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
a) the price premium
b) the loyalty premium, and
c) the advocate premium.
P3:Brand quality has a positive effect on
a) the price premium
b) the loyalty premium, and
c) the advocate premium.
Moreover, the repeated positive evaluations of single products and processes (product
quality) are the basis for the evaluation of the general quality (brand as a summary cue)
and for the risk reduction (McDowell Mudambi et al. 1997, Roberts and Merrilees 2007).
On this argumentation, we expect that:
P4:Product quality has a positive effect on the brand quality.
MARKET-Q model
Against this background, we integrate the product, relationship and brand quality as well
as the performance categories in a single marketing quality model (MARKET-Q) (see
Figure 1).
In general terms, our model evaluates the subjective quality of the most important
marketing drivers in a comprehensive and comparative style. Furthermore, the relations
of the quality layers to the market performance permit an analysis of the relevance of the
individual quality aspects. Additionally, the standardization allows a comparison 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***
Explained variances in % 16.6 30.2 29.7
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***
Explained variances in % 11.4 40.2 45.4
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.