IMC Models

8/3/2019 IMC Models

1/18

41

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

DOI 10.1007/s12087-007-0018-1

Abstract In the past, product quality and relationships were the main concepts for a dif-

ferentiation 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 thehigh 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 equip-ment, diesel and natural gas engines and industrial gas turbines. A rst 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 Cat-

erpillar 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

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

Carsten Baumgarth

Gabler Verlag 2008

C. Baumgarth ()

8/3/2019 IMC Models

2/18

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 ap-

proaches for gaining a competitive advantage. Apart from cost and price advantages themanufacturer 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 rst 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 be-

tween 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 qual-ity a second marketing concept for the explanation of market performance has moved into

the centre of scientic and practical interest. Numerous works in the b-to-b area have

analysed the relationship quality and its inuence 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 re-

lationship literature has propagandized a paradigm shift from a transactional to a rela-

tionship approach (Brodie et al. 1997). Furthermore, the brand literature neglects the

relevance of personal relationships.

In summary, practical examples and rst 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 specically, we have two objectives. Firstly, we develop a

framework with the three separated marketing quality dimensions. This framework isexible and managers can adapt this approach to their specic 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

8/3/2019 IMC Models

3/18

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 identied. The rst direction analy-

ses 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 dif-

ferent strategic orientations with each other. The difference between the two directionsis the abstraction level. The rst 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 perform-

ance (Baker and Sinkula 1999) and Gatignon and Xuereb investigate the relationship be-

tween 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, interac-tion and network marketing are analysed (Coviello et al. 2002). Noble et al. analysed

the relative inuence of various elements of market orientation (customer orientation,

competitor orientation, inter-functional coordination, prot focus, long-term focus, pri-

vate label brand focus, national brand focus) and other strategic orientations (production

orientation, selling orientation) on the rm 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 sin-

gle framework. This group of models is characterized by a customer evaluation of the

marketing concepts. A rst 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 rela-

tive 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 b-

to-b markets a model which analyses the inuence of relationship quality and product

8/3/2019 IMC Models

4/18

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 promi-

nent 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 compari-

son of various marketing orientations in a single framework. Furthermore, the new model

is based on the behavioural and customer-oriented evaluation of the marketing manage-ment. A more direct evaluation of the market performance (customer behaviour inten-

tions) 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 threelayers of product, relationship, and brand. The main emphasis of this paper is on the qual-

ity 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 (Henning-Thurau 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 distinc-

tive 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 charac-ter 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

8/3/2019 IMC Models

5/18

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 agree-

ment 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 re-

lationship is unclear. Some denitions consider all objects as possible relationship objects

(Henning-Thurau and Klee 1997, Smith 1998). In other denitions, only persons are theobjects 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 qual-

ity 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

denitions take into account two central dimensions: trust and commitment (Morgan and

Hunt 1994). Because commitment, which is the inner readiness for a long-term relation-

ship with the partner, possesses intersections with the outcome side of our model, weconceptualize 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 condence 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 onlywithin 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 litera-

ture, 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 McDonald1998) 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

8/3/2019 IMC Models

6/18

46 jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

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 fol-lowing three aspects: rstly, 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 psychologi-

cal and economic performance outcomes. Even though a lot of researchers call for ameasurement of the marketing performance in economic dimensions like prot or rm

value (Srivastava Shervani and Fahey 1998 Rust et al 2004) we chose a psychological

Table 1 Effects of various quality dimensions

MARKET-Q-dimensions

performance

outcomesPRO

DUCT

QUALITY

RELATION-

S

HIP

QUALITY

BR

AND

QUALITY

categories of

psychological-based

market performance

price premium, price intention, price sensitivity 14 1, 6, 9, 10price

premium

loyalty, customer retention, brand loyalty 2, 5

loyalty

premium

cross buying, acceptance of additional products 7

repeat buying intention 11 4

emotional loyalty

share of wallet, buying intensity 12 7

positive mouth-to-mouth communication,reference behaviour, recommendation 11 2 1, 9 advocate

premiumcooperation, open communication, dialog 8 8

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)

8/3/2019 IMC Models

7/18

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 qual-

ity and brand quality (see Table 1).

In an integrated view, the three quality layers explain similar psychological perform-

ance outcomes. Hence, it is possible to summarize the various effects to three main cat -egories: price premium, loyalty premium and advocate premium.

Hypotheses

On the basis of the previous discussion, we propose a positive effect of the three market-

ing 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




P3:Brand quality has a positive effect on




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 betweendifferent companies from the same or from different areas of business (benchmarking).

Nevertheless by avoidance of the specication of the single items (e g product qual-

8/3/2019 IMC Models

8/18

48 jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

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, oorings, switches and sockets are typical

products of this kind of market.

The construction of the questionnaire was based on qualitative interviews with cus-

tomers and a workshop with managers (marketing sales and production)

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

8/3/2019 IMC Models

9/18

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 crafts-

men 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 dataanalysis 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 qual-

ity construct. Therefore, we operationalized this construct in a formative way (Jarvis,

MacKenzie and, Podsakoff 2003). In contrast, the single items for the product and theprocess quality are interrelated (reective 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 rst 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 stud-

ies, this condition is often not fullled. Therefore, we chose the third approach. First, we

analysed the measurement models of the two components (reective models). Then we

calculated the mean for both components. These means are the formative indicators forthe measurement of the product quality.

The constructs of relationship quality and brand quality are reective 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. There-

fore, we measured the relationship quality between the customer and the salesperson of

the supplier company.

Results

8/3/2019 IMC Models

10/18

50 jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

exible. 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 premi-

ums. All these variables are latent constructs which are not accessible to a direct obser-

vation. 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.

Coefcient alpha and construct reliability are generally high. The constructs full

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 Std. estimates t-values

Product quality price premium 1a 0.00 0.17 Failed to accept

Product quality loyalty premium 1b 0.07 2.04** Accepted

Product quality advocate premium 1c 0.06 2.08** Accepted

Relationship quality price premium 2a 0.02 0.65 Failed to accept

Relationship quality loyalty premium 2b 0.20 6.48*** Accepted

Relationship quality advocate premium 2c 0.13 5.24*** Accepted

Brand quality price premium 3a 0.44 12.69*** Accepted

Brand quality loyalty premium 3b 0.52 14.55*** Accepted

Table 2 Measurement Model of MARKET-Q

Construct Dimensions Number

of items

Coefcient

alpha

Composite

reliability

Average

variance

extracted

PRODUCT QUALITYCore product quality 6 0.84 0.84 0.48

Process quality 5 0.77 0.78 0.42

RELATIONSHIP

QUALITYTrust in the sales person

4 0.94 0.94 0.80

BRAND QUALITY 4 0.83 0.85 0.58

ADVOCATE PREMIUM 2 0.74 0.89 0.79

LOYALTY PREMIUM 4 0.84 0.89 0.67

PRICE PREMIUM 1 calculation is not possible

8/3/2019 IMC Models

11/18

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1 51

(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 signicance of the structural coefcients we addition-

ally conducted a bootstrapping routine (n = 1,000). Firstly, the results support the positive

inuence of the product quality on the brand quality (0.64***). Furthermore, the product

quality has a signicant positive inuence on the loyalty (0.07**) and advocate premium

(0.06**). In contrast, the product quality has no positive inuence on the price premium.

Similarly, the relationship quality has a signicant positive link to the loyalty (0.20***)

and to the advocate premiums (0.13***), but no link to the price premium. For the brandquality 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 rst, it can be recognized that a part of the variances of all three outcome meas -

urements 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 con-

trast, 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 coefcients of the brand quality are higher than the path coef-

cients 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 ro-

bustness with different products and markets. Firstly, this study was replicated with an ad-

ditional target group (wholesaler) on the same market. Secondly, we analysed this modelfor 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

Table 4 Results of the Structural Model (Main Study)

Price Premium Loyalty Premium Advocate Premium

PRODUCT QUALITY1 n.s. (0.276) 0.072** (0.407) 0.064** (0.456)

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY n.s. 0.196*** 0.128***BRAND QUALITY 0.441*** 0.523*** 0.612***

Explained variances in % 18.4 46.0 51.4

Sone Geiser Test (Q2) 0.18 0.31 0.40

1. rst value = direct effect; second value in parenthesis = total effect

*: p < 0.1; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.01; n.s.: non signicant

8/3/2019 IMC Models

12/18

52 jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

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 ndings 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 con-trast, the relationship quality only shows a signicant effect on the loyalty premium. The

product quality only has a signicant positive inuence on the loyalty premium in one

study. In summary, these two replications provide further support for the hypothesized

model.

Discussion

Limitations

At rst, 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

inuences 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 amongthe 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 differ-

Table 5 Results of Replication Studies

Price

Premium

Loyalty

Premium

Advocate

Premium

Replication 1target group:

wholesaler

method:

online survey

n = 608

PRODUCT QUALITY1

n.s. (0.21) n.s. (0.28) n.s. (0.32)RELATIONSHIP QUALITY n.s. 0.18*** n.s.

BRAND QUALITY 0.45*** 0.40*** 0.48***


Stone-Geiser test (Q2) 0.16 0.17 0.22

Replication 2

target group:

industrial buyers

method: online

survey

n = 878

PRODUCT QUALITY1 n.s. (0.22) 0.14*** (0.40) n.s. (0.42)

RELATIONSHIP QUALITY n.s. 0.14*** n.s.

BRAND QUALITY 0.37*** 0.44*** 0.59***


Stone-Geiser test 0.12 0.27 0.34

1. rst value = direct effect; second value in parenthesis = total effect

*: p

8/3/2019 IMC Models

13/18

jbm vol. 2, 2008/1 53

merely as results of the marketing quality of the analysed company. In reality, these ef-

fects are also inuenced by the marketing quality level of the competitors.

Additionally to these rather fundamental limitations of the proposed model, the em-

pirical 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 explorativestudy.

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: pricepremium, loyalty premium and advocate premium.

Furthermore, the model also promotes the integration of marketing into a compre-

hensive 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 dif-

ferent 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 sup-

ports budget decisions.Finally, the results of the main study and the two replications underpin the high rel-

evance 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 con-

trast, 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 ex-pansion of the model.

The rst 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 pre-

mium) and economic outcomes would be necessary. Finally, an analysis of the kind ofrelationship between the quality constructs and the outcomes (linearly or non-linearly) is

an important topic for further research

8/3/2019 IMC Models

14/18

54 jbm vol. 2, 2008/1

able methodological instrument for this analysis. An additional further research eld 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 questionabout the relevance of the sales persons for brand quality or the inuence of the Internet

on relationship quality are exemplary topics for new research projects. Finally, the analy-

sis of the inuence of the competitors marketing quality on the different market outcome

categories is an important direction for further research. Starting points for such an expan-

sion 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 Scale

Core product

quality*

Range of products

Ease of use

Assembly kindness

Technology level

Range of variants

Fault and maintenance kindness 1 = satisfaction;

5 = dissatisfaction

Process quality*

Technical service

Sample caseDelivery time

Sales folder

Trainings

Relationship

quality

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

1 = strongly

agree;

5 = strongly

disagree

Brand quality

Brand X stands out clearly from other brands

By the purchase of brand X, I reduce the risk of making wrong

decisionBrand X offers products with a high quality

Brand X is competent

Loyalty premium

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

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

Advocate

premium

I would be available as a reference customer for the company X

I recommend the company X to friendly companies

Price premiumWe are ready to pay a higher price for products of company X in

comparison to other suppliers

8/3/2019 IMC Models

15/18

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 Protabil-

ity. 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 & IndustrialMarketing, 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 inuence of brand image and company reputation where manufac-

turers market to small rms: 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

Inuence 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 Cus-

tomer-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 Alterna-

tive 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 Stratication 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 Mar-

keting, 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, Jour-

nal 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 Sec-

tor, 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 Out-

comes Journal of Service Research 4 (3) pp 230247

8/3/2019 IMC Models

16/18

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 Misspecication 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 ofMarketing, 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 Mana-

gerial 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 Manage-

ment, 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, Indus-

trial Marketing Management, 26 (5), pp. 433 446.

Miles, M. P. and Arnold D. R. (1991): The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial ori-

entation, 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 Protability, 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 Longitiudi-

nal 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 Busi-

ness & 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 Produc-

tivity: 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.

8/3/2019 IMC Models

17/18

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, Ad-

vances 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 Manage-

ment, 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 Mar-

ket-Based Breakthrough Innovations, Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), pp. 42 60.

8/3/2019 IMC Models

18/18

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Documents

IMC Models