Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Measuring customer attractiveness

Antonella La Rocca a,⁎, Albert Caruana b,c, Ivan Snehota a

a University of Lugano – USI, Institute of Marketing and Communication Management, Via G. Buffi 13, 6904 Lugano, Switzerlandb University of Malta, Department of Corporate Communication, Msida MSD, 2080, Maltac University of Bologna, Department of Business Science, Via Zamboni 33, 40126, Bologna, Italy

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 586664631; fax: +E-mail addresses: antonella.la.rocca@usi.ch (A. La Ro

albert.caruana@um.edu.mt (A. Caruana), ivan.snehota@

0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.008

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 31 October 2011Received in revised form 23 September 2012Accepted 5 October 2012Available online 10 November 2012

Keywords:Customer attractivenessMeasure developmentBusiness relationshipsCustomer valueCustomer portfolio models

Various beneficial consequences can accrue when a customer is perceived to be an attractive customer, par-ticularly in a business-to-business context. Opinions differ as to what makes for customer attractiveness anda number of different features have been suggested as contributing to it. Currently there exists no compre-hensive view of what factors constitute customer attractiveness and how this may be valued, measuredand evaluated. Drawing on various facets of customer attractiveness suggested in the literature, this paperseeks to delineate the customer attractiveness construct and develop an instrument to measure it. Thepaper concludes by discussing how the scale developed can be used as a tool to address some critical issuesin assessing customer attractiveness.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the past, the concept of customer attractiveness has been consid-ered in relation to business and customer portfolio analysis (e.g. Day,1977; Fiocca, 1982). In this context it has been argued that customer at-tractiveness is a priority criterion in deciding the allocation of resourcesto customers that make up the customer portfolio of a company. Morerecently, as the relational perspective in marketing has been gainingground, the concept of customer attractiveness has reappeared in re-search on purchasing and business-to-business marketing (Ellegaard,Johansen, & Drejer, 2003;Mortensen, Freytag, & Arlbjørn, 2008). The ra-tionale for the new focus on customer attractiveness has changed. It isnow argued that being an attractive customer is likely to lead to moreprofitable relationships with suppliers. Being designated by a supplieras a ‘preferred’ customer can lead to commitment by suppliers; canenhance the development of relationships that are more efficient; andultimately can produce various beneficial outcomes over time for boththe customer and the supplier (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Cordon &Vollmann, 2002; Harris, O'Malley, & Patterson, 2003; Schiele, Veldman,& Hüttinger, 2011).

The notion of customer attractiveness is intuitively appealing, but atpresent the concept appears to be only loosely defined and it remainsunclear as to what extent customer attractiveness can be defined as atheoretical concept. Different explanations of attractiveness are providedin the literature as different features and circumstances are linked to

41 586664647.cca),usi.ch (I. Snehota).

rights reserved.

perceived customer attractiveness. Indeed, there is only partial agree-ment on what makes a customer attractive to a supplier (or other part-ner) thereby possibly precluding the systematic assessment ofcustomer attractiveness. While the concept of customer attractivenesscan be of interest tomarketing in general, this paper will focus on its rel-evance and role in the business-to-business context.

Exploring empirically the role of attractiveness in relationship devel-opment, Ellegaard et al. (2003) concluded that managing the attractive-ness of the firm in a business relationship requires more articulateconceptualization of the components of attractiveness as well as the de-velopment of a method to measure attractiveness. The main purpose ofthis paper is to delineate the conceptual space encompassed by the cus-tomer attractiveness construct and to build and implement a process forthe development of a measure that is able to capture it. The paper is or-ganized into threemain parts. In thefirst sectionwe review the literaturethat has dealt with customer attractiveness. This is followed by theprocess undertaken in the development of an instrument to measurecustomer attractiveness. Finally, we discuss how the availability of a cus-tomer attractiveness scale can assistmanagers to copewith critical issuesinvolved in the assessment of customers' attractiveness and conclude bydiscussing limitations and opportunities for future research.

2. Customer attractiveness in past research

The concept of customer attractiveness is not new in marketing.The basic meaning of customer attractiveness is borrowed from re-search that dealt with relationships and social exchange theory in so-ciology. In this research tradition, the attractiveness of a party hasbeen defined broadly as the capacity to cause interest and attract the

1242 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

attention of another party (Blau, 1964; Kelly & Thibaut, 1978). The no-tion is that when either the buyer or the seller is able to become attrac-tive to the relational partner, each can attract the other's attentionwhich, in turn, can lead to superior loyalty and performance in the rela-tionship.Mutual commitment to address common problems and satisfyneeds can lead to a more cost-efficient relationship with thecounterpart.

Attraction has been shown to be an important element in the devel-opment of interpersonal relationships (Byrne, 1971; Clark & Pataki,1995). Expected rewards are central to defining the concept of attrac-tiveness. Blau (1964) suggests that attraction depends on different di-mensions of expected returns from the counterpart and thus on theexpected value of the counterpart in a relationship.

If we limit our focus tomarketing, andmore specifically to business-to-business marketing, it can be noted that customer attraction has notreceived too much attention, but it has been raised repeatedly (Dwyer,Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Halinen, 1997; Harris et al., 2003; Mortensen et al.,2008). It has been suggested that “a buyer must make it attractive for asupplier to do business with his or her firm” (Galt & Dale, 1991, p. 18)because being an “interesting customer” can lead to superior supplierperformance (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Schiele et al., 2011). Thereis broad agreement in the research that, in business relationships, at-tractiveness is a matter of economic outcomes for the parties andcustomer attractiveness is conceived as the expected “economicand social reward-cost outcomes from the relationship over time”(Halinen, 1997, p. 59). In the B2B context, customer attractivenesshas been considered in relation to important concepts such as value,trust, commitment, collaboration and satisfaction. Hald, Cordón, andVollmann (2009) report that dyadic partner attractions are constructedon three major components: expected value, perceived trust and per-ceived dependence. Research on attractiveness also describes attractionas an early variable preceding trust and commitment (Dwyer et al.,1987; Ellegaard & Ritter, 2006) and suggests that a counterpart willactmore proactively in a relationship if itfinds the other party attractive(Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Cordon & Vollmann, 2002; Ellegaard &Ritter, 2006). This, in turn, influences the motivation to continue work-ing together (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002).

Becoming a preferred customer tends to entail positive returns tothe counter party in a relationship (Bowman & Narayandas, 2004;Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Schiele et al., 2011). For instance, it hasbeen shown that differentiating between attractive high-profit andless attractive low-profit customers will lead to an increase in theoverall profitability of a seller (Hallberg, 1995). Identifying the key as-pects of customer attractiveness can be useful to guide management'sefforts in making the company more attractive to counterparts andthus achieve the benefits of a more effective and smoothly function-ing customer-supplier relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Ellegaard &Ritter, 2006).

Understanding the factors that influence the attractiveness of partiesin customer-supplier relationships can provide useful insights. There-fore, an assessment of a customer's attractiveness can be a basis forman-agement attention and the allocation of resources. It can also helpprioritize some relationships over others (Fiocca, 1982; Olsen & Ellram,1997). The empirical evidence of the benefits arising from attractivenessto the parties in business relationships has led to interest in how custom-er attractiveness can be measured and assessed. However, to be able todo so, first requires a clearer conceptualization of what constitutes cus-tomer attractiveness.

Different attempts at defining and conceptualizing customer attrac-tiveness can be found in the literature, but as yet there is no commonlyaccepted definition, and the concept of customer attractiveness remainssubject to various understandings, characterizations, and interpretations.Past research that is relevant for the purpose of characterizing customerattractiveness tends to emphasize different aspects of attractiveness.From the literature review two broad focuses related to customer attrac-tiveness emerge. The first is related to features of customers and is

broadly directly related to the current and potential economic value ofthe customer to the supplier. The second can be labeled relational andencompasses factors that are related to the characteristics of the relation-ship and customer supplier fit.

Both types of studies build on the intuitive idea that attractivenessdepends on the value of the customer to the supplier (or other partner).The assumption is that economic value “is created only when the busi-ness earns a return on investment that exceeds its cost of capital”(Doyle, 2007, p. 20). The idea of economic value ismotivated by the no-tion that some customers contribute more than others to revenueswhile retention of non-profitable customers ultimately destroys value(Hallberg, 1995). However, the two sets of studies focus on differentfactors that determine current and potential future value of a customer.On one hand, in the first set of studies reviewed, customer attractive-ness is linked to the intrinsic, tangible and measureable characteristicsof the customer's business with respect to such elements as size,volume of purchase, profitability, and growth potential (Bowman &Narayandas, 2004; Pfeifer, Haskins, & Conroy, 2005; Wayland & Cole,1997). On the other hand, there is a second set of studies that focuson how customer characteristics relate to those of the supplier andon relationship features that affect customer value less directly.The latter type of research suggests that the attractiveness of a cus-tomer does not derive directly from the characteristics of thecustomer's business but rather from how the features of thecustomer's business fit with those of the business of the supplier,and how the relationship between the two businesses works(Ellegaard & Ritter, 2006, 2007; Harris et al., 2003). In addition, thisresearch also considers how the position and role of the customerand the supplier in the supply chain influences customer attractive-ness (Mortensen et al., 2008).

An interesting issue is how customer attractiveness relates tosupplier satisfaction. It has been argued that attraction not onlyprecedes trust, but is also “an important part of maintaining trust-worthiness and to establish satisfaction” (Mortensen et al., 2008,p. 804) and it has been suggested that satisfaction acts as a relation-ship mediator (Gustafsson, Johnson, & Roos, 2005; Palmatier, Dant,Grewal, & Evans, 2006). These authors refer primarily to customersatisfaction since the literature on supplier satisfaction has beenlimited (Wong, 2000). However, more recently, Essig and Amann(2009, p. 104) have put forward a definition of supplier satisfaction“as a supplier's feeling of fairness with regard to buyer's incentivesand supplier's contributions within an industrial buyer–seller rela-tionship”. They operationalize this via a 29-item instrument madeup of five dimensions, titled: order process, delivery process, com-munications, conflict management, and intensity of cooperation.In addition, Ghijsen, Semeijn, and Ernstson (2010) report testing amodel that looks at the role of influence strategies and supplier de-velopment as antecedents to supplier satisfaction and commitment.The authors principally employ the definition of supplier satisfactionprovided by Benton and Maloni (2005, p. 2) as consisting of “the feelingof equitywith the relationship nomatterwhat power imbalances exists.”They operationalize the construct via a 3-itemuni-dimensionalmeasure.Wilson and Jantrania (1994) suggest that supplier satisfaction is impor-tant to relationship success, while MacKenzie and Hardy (1996) arguethat satisfaction and partnering attractiveness of the distributor are cor-related. Both the definitions by Ghijsen et al. (2010) and Benton andMaloni (2005) focus on ‘satisfaction with events’ (Oliver, 1997, p. 13)that happen during interaction.

The conceptual delineation between customer attractivenessand supplier satisfaction is challenging. The domains of these twoconstructs appear to be distinct but related. While supplier satisfac-tion results from ex-post performance assessments made about acustomer following recent interactions, customer attractiveness isanticipatory and value focused. The assessment of the customer at-tractiveness is grounded in direct and indirect experience and rela-tional fit.

1243A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

2.1. Customer characteristics and customer attractiveness

Linking customer attractiveness to the characteristics and eco-nomic value of that customer to a supplier is intuitively appealing, es-pecially in business markets. Value has a long tradition in marketingand the broad idea is that the value of a customer to a supplier isgiven by the profitability of the customer to the supplier. While thenotion of economic value appears conceptually straightforward, thecomplexity of factors that impinge on the profitability of a customerrenders the determination of the economic value less simple thanwhat may at first appear to be the case. The profitability of customersto a supplier is provided by the difference between the revenuesachieved and costs incurred in connection with a customer during aspecified period of time (Pfeifer et al., 2005). Profitability, in turn, de-pends on factors that include: return on sales, product mix, share ofpurchases, strength of preference for one manufacturer over another,customer satisfaction, and relationship handling costs. Measuringprofitability ex-post is conceptually rather straightforward, but inpractice there are various difficulties that are compounded by the ac-counting principles and practices used (Håkansson & Lind, 2004). An-ticipating customer profitability is complex and determining futureprofitability of a specific customer requires extensive probing intothe features of a customer's business.

The concept of customer profitability is linked to that of the lifetimevalue of the customer, to the extent that some scholars consider the twoas one and the same concept (Mulhern, 1999). The lifetime value of acustomer can be used as an indicator of customer attractiveness where-by the greater the lifetime value of a customer, the more attractive thecustomer will be to the supplier. The lifetime value of a customer canbe said to be a synthetic indicator that takes into account both the prof-itability (size of the periodic revenues and costs) of the customer aswellas the future stability and duration of the relationship with the custom-er. The concept emphasizes the future dimension of customer value be-cause it refers to expected future cash flow. But assessing the lifetimevalue of a customer requires various estimates of the possible future de-velopment of the customer business. It requires an estimate of the ‘use-ful life’ of a customer which is difficult, if not impossible, to forecastproperly at the single customer level. Difficulties may arise because of:(1) a lack of historical data; (2) difficulty to access data that are notavailable electronically; (3) a customer is new and the data series arenot yet available; and (4) competing requirements, particularlyamong smaller firms, may act to restrict the time available to performforecast analysis.

Another concept that has been used to express the value of a cus-tomer, which is analogous to that of the lifetime value of a customer,is that of customer equity. This is defined as the value generated bythe customer calculated on the basis of net cash flows that the cus-tomer is able to provide over the life of the relationship with the sell-er. It is calculated as the difference between the margins generatedand the costs of activation, development and maintenance of the cus-tomer relationship (Wayland & Cole, 1997). It has been claimed thatassessing customer equity is strategic for managing long-term profit-ability and that an effective analysis of its antecedents are a prerequi-site for an efficient allocation of strategic resources (Rust, Lemon, &Zeithaml, 2000). The main difficulties in measuring and assessing cus-tomer equity are similar to those involving estimates of the lifetimevalue of customers. While it is difficult, but possible, to undertake suchan assessment for a category of customers such as a segment, it is ex-tremely difficult to foresee and measure the equity of a single individualcustomer.

Customer attractiveness has also beenmore directly addressed in thecustomer portfolio management literature (Campbell & Cunningham,1983; Fiocca, 1980; Krapfel, Salmond, & Spekman, 1991; Sanchez &Sanchez, 2005; Shapiro, Rangan, Moriarty, & Ross, 1987; Turnbull &Zolkiewski, 1997). Here, the broad assumption is that customer attrac-tiveness is principally about the economic value of the customer. But,

portfolio research tends to examine the concept of value of a customerin more relative terms and not simply as related to the features of thebusiness of a customer. Fiocca (1982) proposed undertaking customerportfolio analysis in two phases: first, a general analysis of the accountthat seeks to classify the customer portfolio on the basis of two variables,namely: strategic importance and difficulty to management; second, ananalysis of key accounts based on the attractiveness of the customer's ac-tivity and the intensity of the customer–seller relationship. In addition,Fiocca (1982) observes that the value of a customer is relative and canonly be defined in relation to the value of the relationships to other cus-tomers in the portfolio of the supplier firm. Attractiveness in this contexthas been defined broadly by Fiocca (1982), p. 57) as the “attractivenessof the customer's market and the status/position of the customer's busi-ness” for the supplier. Fiocca also proposes a set of characteristics thatmake a customer attractive, namely: market factors (e.g. customer'sshare, growth and influence on the market); competition (customerstrength, weakness, vulnerability to new technology and level ofintegration); financial and economic factors; and socio-political factors.

Overall, the evidence from the literature indicates that while cus-tomers are valuable assets to the firm, their value varies greatly. Anumber of different factors have been identified in this research asbeing important characteristics of customer value and thus linked tothe attractiveness of a customer, but the same research also showsthat the relative importance of these elements for customer attrac-tiveness are not easy to establish.

2.2. Relationship features and customer attractiveness

A second research focus of customer attractiveness highlights theimportance of the fit between the features of the business of the cus-tomer and those of the supplier rather than only the characteristics ofthe customer. These studies argue that the value of a customer arisesfrom the interaction processes of the relationship between the supplierand the customer. This perspective of customer attractiveness dovetailsneatly with the growing interest in customer–supplier relationships inmarketing generally, and in business-to-business marketing in particu-lar. It is also in line with the resultant expressed desire to assess thevalue of customer-supplier relationships (Anderson & Narus, 1998;Lindgren & Wynstra, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ravald & Gronroos,1996; Ulaga & Eggert, 2006; Walter, Ritter, & Gemünden, 2001).

Interaction with a customer in the context of a relationship, whichextends beyond considerations of the characteristics of a customer,has been shown to provide superior economic benefits (Ramani &Kumar, 2008). Interactive relationships offer access to important re-sources (Harris et al., 2003); produce positive outcomes in terms ofinnovation and information about the market (Walter et al., 2001)and ensure the exchange of knowledge that acts as the basis for theinter-organizational capability to innovate (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002).Interaction processes are also important for reaping the benefits of attrac-tiveness for the customer because a supplier is likely to employ variousways to favor an attractive customer (Schiele et al., 2011; Steinle &Schiele, 2008). The plethoras of preferential solutions that can be provid-ed by a supplier in its relationship with a customer represent the poten-tial benefits accrued as a result of being an attractive customer. Indeed,“most attractive customers will get the best brain power and suppliercommitment” (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002, p. 1); vendor managed inven-tories (Holmström, 1998); third party logistics (Maltz & Ellram, 1999); aswell as trust, openness, shared info-systems and multiple communica-tion channels (Hines, 1993; Stuart, Deckert, McCutcheon, & Kunst, 1998).

Assessing benefits accruing from a customer relationship and decid-ing which relationships to terminate and which tomaintain, are centraltasks for relationship marketers (Helm, Rolfes, & Günter, 2006). Attrac-tion in this context has been defined as “the extent to which relationalpartners perceive past, current, future and potential partners as profes-sionally appealing in terms of their ability to provide superior economicbenefits, access to important resources and social compatibility” (Harris

1244 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

et al., 2003, p. 12). Such a definition implies that in a relational context,value is “always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by thebeneficiary” (Vargo & Lusch, 2008, p. 7). This research posits that cus-tomer attractiveness does not just depend on the absolute characteris-tics of the business of the customer but is always relative. Attractionlies in the eyes of the beholder (Ellegaard & Ritter, 2006, p. 4) and at-tractiveness is the “property of the attracted” (Ellegaard & Ritter,2007, p. 8).While the value of the customer originates in the character-istics of the customer and of the delivered products (Wilson & Jantrania,1994), it can be said that it is always relative to the features and contextof the supplier.

Research on the value of customer relationships has identified sev-eral different features of the business of a customer that affect theexpected revenues and costs to a supplier. Examples of these include:the benefits provided by the quality of the product, delivery perfor-mance, service support, supplier know-how and acquisition and opera-tion costs (Ulaga & Eggert, 2006). Walter et al. (2001), who distinguishbetween direct and indirect functions of customer relationships, ob-serve that “despite the growing trend toward considering and usingbusiness relationships as means of value creation, the marketing litera-ture is deficient in some important ways. There is a high concentrationon profit as value at the expense of other possible contributions that re-lationships can make” (p. 366). These authors identify the ‘innovation,’‘market,’ ‘scout’ and ‘access’ functions as indirect benefits of businessrelationships.

There are a number of studies that have directed their attention tomore soft factors that play a part in customer attractiveness in so faras they affect how the relationships work. Thus, Harris et al. (2003)have argued that customer attractiveness is influenced by the degreeof familiarity and similarity between the parties in the relationship.Ellegaard and Ritter (2007) suggest that emotional attachment is im-portant and propose feelings as part of their model of attractiveness.Dwyer et al. (1987) hold that the role of customer attractivenessvaries by the particular stage reached in a relationship. Ellegaard et al.(2003) add the complexity of the content of the relationship as a furthervariable to consider whileMortensen et al. (2008) suggest that custom-er attractiveness tends to evolve over time and is dependent on thema-turity of the relationship.

3. Developing the customer attractiveness scale

Past research suggests a significant number of customer characteris-tics and relationship features of customer attractiveness defined moreor less broadly and at various levels of abstraction. The various factorssuggested in the literature often overlap and it is not always clearlyspelled out how the single elements of attractiveness relate to eachother or whether there is some hierarchy in their relative importance.

Given that the conceptualization of customer attractiveness in theliterature is relatively limited, it is not surprising that a search of the lit-erature does not provide a suitable customer attractiveness scale thatcould lend itself well to further research on customer attractiveness inbusiness markets. A four-phase procedure is therefore pursued aimedat developing a psychometrically sound customer attractiveness scalethat could be used in a business-to-business marketing context. Theprocedure, reported below, follows the general process for instrumentdevelopment recommended by several marketing scholars (Churchill,1979; D'Astous & Boujbel, 2007).

In the first stage of the process we seek to specify the domain of theconstruct and consider the theoretical perspective to delineate the cus-tomer attractiveness construct. Analysis of the literature led to the iden-tification of a number of aspects that belong to the concept of customerattractiveness. These appear to fall into three broad headings: aspectslinked to the current profitability of the customer for the supplier, as-pects that influence expected future profitability of a customer, andthose related to various benefits derived from the interaction processesin a customer–supplier relationship. Based on the literature review

undertaken, we propose a conceptual definition of customer attractive-ness as consisting of: a supplier's assessment of a customer, made on thebasis of anticipated outcomes arising from customer-supplier interactionwithin a relationship.

The second stage sets out to generate a sample of items. Four majorB2B firms located in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland and inNorthern Italy were selected. The choice of these firms was based onthe already established relationship between the researchers and thecompanies involved. It was believed that this approach would permitstrong and useful collaboration that could ensure the generation of rel-evant items of customer attractiveness for subsequent scale develop-ment. Four focus groups were conducted with between 9 and 11 salesmanagers and salespeople at each of the participating firms. By includ-ing such relevant participants in the research it was possible to obtainconsiderable understanding of the phenomenon being investigated. In-deed, the use of focus groups is considered a fundamental initial step inthe development of sound measures in marketing (Churchill, 1979;Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985).

Each focus group was moderated by one of the researchers whoasked the participants to discuss the aspects they usually took, orwould take, into consideration in assessing the attractiveness of a cus-tomer. After a quarter of an hour of unstructured conversation, aimedat verifying if participants had put forward some aspect not identifiedduring the literature review, participants were solicited by the re-searcher to discuss the actual and potential profitability of their cus-tomers and the relational factors which they consider as importantbenefits. In order to avoid the researcher influencing the interpreta-tion of respondents' answers, one member from each focus groupwas asked to take notes of the matters raised. On average, this processlasted about an hour and the four focus groups were able to generatea significant number of issues. A panel consisting of the three authorswas able to formulate a total of 118 separate items from the issuesraised. These items were deemed as being representative of the con-ceptual space for customer attractiveness. As part of this process, thepossibility of including negatively worded questions was also consid-ered. While such questions can guard against the possibility of acqui-escence (Cronbach, 1946) it is also known that such questions cancreate confusion in cross-cultural research (Wong, Rindfleisch, &Burroughs, 2003). Our respondents were mostly sales persons andsales managers of B2B firms that were often dealing internationally.The predominance of English as the common language of businessmeant that these respondents had a strong command of the languageand could deal with suchwording well. On balance, we therefore optedto include two negatively worded questions.

To ensure content validity, the item statements generatedwere sub-mitted to an expert panel that consisted of 12 sales managers eachwithover 15 years' experience (Zaichkowsky, 1985). These were asked tocategorize each item as: clearly representative; somewhat representa-tive; and not representative of customer attractiveness. This exercisesought to understand how well the developed items captured the con-struct and it also helped eliminate items that were seen as not beingrepresentative or ones that were not sufficiently clear. This phase inthe process resulted in a 20-item measure of customer attractiveness.

The third phase consisted of a survey stage that sought to collect datathatwould later be used to purify themeasure. Respondentswere select-ed with the help of the four companies involved in the focus groupswhich enabled us to establish contact with 14 customer and 11 suppliercompanies. These 25 contact firms were each asked to select at randomsix potential respondents (among their sales personnel) which resultedin a list of 152 individuals. Respondents were then contacted and askedto identify the top five customers (in terms of the previous year's turn-over) that they were responsible for and to choose one of these at ran-dom. This process was adopted to mitigate against the effect of anyimportance bias that could arise from respondents focusing their repliessolely on their top customer. Respondents were then asked to provideanswers with respect to the selected customer. The personal interviews

1245A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

were conducted in English with a total of 128 salespersons and salesmanagers at B2B firms in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland andin Northern Italy. 24 individuals from the original list were dropped forvarious reasons (these included: not available for interview during theperiod, declined to participate, impossible to establish appointment forthe interview).

Thefinal research instrument employed consisted of the 20-itemcus-tomer attractiveness measure, an item that sought to capture suppliersatisfaction with the customer relationship and three classificatory vari-ables that captured respondents' gender, age, and years in employmentwith the company. The wording of the satisfaction item is derived fromone of the supplier satisfaction items proposed by Kumar, Stern, andAchrol (1992) and asked respondents how satisfied they were withtheir relationship with a particular customer. All items, with the excep-tion of the classificatory variables consisted of a seven-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1= ‘Strongly disagree’ to 7= ‘Stronglyagree’ while the satisfaction item ranged from ‘Very Dissatisfied’ to‘Very Satisfied’. Having collected the data it was possible to proceed tothe purification stage of themeasure. Results indicated that respondentswere primarily males (98%), in the 31 to 45 age bracket (83%), and hadbeen in employment with their respective company for less than10 years (81%). In analyzing the rest of the data, negatively-wordeditems were reverse-scored and descriptive statistics for all items inthe scalewere computed. Investigation of individual items for skewness

Table 1Descriptive statistics and results of factor analysis for customer attractiveness scale.

Items Mean Std dev.

Development potential1. Customer A guarantees large volume

purchases.4.63 1.21

2. Customer A has good growth potential. 4.22 1.523. Customer A is useful as a bridge to

other people, companies or institutions.4. Customer A is proactive. 4.92 1.155. Customer A is cooperative. 4.01 1.346. Customer A is an innovative company. 4.77 1.237. Customer A has most of the knowledge

needed to answer questions.4.76 1.35

8. Customer A has plenty of resources. 4.95 1.43

Intimacy9. Customer A is willing to listen and

understand our position.4.71 1.39

10. It is difficult to understand CustomerA's needs. (R).

5.07 1.45

11. Customer A gives us particularindividual attention and care.

4.71 1.40

12. The relationship with Customer A is

demanding because of the complexity

of the products bought. (R).

5.92 1.23

Relational fit13. Customer A is reliable. 5.66 0.8714. In the event of a problem Customer A

always tries to find a solution.5.36 0.83

15. It is easy to work with Customer A. 5.65 1.0616. Customer A makes it possible to allow

for planning in advance (e.g. its ordersare programmed; few last-minute requests).

5.12 0.96

17. We have no problem managing therelationship with Customer A.

4.80 1.20

Profitability18. Customer A allows us to gain high margins. 4.57 1.2119. Customer A provides information that is

useful for our business.4.88 1.09

20. Customer A helps us achieve good profits. 5.04 0.90

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser N

and kurtosis indicated that these parameters were all within acceptablelevels, providing comfort for univariate normality of the data collected.In addition, a plot of Mahalanobis distance of the data against orderedquantiles of a chi-square distribution provided a straight 45° line thatprovided support for multivariate normality. The mean, standard devi-ations, skewness and kurtosis parameters for the customer attractive-ness items are shown in Table 1. All skewness and kurtosis results arewithin the acceptable range of ±1.96.

To investigate the factor structure of the customer attractivenessmeasure that was developed, the data was subjected to principal com-ponent factor analysis followed by an Oblimin rotation. The latter wasused because the dimensions of customer attractiveness were expectedto be correlated. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the numberof factors were set free and resulted from the exploratory factor analy-sis. Results of the factor analysis are also shown in Table 1. During theexploratory factor analysis, item 3 exhibited high factor loadings onmore than one factor and this item was therefore eliminated (Costello& Osborne, 2005, p. 4).

The factor analysis results provided four clear factors. The items oneach of these four factors were investigated with a view to providingmeaningful names for each of the dimensions. The items that load onFactor 1 appear to relate to the ‘development potential’ of the customerand this dimension has been labeled: Development potential. Items thatmake up Factor 2 can be interpreted as characterizing the level of

Skewness Kurtosis Loadings CR AVE

0.88 0.510.17 −0.58 0.68

−0.35 −0.42 0.79Deleted

−0.51 0.13 0.78−0.59 −0.13 0.82−0.67 0.66 0.56−0.66 0.44 0.69

−0.88 0.94 0.62

0.74 0.42−0.06 −0.88 0.78

−0.25 −1.03 0.59

−0.34 −0.01 0.69

−0.86 −0.40 0.49

0.84 0.53−0.30 −0.18 0.60

0.08 −0.53 0.80

−0.78 0.40 0.78−0.51 −0.48 0.72

−1.16 1.86 0.68

0.87 0.68−0.19 −0.45 0.82−0.58 0.27 0.82

−0.14 0.20 0.84

ormalization (R)=Negatively worded.

1246 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

understanding between customer and supplier and this dimension hasbeen labeled: Intimacy. Those items that compose Factor 3 appear to berelated to the profitability of customers and the dimension has been la-beled as: Profitability. Finally the items that make up Factor 4 can beseen as referring to the capability to interact in the relationship andthis dimension has been labeled: Relational fit. Cumulatively, the fourfactors explained 67.7% of the variance in the data.

Reliabilities were subsequently tested using coefficient alpha(Cronbach, 1951). The resulting four factors provided alpha scoresof: 0.88, 0.70, 0.77 and 0.82 for Factor 1 to 4 respectively, at or com-fortably exceeding the 0.7 threshold (Nunnally, 1967). The loadingsreported in Table 1 were also used to compile the composite reliabil-ities (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the factors.The results obtained show that composite reliabilities all exceed the 0.7threshold while all composite reliabilities exceed the values for AVE. Inaddition the AVE for each of the factors exceeds the 0.5 level except forthe second factor which is marginally below the threshold. The correla-tions among thedimensions exhibit significance for: Development poten-tial with Profitability (r=0.59; pb .01) and with Relational fit (r=0.29;pb .01); Intimacy with Relational fit (r=0.29; pb .01) and Profitabilitywith Relational fit (r=0.31; pb .01).

A second factor analysis of the single-item measure of suppliersatisfaction that was collected together with the resultant 19-itemmeasure of customer attractiveness shows that the satisfaction itemloads separately from the dimensions of customer attractiveness therebyproviding initial support for discriminant validity. In addition, a signifi-cant relationship can be expected between customer attractiveness andsupplier satisfaction, analogous to what has been argued for partneringattractiveness and customer satisfaction (MacKenzie & Hardy, 1996).To test this proposed link, a correlational analysis between the itemsmaking up the customer attractiveness measure and the satisfactionitemwas undertaken and found to be significant (r=0.55; pb .01) there-by providing initial support for the predictive validity of the customer at-tractiveness measure.

The psychometric properties of the resultant instrument reportedsuggest that it can be used with reasonable confidence for data collec-tion aimed at measuring and assessing customer attractiveness. Al-though it has been shown to have acceptable psychometric properties,it can benefit from further testing and elaboration involving a new sam-ple that would allow using confirmatory factor analysis together withthe collection of further related and unrelated constructs to test otheraspects of internal validity.

4. Implications for management

The suggestion that being an attractive customer can be profitable isrecognized in the literature. The same can be said for the need for busi-ness customers tomanage their attractiveness if they are to reap the po-tential benefits (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002; Mortensen et al., 2008;Schiele et al., 2011). It is an established maxim in management that itis only possible to manage what can be measured. Hence, the conceptof customer attractiveness only becomes useful in management prac-tice if it can be assessed. Measuring customer attractiveness is complexbecause a large number of characteristics can contribute to customer at-tractiveness and also because of the relational nature of customer at-tractiveness. The scale proposed helps to address this problem and itsmerit lies in bringing together a set of elements that can support man-agers in assessing customer attractiveness. The proposed measure rep-resents a practical tool that permits the systematic tracking of thevariation in customer attractiveness across relationships, over time,and in relation to particular business circumstances.

Awell-established idea in economics andmanagement is that an ob-ject does not have a value in itself; rather its worth depends on the use asubject makes of it. Applied to customer attractiveness this suggeststhat customer attractiveness cannot be defined in an absolute sense,but the customer always has to be defined as attractive for someone.

Consequently, customer attractiveness is not simply a function of thefeatures of the customer or the relationship but, as observed earlier, re-flects the “property of the attracted” (Ellegaard & Ritter, 2007, p. 8). Thissuggests that customer attractiveness can only be defined in relation toa specific supplier and is thus always relative. Since customer attractive-ness is always supplier specific, having an instrument that allows com-paring attractiveness of customers and how attractiveness of the samecustomer varies across suppliers, is extremely useful. The measure canassist both suppliers and customers in decisions that are crucial to effec-tive relationship management. On the one hand, it can assist suppliersin effectively allocating efforts and resources to different customers.On the other hand, from a customer's perspective, it allows for themon-itoring of how perceived attractiveness varies across different suppliers.This can allowmanagement in understanding the potential and limits oftheir supplier relationships and in selectively defining relationshipstrategies to improve supplier satisfaction.

Because of themultiplicity of elements constituting customer attrac-tiveness and the subjectivity of the factors and the dynamics involved inassessing customer attractiveness, a measure that allows the monitor-ing of change in customer attractiveness among the subjects involvedand over time, can be of particular interest for management. Giventhis multiplicity, it is likely that management will not be able to assessactual or potential customer attractiveness using all possible elementsbut will use different heuristics (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Past re-search shows that decisionmakers (in our case suppliers)will selective-ly use only a subset of elements that are perceived as relevant for thespecific situation that the supplier is concerned with at a specific mo-ment in time and under specific circumstances (Greeno, 1998; Tuli,Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007). Not all customer attractiveness dimensionsand elements may always be equally important and the relative weightof the dimensions that managers will use will reflect the situation andcontext. For instance, management is likely to use different dimensions(of the scale proposed) when assessing attractiveness of current or po-tential customers. It becomes, therefore, important to consider whichdimensions are used since managerial action is formed by what man-agers happen to see at a specific point in time and how they interpretwhat they happen to see (Weick, 2001).

Since customer attractiveness is assessed by a limited subset ofknowledge that managers use when facing a situation or a problem(often as they interact in a business relationship) perceived customerattractiveness will reflect the agenda of the supplier as determined bythe prevalent circumstances of the supplier's own business. The scaleproposed permits researchers and managers to explore how the ele-ments, and thus the profile, of customer attractiveness are linked tothe different problem situations in customer–supplier relationships.For instance, it can permit the identification of what are the elementsof customer attractiveness when the main issue of concern for the sup-plier is profitability as opposed to when it is innovation, diversificationor something else. Customer attractiveness has its dynamics andchanges over time as the circumstances and issues of strategic concernfor the supplier business evolve. It also tends to play a different role indifferent stages of the relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Mortensen etal., 2008). The scale proposed can be used, both in practice and in re-search, to track how customer attractiveness assessment changes overtime and how it relates to specific issues of concern for the supplier.

It has been pointed out that in order to manage customer attrac-tiveness effectively it is necessary to have a more comprehensive con-ceptualization of the customer attractiveness concept and a methodto assess it (Ellegaard et al., 2003). The developing of a measure forthe assessment of customer attractiveness that has been undertakenbrings forward a more articulate conceptualization of the concept. Itcan support management in taking informed decisions, regarding aselective and effective allocation of resources and efforts, within andacross relationships. The availability of the customer attractivenessmeasure can thus assist management in both customer and supplierbusinesses to manage relationships more effectively.

1247A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

5. Limitations and future research

The development of a customer attractiveness scale can be consid-ered as a work-in-progress and there are a number of limitations inthe study that need to be borne in mind and that suggest further av-enues for future research. First, further testing of the psychometricproperties of the instrument via a second data collection and confir-matory factor analysis is desirable and this is an area that should fea-ture as a main priority in future research. Given the stage in thedevelopment process of this research instrument the results obtainedare generally acceptable. However, future replications can considereliminating item 12 and using a positively worded version for item10. These actions are likely to help push the AVE for the intimacy fac-tor above the .50 threshold. Second, the robustness of the instrumentcan also be tested further in relation to the expected linkages thatcustomer attractiveness has, both in terms of antecedents and conse-quences. Although we report a correlational link between customerattractiveness and supplier satisfaction, it is important to note thatour measure of satisfaction is a single-item measure. A better under-standing of the linkages of customer attractiveness with supplier satis-faction can contribute significantly to a better elaboration of customerattractiveness that could provide useful support to management inportfolio decision making. In looking at customer attractiveness, thisstudy has focused on practitioners' perceptions of both potential andexisting customers. The precise nature of customer attractiveness maywarrant clarification. If customer attractiveness is conceptually appliedsolely to potential customers it could be argued that customer attractive-ness can be viewed as an ex-ante construct that explains how a supplierperceives potential customers. However, when customer attractivenessis used in relation to existing customers, it would be of interest to inves-tigate how it relates to supplier satisfaction which may be envisaged asan ex-post assessment that occurs once a relationship is established.Third, the research took place among respondents from firms in theItalian speaking part of Switzerland and in Northern Italy. Broadercross-cultural investigation across more regions and industries wouldhelp to strengthen the psychometric properties of the instrument fur-ther. Finally, as is the case with most constructs that are used in man-agement, the measure is grounded in the current literature and hasbeen further investigated in the context of the prevailing opinions ofpractitioners. Both the literature and the opinions of practitioners areknown to evolve over time and these can in turn affect how the ele-ments of customer attractiveness are framed and used. Future researchshould monitor this and also seek to deepen the understanding of whatconstitutes customer attractiveness among practitioners.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers andthe editors for their suggestions that contributed to improving themanuscript.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1998). Business marketing: understand what customers'value. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 53–61.

Benton, W. C., & Maloni, M. (2005). The influence of power driven buyer/seller rela-tionships on supply chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1),1–22.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.Bowman, D., & Narayandas, D. (2004). Linking customer management effort to customer

profitability in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 433–447.Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Campbell, N. C. G., & Cunningham, M. T. (1983). Customer analysis for strategy develop-

ment in industrial markets. Strategic Management Journal, 4, 369–380.Christiansen, P. E., & Maltz, A. (2002). Becoming an “interesting” customer: procurement

strategies for buyers without leverage. International Journal of Logistics: Research andApplications, 5(2), 177–195.

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketingconstructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73 (February).

Clark, M. S., & Pataki, S. P. (1995). Interpersonal processes influencing attraction andrelationships. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced Social Psychology (pp. 283–331). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Cordon, C., & Vollmann, T. E. (2002). The next game in purchasing: Be the most attractivecustomer to key suppliers (pp. 86). Lausanne: IMD International (January).

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Fourrecommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

Cronbach, L. J. (1946). A case study of the split-half reliability coefficient. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 37(8), 473–480.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334.

D'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: Scaledevelopment process and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Re-search, 60(3), 231–239.

Day, G. S. (1977). Diagnosing the product portfolio. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 29–38.Doyle, P. (2007). Value-based marketing: Marketing strategies for corporate growth and

shareholder value. Chicheste: John Wiley.Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer–seller relationships. Journal

of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27.Ellegaard, C., Johansen, J., & Drejer, A. (2003). Managing industrial buyer–supplier

relations — The case for attractiveness. Integrated Manufacturing Systems,14(4), 346–356.

Ellegaard, C., & Ritter, T. (2006). Customer attraction and its purchasing potential. Paperpresented at the 22nd IMP Conference, Milan.

Ellegaard, C., & Ritter, T. (2007). Attractiveness in business markets: Conceptualizationand propositions. Paper Presented at the 23nd IMP conference, Manchester.

Essig, M., & Amann, M. (2009). Supplier satisfaction: Conceptual basics and explorativefindings. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 15, 103–113.

Fiocca, R. (1980). L'analisi del portafoglio clienti nel marketing industriale. In R. Fiocca(Ed.), Il marketing dei beni industriali (pp. 217–240). Milano: Giuffrè.

Fiocca, R. (1982). Account portfolio analysis for strategy development. Industrial MarketingManagement, 11(1), 53–62.

Galt, J. D. A., & Dale, B. G. (1991). Supplier development: A British case study. Journal ofSupply Chain Management, 27(1), 16–22.

Ghijsen, P. W. Th., Semeijn, J., & Ernstson, S. (2010). Supplier satisfaction and commitment:The role of influence strategies and supplier development. Journal of Purchasing & SupplyManagement, 16, 17–26.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychol-ogist, 53(1), 5–26.

Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction, re-lationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal ofMarketing, 69, 210–218 (Oct.).

Håkansson, H., & Lind, J. (2004). Accounting and network coordination. Accounting,Organization and Society, 29(1), 51–72.

Hald, K. S., Cordón, C., & Vollmann, T. E. (2009). Towards an understanding of attrac-tion in buyer–supplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8),960–970.

Halinen, A. (1997). Relationship marketing in professional services: A study of agency clientdynamics in the advertising sector. London: Routledge.

Hallberg, G. (1995). All consumers are not created equal: The differential marketing strategyfor brand loyalty and profits. Chichester: John Wiley.

Harris, L. C., O'Malley, L., & Patterson, M. (2003). Professional interaction: Exploring theconcept of attraction. Marketing Theory, 3(1), 9–36.

Helm, S., Rolfes, L., & Günter, B. (2006). Suppliers' willingness to end unprofitable customerrelationships: An exploratory investigation in the Germanmechanical engineering sec-tor. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 366–383.

Hines, P. (1993). Integrated materials management: The value chain redefined. Inter-national Journal of Logistics Management, 4(1), 13–22.

Holmström, È. J. (1998). Business process innovation in the supply chain — A casestudy of implementing vendor managed inventory. European Journal of Purchasing& Supply Management, 5(4), 127–131.

Kelly, H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.New York: John Wiley.

Krapfel, R. E., Salmond, D., & Spekman, R. (1991). A strategic approach to managingbuyer–seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 25(9), 72–82.

Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Achrol, R. S. (1992). Assessing reseller performance from theperspective of the supplier. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 238–253.

Lindgren, A., & Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know?Where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34(7), 732–748.

MacKenzie, H. F., & Hardy, K. G. (1996). Manage your offering ormanage your relationship?The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 11(6), 20–37.

Maltz, A., & Ellram, L. (1999). Outsourcing supply management. Journal of Supply ChainManagement, 35(2), 4–17.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship mar-keting. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.

Mortensen, M. H., Freytag, P. V., & Arlbjørn, J. S. (2008). Attractiveness in supply chains:A process and matureness perspective. International Journal of Physical Distributionand Logistics Management, 38(10), 799–815.

Mulhern, F. J. (1999). Customer profitability analysis: Measurement, concentration,and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 25–40.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Olsen, R. F., & Ellram, L. M. (1997). A portfolio approach to supplier relationships. Industrial

Marketing Management, 26(2), 101–113.

1248 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 1241–1248

Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the ef-fectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),136–153.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.

Pfeifer, P. E., Haskins, M. E., & Conroy, R. M. (2005). Customer lifetime value, customerprofitability, and the treatment of acquisition spending. Journal of ManagerialIssues, 17(1), 11–25.

Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and firm performance. Journalof Marketing, 72(1), 27–45.

Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept in marketing. European Journal ofMarketing, 30(2), 19–30.

Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Driving customer equity: How customerlifetime is reshaping corporate strategy. New York: The Free Press.

Sanchez, R., & Sanchez, R. (2005). Analysis of customer portfolio and relationship man-agement models: Bridging managerial dimensions. The Journal of Business and Indus-trial Marketing, 20(6), 307–316.

Schiele, H., Veldman, J., & Hüttinger, L. (2011). Supplier innovativeness and supplierpricing: The role of preferred customer status. International Journal of InnovationManagement, 15(1), 1–28.

Shapiro, B. P., Rangan, V. K., Moriarty, R. T., & Ross, E. B. (1987). Manage customers forprofits (not just for sales). Harvard Business Review, 101–108(September/October).

Steinle, C., & Schiele, H. (2008). Limits to global sourcing? Strategic consequences ofdependency on international suppliers. Cluster theory, resource-based view andcase studies. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(1), 3–14.

Stuart, I., Deckert, P., McCutcheon, D., & Kunst, R. (1998). Case study — A leveragedlearning network. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 81–93.

Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: Fromproduct bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 11–17.

Turnbull, P. W., & Zolkiewski, J. M. (1997). Profitability in customer portfolio planning. InD: Ford (Ed.), Understanding Business Markets (2nd ed.). London: Dryden Press.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment and uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124–1131.

Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships:Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 119–136.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.

Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2001). Value-creation in buyer seller relationships:Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier's perspective. IndustrialMarketing Management, 30(4), 365–377.

Wayland, R. E., & Cole, P. M. (1997). Customer connections: New strategies for growth.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Weick, K. E. (2001). Making Sense of the organization. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Wilson, D. T., & Jantrania, S. (1994). Understanding the value of a relationship. Asia-Australia

Marketing Journal, 2(1), 55–66.Wong, A. (2000). Integrating supplier satisfaction with customer satisfaction. Total

Quality Management, 11(4/5&6), 427–432.Wong, N., Rindfleisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverse‐worded items confound

measures in cross‐cultural consumer research? The case of the Material ValuesScale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 72–91.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12, 341–352.

Antonella La Rocca, Ph.D., is Research Fellow at the Institute of Marketing and Commu-nication Management, University of Lugano – USI (Switzerland), where she received herPhDwith a dissertation on Actors' Identities in Business Relationships. Her research inter-ests are in business relationships and communication processes, and new business devel-opment in B2B markets.

Albert Caruana, Ph.D., is Professor of marketing at the University of Malta, Malta and atthe University of Bologna, Italy. His work had included papers in the Journal of Adver-tising, Journal of Business Research and the European Journal of Marketing.

Ivan Snehota, Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing at University of Lugano –USI (Switzerland).His research interests focus onmarket strategy development and organization in B2B mar-kets. He is co-author of several books onbusiness networks andpapers in Scandinavian Jour-nal of Management, Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Business Research.