possible relationship objects (Henning-Thurau and Klee 1997, Smith 1998). In other definitions, only persons are the objects of relationship quality (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles; 1990, Boles, Barksdale, and Johnson 1997). A broad approach to relationship quality has a number of overlaps with the other constructs of our quality model. Therefore, we conceptualize relationship quality in a narrow sense as the quality of the interaction between the customer and the most important contact person of the supplier company. Furthermore, disagreement exists over the components of relationship quality. Most definitions take into account two central dimensions: trust and commitment (Morgan and Hunt 1994). Because commitment, which is the inner readiness for a long-term relationship with the partner, possesses intersections with the outcome side of our model, we conceptualize relationship quality as a one-dimensional construct of the trust between the customer and the employees of the supplier company. Trust is based on the confidence of the customer in the exchange partners reliability and expertise (Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpand 1992, Morgan and Hunt 1994). Brand quality While in the b-to-b context, product quality as well as relationship quality are established marketing concepts, brand as a symbolic layer has won attention in the literature only within the last few years (McDowell Mudambi, Doyle, and Wong 1997, Webster and Keller 2004) Approaches to the measurement of brand quality are found in brand equity literature, particularly in the literature on customer-based brand equity (Aaker 1991, Keller 1993, Yoo, Donthu, and Lee 2000). These approaches were largely developed for the consumer market (Gordon, Calantone, and di Benedetto 1993, Hutton 1997, Kim et al. 1998). Because of the differences between b-to-c and b-to-b markets, an unchanged transfer of these approaches is not possible. Furthermore, many brand equity models mix brand quality with outcomes like price intention (de Chernatony and McDonald 1998) or loyalty (Yoo et al. 2000). Therefore, we developed our own conceptualization of brand quality. As a result of the high transparency of b-to-b markets and the small number of suppliers, we do not consider the typical dimensions of brand recall or recognition in our approach. Another classical component represents brand image. This image

46 Table 1 Effects of various quality dimensions RELATIONSHIP QUALITY PRODUCT QUALITY MARKET-Q-dimensions BRAND QUALITY

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

performance outcomes

categories of psychological-based market performance price premium loyalty premium

price premium, price intention, price sensitivity loyalty, customer retention, brand loyalty cross buying, acceptance of additional products repeat buying intention emotional loyalty share of wallet, buying intensity positive mouth-to-mouth communication, reference behaviour, recommendation cooperation, open communication, dialog 1. Bendixen, Bukasa & Abratt (2004) 2. Boles, Barksdale & Johnson (1997) 3. Cretu & Brodie (2007) 4. de Ruyter, Moormann & Lemmink (2001) 5. Dorsch, Swanson & Kelley (1998) 6. Firth (1993) 7. Gordon, Calantone & di Benedetto (1993) 8. Hadwich (2003) 9. Hutton (1997) 10. Kim, Reid, Plank & Dahlstorm (1998) 11. Lam, Shankar, Erramilli & Murthy (2004) 12. Leuthesser (1997) 13. Roberts & Merrilees (2007) 14. Stock (2005)

14 2, 5

1, 6, 9, 10 7

11

4 12 7 1, 9

11 8

2 8

advocate premium

contains a variety of different aspects such as an emotional image, functional image and brand trust. In our b-to-b marketing quality model, we measure brand image by the following three aspects: firstly, the general quality as a summary cue is considered in our model; secondly, a strong brand is characterized by a clear distinction from other brands (uniqueness); thirdly, a strong b-to-b brand is based on the function of risk reduction (Mudambi 2002). Performance outcomes of marketing quality By analogy with the classical discussion of goals, we distinguish between psychological and economic performance outcomes. Even though a lot of researchers call for a measurement of the marketing performance in economic dimensions like profit or firm value (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1998, Rust et al. 2004), we chose a psychological performance measurement. Fundamental problems of the link between marketing and economic outcomes (e. g. time lags, a lot of potential drivers of economic outcomes) are

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

47

the reason for this decision. The literature on b-to-b marketing discusses a wide range of psychological performance outcomes in the context of product quality, relationship quality and brand quality (see Table 1). In an integrated view, the three quality layers explain similar psychological performance outcomes. Hence, it is possible to summarize the various effects to three main categories: price premium, loyalty premium and advocate premium. Hypotheses On the basis of the previous discussion, we propose a positive effect of the three marketing quality dimensions on the three market performance outcomes. Therefore, we suggest the following hypotheses: P1: Product quality has a positive effect on a) the price premium b) the loyalty premium, and c) the advocate premium. P2: Relationship quality has a positive effect on a) the price premium b) the loyalty premium, and c) the advocate premium. P3: Brand quality has a positive effect on a) the price premium b) the loyalty premium, and c) the advocate premium. Moreover, the repeated positive evaluations of single products and processes (product quality) are the basis for the evaluation of the general quality (brand as a summary cue) and for the risk reduction (McDowell Mudambi et al. 1997, Roberts and Merrilees 2007). On this argumentation, we expect that: P4: Product quality has a positive effect on the brand quality. MARKET-Q model Against this background, we integrate the product, relationship and brand quality as well as the performance categories in a single marketing quality model (MARKET-Q) (see Figure 1). In general terms, our model evaluates the subjective quality of the most important marketing drivers in a comprehensive and comparative style. Furthermore, the relations of the quality layers to the market performance permit an analysis of the relevance of the individual quality aspects. Additionally, the standardization allows a comparison between different companies from the same or from different areas of business (benchmarking). Nevertheless, by avoidance of the specification of the single items (e. g. product quality), the model is flexible enough to consider special attributes of companies or different industries.

48

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

Figure 1 B-to-B Marketing Quality Framework (MARKET-Q)

The Study In this paragraph, the design and the results of an empirical test of the MARKET-Q model in a b-to-b context are presented. This study examines the model and makes clear the practical application and interpretation possibilities. Research design For the empirical test of the MARKET-Q model a study was carried out for a selected market of the building industry in Germany. The analysed market is characterized by a relatively low level of customer integration in the production process, visibility of this product in the end product (buildings), high relevance of wide product range and design, and a multi-level market structure with a wholesale level. All companies of this market operate with their own sales force. Front doors, floorings, switches and sockets are typical products of this kind of market. The construction of the questionnaire was based on qualitative interviews with customers and a workshop with managers (marketing, sales and production). On the basis of the qualitative step, an online survey was developed and pretested with five customers. In the main study, craftsmen judged product, relationship and brand

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

49

quality of the suppliers who were familiar to them. The study was conducted in summer 2005. The sample of the craftsmen is based on a customer and interested party database of one supplier. Altogether, 3,309 persons were contacted (net sample). Of the 658 craftsmen who started the online interview (19.9 %), 476 craftsmen have worked through the interview completely (14.4 %). Since every person judged at least two suppliers, the data analysis is based theoretically on 1,316 cases. Respondents with too many missing values (over 50 %) were eliminated completely. Singular missing values, however, have been replaced by the respective mean average value differentiated by the suppliers. Altogether, the model test is based on a data set of 1,075 completed cases. Questions which measure the indicators of the MARKET-Q model as well as the three performance categories are the main part of the survey. The data were evaluated with the help of the software programs SPSS (version 15.0) and SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende and, Will 2006). Operationalization of measures The questionnaire contained the measures of the three marketing quality constructs and the measurement of market performance (for the items see appendix). For all constructs we used multi-item scales in a Likert format (scale from 1 to 5). The construct of product quality is, with the two dimensions of product and process quality, a second-order construct. Both dimensions are causes for the product quality construct. Therefore, we operationalized this construct in a formative way (Jarvis, MacKenzie and, Podsakoff 2003). In contrast, the single items for the product and the process quality are interrelated (reflective operationalization). In order to specify a mixed second-order construct the literature discusses different approaches (Jarvis et al. 2003): additional measurement of the second-order construct by manifest variables, repeated indicators, and calculation of indexes for the component level. The first approach has the disadvantage that the length of the survey is increased. The basic condition for the second approach is the same number of manifest variables for all components. In practical studies, this condition is often not fulfilled. Therefore, we chose the third approach. First, we analysed the measurement models of the two components (reflective models). Then we calculated the mean for both components. These means are the formative indicators for the measurement of the product quality. The constructs of relationship quality and brand quality are reflective constructs. In order to measure these constructs we used standard scales. For the measurement of the relationship quality, it is necessary to determine the most important contact person. We discussed this question with the management and with some customers. On this basis, we decided that the sales person is the most important contact person for the customer. Therefore, we measured the relationship quality between the customer and the salesperson of the supplier company. Results We calculated the model with the help of the PLS approach. We choose this soft approach because in comparison to the covariant approach this calculation model is more

50 Table 2 Measurement Model of MARKET-Q Construct Dimensions Number of items 6 5 4 4 2 4 1 Coefficient alpha 0.84 0.77 0.94

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

Composite reliability 0.84 0.78 0.94

Average variance extracted 0.48 0.42 0.80

PRODUCT QUALITY

Core product quality Process quality

RELATIONSHIP Trust in the sales person QUALITY BRAND QUALITY ADVOCATE PREMIUM LOYALTY PREMIUM PRICE PREMIUM

0.83 0.85 0.58 0.74 0.89 0.79 0.84 0.89 0.67 calculation is not possible

flexible. The PLS algorithm is also applicable if the number of observations is relatively low and the manifest variables dont meet the conditions of a multinormal distribution. (1) Measurement model The building blocks of the MARKET-Q model represent product, relationship and brand quality as well as the market performance outcomes of price, loyalty and advocate premiums. All these variables are latent constructs which are not accessible to a direct observation. The measurement of such constructs is based on accessible indicators which are connected with the construct. In order to check the goodness of these measures we used classical routines (Churchill and Gilbert 1979, Bagozzi and Yi 1988, Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001). Table 2 summarizes the results of the measurement models. Coefficient alpha and construct reliability are generally high. The constructs fulfil predominantly the composite reliability (recommended threshold = 0.6) and the average extracted variances (recommended threshold = 0.5).

Table 3 Summary of the hypotheses tests Hypotheses Product quality price premium Product quality loyalty premium Product quality advocate premium Relationship quality price premium Relationship quality loyalty premium Relationship quality advocate premium Brand quality price premium Brand quality loyalty premium Brand quality advocate premium Product quality brand quality 1a 1b 1c 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4 Std. estimates 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.20 0.13 0.44 0.52 0.61 0.64 t-values 0.17 2.04** 2.08** 0.65 6.48*** 5.24*** 12.69*** 14.55*** 19.25*** 29.81*** Failed to accept Accepted Accepted Failed to accept Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1 Table 4 Results of the Structural Model (Main Study) Price Premium PRODUCT QUALITY1 RELATIONSHIP QUALITY BRAND QUALITY Explained variances in % Sone Geiser Test (Q2) n.s. (0.276) n.s. 0.441*** 18.4 0.18 Loyalty Premium 0.072** (0.407) 0.196*** 0.523*** 46.0 0.31 Advocate Premium 0.064** (0.456) 0.128*** 0.612*** 51.4 0.40

51

1. first value = direct effect; second value in parenthesis = total effect *: p < 0.1; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.01; n.s.: non significant

(2) Structural model In order to test the effects of the marketing quality on the three different market outcomes we analysed a structural model (see Table 3). We estimated the model by the mean of the PLS approach. In order to test the significance of the structural coefficients we additionally conducted a bootstrapping routine (n = 1,000). Firstly, the results support the positive influence of the product quality on the brand quality (0.64***). Furthermore, the product quality has a significant positive influence on the loyalty (0.07**) and advocate premium (0.06**). In contrast, the product quality has no positive influence on the price premium. Similarly, the relationship quality has a significant positive link to the loyalty (0.20***) and to the advocate premiums (0.13***), but no link to the price premium. For the brand quality all three hypotheses are supported (price premium: 0.44***; loyalty premium: 0.52***; advocate premium: 0.61***). Table 4 summarizes the results of the structural models. At first, it can be recognized that a part of the variances of all three outcome measurements are explained by the three quality dimensions. Additionally, the results of the Stone-Geiser test show clearly the quality of the model. In a comparative view, the results clarify the different explanation power of the three market outcomes. The MARKET-Q model has a strong explanation power for the loyalty and the advocate premiums. In contrast, the explanation power for the price premium is relatively low. Furthermore, the results of the main study underpin the high relevance of brands in the b-to-b sector. The path coefficients of the brand quality are higher than the path coefficients of the product and the relationship quality. (3) Generalizability of the model To examine the generalizability of the postulated model, it was important to asses its robustness with different products and markets. Firstly, this study was replicated with an additional target group (wholesaler) on the same market. Secondly, we analysed this model for a different product and a different market type (supply industry). With the exception of the measurement model for the product quality, we used the same measurement models and the same analysis for both replications. Table 5 reports the results of the two replications.

52 Table 5 Results of Replication Studies Price Premium Replication 1 target group: wholesaler method: online survey n = 608 Replication 2 target group: industrial buyers method: online survey n = 878 PRODUCT QUALITY1 RELATIONSHIP QUALITY BRAND QUALITY Explained variances in % Stone-Geiser test (Q2) PRODUCT QUALITY1 RELATIONSHIP QUALITY BRAND QUALITY Explained variances in % Stone-Geiser test n.s. (0.21) n.s. 0.45*** 16.6 0.16 n.s. (0.22) n.s. 0.37*** 11.4 0.12 Loyalty Premium n.s. (0.28) 0.18*** 0.40*** 30.2 0.17 0.14*** (0.40) 0.14*** 0.44*** 40.2 0.27

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

Advocate Premium n.s. (0.32) n.s. 0.48*** 29.7 0.22 n.s. (0.42) n.s. 0.59*** 45.4 0.34

1. first value = direct effect; second value in parenthesis = total effect *: p<0.1; **: p<0.05; ***: p<0.01; n.s.: non significant

The results of both replications comply with the Stone-Geiser test. Turning to the parameter estimation, Table 5 reports results that are very similar to the findings of the main study. The MARKET-Q model explains only a small amount of the variances of the price premium (16.6 % and 11.4 %), but a high amount of the loyalty (30.2 % and 40.2 %) and advocate premiums (29.7 % and 45.4 %). Moreover, in both replications, the brand quality is the most important driver for the price, loyalty and advocate premiums. In contrast, the relationship quality only shows a significant effect on the loyalty premium. The product quality only has a significant positive influence on the loyalty premium in one study. In summary, these two replications provide further support for the hypothesized model. Discussion Limitations At first, the proposed quality model measures the marketing quality in detail and in a comprehensive style. Nevertheless, the MARKET-Q model is a simple and, for practical studies, usable model. The model at hand takes into account only a small part of the special features of b-to-b markets, such as collective decisions (buying centre) or formal and long-term decision processes. The concept of buying centre especially requires a detailed modelling of the influences of the product, relationship and brand quality dimensions on the different roles in the buying centre as well as the relevance of the three drivers in the interaction among the different members of the buying centre. Furthermore, it is a model which measures the current level of the marketing quality. The level of the marketing quality in the different phases of a buying decision is not considered in our model. Moreover, the suggested framework models the dependent variables like price, loyalty and advocate premiums

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

53

merely as results of the marketing quality of the analysed company. In reality, these effects are also influenced by the marketing quality level of the competitors. Additionally to these rather fundamental limitations of the proposed model, the empirical study shows some limitations. First, it studies the application of the MARKET-Q model in only two b-to-b markets. Also, ad-hoc scales were used in this explorative study. Managerial Implications Besides these limitations, the model offers valuable management implications. Firstly, the suggested model is a comprehensive model which is not focussed on single concepts (e. g. relationship management). The framework models product, relationship and brand quality as three distinct facets of the marketing quality. The results also suggest that the three quality facets have an explanation power for the three performance indicators: price premium, loyalty premium and advocate premium. Furthermore, the model also promotes the integration of marketing into a comprehensive controlling concept. The construction of indices for product quality, relationship quality and brand quality for the different companies can support this controlling task. Possible uses of the model as a controlling tool are time comparisons, comparison of different business units of a company (e. g. country markets, products, customer groups) as well as the comparison with other companies from other business lines (benchmarking). Moreover, the knowledge of product, relationship and brand relevance for success supports budget decisions. Finally, the results of the main study and the two replications underpin the high relevance of the brand concept for the b-to-b sector. In all three studies and for all three market performance categories, the brand is the most important success driver. In contrast, the product quality has only an indirect effect on the price, loyalty and advocate premiums in most cases. Further research From a research perspective, two areas clearly require further investigation: test and expansion of the model. The first research issue is the testing of the model with additional samples. In this context, tests of the model for additional b-to-b industries and for b-to-b services are important directions. Further research should also focus on the validation of the different constructs. In this context, a more rigorous test of the discriminant validity is desirable. The classical multitrait-multimethod approach is a good methodological starting point for this test (Campbell and Fiske 1959). Additionally to the internal validity, an analysis of the relationship between the psychological outcomes (loyalty, price and advocate premium) and economic outcomes would be necessary. Finally, an analysis of the kind of relationship between the quality constructs and the outcomes (linearly or non-linearly) is an important topic for further research. In the context of the model expansion, further research should consider moderating variables like cultural factors (e. g. Europe vs. Asia). Multi-group comparisons are a suit-

54

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

able methodological instrument for this analysis. An additional further research field is the question about the most effective pattern of marketing quality. For example, is a company with medium values on the three quality facets or a company with a very high value on one and low values on the two other quality facets more successful? Furthermore, the model MARKET-Q can be enlarged in the direction of preliminary concepts. The question about the relevance of the sales persons for brand quality or the influence of the Internet on relationship quality are exemplary topics for new research projects. Finally, the analysis of the influence of the competitors marketing quality on the different market outcome categories is an important direction for further research. Starting points for such an expansion are offered by the models of Laroche and Brisoux (1989) and Trommsdorff (1984). Appendix
Table 6 Operationalization of the quality dimensions and the market performance categories Construct Indicators Range of products Ease of use Assembly kindness Technology level Range of variants Fault and maintenance kindness Technical service Sample case Delivery time Sales folder Trainings My contact person is an expert and a competent partner My contact person is pleasant My contact person understands my special needs I can rely on the word of my contact person Brand X stands out clearly from other brands By the purchase of brand X, I reduce the risk of making wrong decision Brand X offers products with a high quality Brand X is competent Scale

Core product quality*

1 = satisfaction; 5 = dissatisfaction

Process quality*

Relationship quality

Brand quality

Loyalty premium

1 = strongly agree; We expect to make more deals with the company X in the future Within the next years we will probably buy more frequently from the 5 = strongly disagree company X It is very likely that we will continue the business relation with the company X We will repeatedly buy from the company X in the future I would be available as a reference customer for the company X I recommend the company X to friendly companies We are ready to pay a higher price for products of company X in comparison to other suppliers

Advocate premium Price premium

*: The indicators of the core product quality and process quality are specific to the analysed market (main study).

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

55

References
Aaker, D. A. (1991): Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York. Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., and Rust, Roland T. (1994): Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), pp. 53 66. Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988): On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), pp. 74 94. Baker, W. E. and Sinkula, J. M. (1999): The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (4), pp. 411 427. Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., and Abratt, R. (2004): Brand Equity in the business-to-business market, Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (5), pp. 371380. Berner, R. and Kiley, D. (2005): Global Brands, Business Week, August, pp. 86 92. Bittner, M. J. and Hubbert, A. R. (1994): Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction versus quality: The customers view, in: Rust, R. T. and Oliver, R. L. (eds.): Service quality: New directions in theory and practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 7294. Boles, J. S., Barksdale, H. C., and Johnson, J. T. (1997): Business relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 12 (3 /4), pp. 248258. Brodie, R. J., Coviello, N. E., Brookes, R. W., and Little, V. (1997): Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing? An Examination of Current Marketing Practices, Journal of Marketing Management, 13 (5), pp. 383 406. Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, J. D. (1959): Convergent and Discriminant Validity by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56 (2), pp. 81105. Churchill, J. and Gilbert, A. (1979): A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (2), pp. 7794. Coviello, N. E., Brodie, R. J., Danaher, P. J., and Johnston, W. J. (2002): How Firms Relate to Their Markets: An Empirical Examination of Contemporary Marketing Practices, Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), pp. 33 46. Cretu, A. E. and Brodie, R. J. (2007): The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective, Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (2), pp. 230 240. Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., and Cowles, D. (1990): Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), pp. 6881. de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (1998): Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford et al. de Ruyter, K., Moormann, L., and Lemmink, J. (2001): Antecedents of Commitement and Trust in Customer-Supplier Relationship in High Technology Markets, Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (3), pp. 271286. Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H. M. (2001): Index Construction with Formative Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development, Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), pp. 269 277. Dorsch, M. J., Swanson, S. R., and Kelley, S. W. (1998): The Role of Relationship Quality in the Stratification of Vendors as Perceived by Customers, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26 (2), pp. 128142. Firth, M. (1993): Price setting and the value of a strong brand name, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 10 (4), pp. 381386. Fournier, S. (1998): Consumers and Their Brands, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), pp. 343373. Garvin, D. A. (1984): What Does Product Quality Really Mean?, Sloan Management Review, 26 (1), pp. 25 43. Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.-M. (1997): Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (1), pp. 7790. Gordon, G. L., Calantone, R. J., and di Benedetto, C. A. (1993): Brand Equity in the Business-to-Business Sector, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2 (3), pp. 4 16. Hadwich, K. (2003): Beziehungsqualitt im Relationship Marketing, Gabler, Wiesbaden. Han, S.-L., Wilson D. T., and Dant, S. P. (1993): Buyer-Supplier Relationships Today, Industrial Marketing Management, 22, pp. 331338. Henning-Thurau, T., Gwinner K. P., and Gremler, D. D. (2002): Understanding Relationship Marketing Outcomes, Journal of Service Research, 4 (3), pp. 230 247. Henning-Thurau, T. and Klee, A. (1997): The Impact of Customer Satisfaction and Relationship Quality, Psychology & Marketing, 14 (8), pp. 737764.

56

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

Hutton, J. G. (1997): A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6 (6), pp. 428 439. 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, 30 (2), pp. 199 218. Keller, K. L. (1993): Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), pp. 122. Kim, J., Reid, D. A., Plank, R., and Dahlstrom, R. (1998): Examining the Role of Brand Equity in Business Markets: A Model, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 5 (3), pp. 6589. Kohli, A. K. and Jaworski, B. J. (1990): Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), pp. 118. Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. K., and Murthy, B. (2004): Customer Value, Satisfaction, Loyalty, and Switching Costs, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3), pp. 293311. Laroche, M. and Brisoux, J. E. (1989): Incorporating Competition Into Consumer Behavior Models, Journal of Economic Psychology, 10 (3), pp. 343362. Lemon, K. N., Rust, R., Zeithaml, V. A., and Lemon, L. J. (2004): Customer Equity Marketing Metrics, THEXIS, 21 (3), pp. 5356. Leuthesser, L. (1997): Supplier Relational Behavior: An Empirical Assessment, Industrial Marketing Management, 26 (3), pp. 245254. Malaval, P. (2001): Strategy and Management of Industrial Brands, Kluwer academic publishers, Boston et al. McDowell Mudambi, S., Doyle, P., Wong, V. (1997): An Exploration of Branding in Industrial Markets, Industrial Marketing Management, 26 (5), pp. 433 446. Miles, M. P. and Arnold D. R. (1991): The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial orientation, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15 (4), pp. 49 65. Miles, R. E. and Snow, C. C. (1978): Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York et al. Mittal, B. and Lassar, W. M. (1998): Why do customers switch? The dynamics of satisfaction versus loyalty, The Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (3), pp. 177194. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., and Deshpande, R. (1992): Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3), pp. 314 328. Morgan, R. M. and Hunt, S. (1994): The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), pp. 20 38. Mudambi, S. (2002): Branding importance in business-to-business markets Three buyer clusters, Industrial Marketing Management, 31 (6), pp. 525533. Narver, J. C. and Slater, S. F. (1990): The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability, Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), pp. 20 35. Naud, P. and Buttle, F. (2000): Assessing Relationship Quality, Industrial Marketing Management, 29, pp. 351361. Noble, C. H. and Sinha, R. K. (2002): Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic Orientations: A Longitiudinal Assessment of Performance Implications, Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), pp. 2539. Parsons, A. (2002): What Determines Buyer-Seller Relationship Quality, Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38 (2), pp. 4 12. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2006): SmartPLS 2.0(M3), Hamburg. Roberts, J. and Merrilees, B. (2007): Multiple roles of brands in business-to-business services, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22 (6), pp. 410 417. Rust, R. R. and Zahorik, A. J. (1993): Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention, and Market Share, Journal of Retailing, 69 (2), pp. 193215. Rust, R. T., Ambler, T., Carpenter, G. S., Kumar, V., and Srivastava, R. K. (2004): Measuring Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions, Journal of Marketing, 68 (3), pp. 76 89. Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., and Zeithaml, V. A. (2004): Return on Marketing, Journal of Marketing, 68 (1), pp. 109 127. Sharma, S., Niedrich, R. W., and Dobbins, G. (1999): A Framework for Monitoring Customer Satisfaction, Industrial Marketing Management, 28 (3), pp. 231243. Smith, J. B. (1998): Buyer-Seller Relationships, Psychology & Marketing, 15 (1), pp. 321. Srivastava, R. K., Shervani, T. A., and Fahey, J. (1998): Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis, Journal of Marketing, 62 (1), pp. 218.

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

57

Stock, R. (2005): Can Customer Satisfaction Decrease Price Sensitivity in Business-to-Business Markets?, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 12 (3), pp. 59 87. Trommsdorff, V. (1984): Predicting Customer Choice Probabilities by Casual Models of Competition, Advances in Consumer Research, 11, pp. 601 606. Webster, F. E. and Keller, K. L. (2004): A roadmap for branding in industrial markets, Journal of Brand Management, 11 (5), pp. 388 402. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., and Lee, S. (2000): An Examination of Selected Marketing Mix Elements and Brand Equity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), p. 195211. Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., and Tse, D. K. (2005): The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), pp. 42 60.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.