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. Buf 13, 6904 Lugano, Switzerland
b
University of Malta, Department of Corporate Communication, Msida MSD, 2080, Malta
c
University of Bologna, Department of Business Science, Via Zamboni 33, 40126, Bologna, Italy
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 October 2011
Received in revised form 23 September 2012
Accepted 5 October 2012
Available online 10 November 2012
Keywords:
Customer attractiveness
Measure development
Business relationships
Customer value
Customer portfolio models
Various benecial 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 and
a 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, measured
and evaluated. Drawing on various facets of customer attractiveness suggested in the literature, this paper
seeks to delineate the customer attractiveness construct and develop an instrument to measure it. The
paper concludes by discussing how the scale developed can be used as a tool to address some critical issues
in 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 resources
to customers that make up the customer portfolio of a company. More
recently, as the relational perspective in marketing has been gaining
ground, the concept of customer attractiveness has reappeared in re-
search on purchasing and business-to-business marketing (Ellegaard,
Johansen, &Drejer, 2003; Mortensen, Freytag, &Arlbjrn, 2008). The ra-
tionale for the new focus on customer attractiveness has changed. It is
now argued that being an attractive customer is likely to lead to more
protable relationships with suppliers. Being designated by a supplier
as a preferred customer can lead to commitment by suppliers; can
enhance the development of relationships that are more efcient; and
ultimately can produce various benecial outcomes over time for both
the customer and the supplier (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Cordon &
Vollmann, 2002; Harris, O'Malley, & Patterson, 2003; Schiele, Veldman,
& Httinger, 2011).
The notion of customer attractiveness is intuitively appealing, but at
present the concept appears to be only loosely dened and it remains
unclear as to what extent customer attractiveness can be dened as a
theoretical concept. Different explanations of attractiveness are provided
in the literature as different features and circumstances are linked to
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 of
customer attractiveness. While the concept of customer attractiveness
can be of interest to marketing 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 rm in a business relationship requires more articulate
conceptualization of the components of attractiveness as well as the de-
velopment of a method to measure attractiveness. The main purpose of
this paper is to delineate the conceptual space encompassed by the cus-
tomer attractiveness construct and to build and implement a process for
the development of a measure that is able to capture it. The paper is or-
ganizedinto three mainparts. Inthe rst sectionwe reviewthe literature
that has dealt with customer attractiveness. This is followed by the
process undertaken in the development of an instrument to measure
customer attractiveness. Finally, we discuss howthe availability of a cus-
tomer attractiveness scale canassist managers to cope withcritical issues
involved in the assessment of customers' attractiveness and conclude by
discussing 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 has
been dened broadly as the capacity to cause interest and attract the
Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 586664631; fax: +41 586664647.
E-mail addresses: antonella.la.rocca@usi.ch (A. La Rocca),
albert.caruana@um.edu.mt (A. Caruana), ivan.snehota@usi.ch (I. Snehota).
0019-8501/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.008
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
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 attention
which, in turn, can lead to superior loyalty and performance in the rela-
tionship. Mutual commitment to address common problems and satisfy
needs can lead to a more cost-efcient relationship with the
counterpart.
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 dening the concept of attrac-
tiveness. Blau (1964) suggests that attraction depends on different di-
mensions of expected returns from the counterpart and thus on the
expected value of the counterpart in a relationship.
If we limit our focus to marketing, and more specically to business-
to-business marketing, it can be noted that customer attraction has not
received 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 a
supplier to do business with his or her rm (Galt & Dale, 1991, p. 18)
because being an interesting customer can lead to superior supplier
performance (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Schiele et al., 2011). There
is broad agreement in the research that, in business relationships, at-
tractiveness is a matter of economic outcomes for the parties and
customer attractiveness is conceived as the expected economic
and social reward-cost outcomes from the relationship over time
(Halinen, 1997, p. 59). In the B2B context, customer attractiveness
has been considered in relation to important concepts such as value,
trust, commitment, collaboration and satisfaction. Hald, Cordn, and
Vollmann (2009) report that dyadic partner attractions are constructed
on three major components: expected value, perceived trust and per-
ceived dependence. Research on attractiveness also describes attraction
as an early variable preceding trust and commitment (Dwyer et al.,
1987; Ellegaard & Ritter, 2006) and suggests that a counterpart will
act more proactively ina relationship if it nds the other party attractive
(Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Cordon & Vollmann, 2002; Ellegaard &
Ritter, 2006). This, in turn, inuences the motivation to continue work-
ing together (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002).
Becoming a preferred customer tends to entail positive returns to
the counter party in a relationship (Bowman & Narayandas, 2004;
Christiansen & Maltz, 2002; Schiele et al., 2011). For instance, it has
been shown that differentiating between attractive high-prot and
less attractive low-prot customers will lead to an increase in the
overall protability of a seller (Hallberg, 1995). Identifying the key as-
pects of customer attractiveness can be useful to guide management's
efforts in making the company more attractive to counterparts and
thus achieve the benets of a more effective and smoothly function-
ing customer-supplier relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Ellegaard &
Ritter, 2006).
Understanding the factors that inuence the attractiveness of parties
in customer-supplier relationships can provide useful insights. There-
fore, an assessment of a customer's attractiveness can be a basis for man-
agement attention and the allocation of resources. It can also help
prioritize some relationships over others (Fiocca, 1982; Olsen & Ellram,
1997). The empirical evidence of the benets arising fromattractiveness
to the parties in business relationships has led to interest inhowcustom-
er attractiveness can be measured and assessed. However, to be able to
do so, rst requires a clearer conceptualization of what constitutes cus-
tomer attractiveness.
Different attempts at dening and conceptualizing customer attrac-
tiveness can be found in the literature, but as yet there is no commonly
accepted denition, and the concept of customer attractiveness remains
subject to various understandings, characterizations, andinterpretations.
Past research that is relevant for the purpose of characterizing customer
attractiveness tends to emphasize different aspects of attractiveness.
Fromthe literature reviewtwo broad focuses related to customer attrac-
tiveness emerge. The rst is related to features of customers and is
broadly directly related to the current and potential economic value of
the customer to the supplier. The second can be labeled relational and
encompasses factors that are relatedto the characteristics of the relation-
ship and customer supplier t.
Both types of studies build on the intuitive idea that attractiveness
depends 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 is motivated by the no-
tion that some customers contribute more than others to revenues
while retention of non-protable customers ultimately destroys value
(Hallberg, 1995). However, the two sets of studies focus on different
factors that determine current and potential future value of a customer.
On one hand, in the rst set of studies reviewed, customer attractive-
ness is linked to the intrinsic, tangible and measureable characteristics
of the customer's business with respect to such elements as size,
volume of purchase, protability, 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 focus
on how customer characteristics relate to those of the supplier and
on 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 the
customer's business but rather from how the features of the
customer's business t 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, this
research also considers how the position and role of the customer
and the supplier in the supply chain inuences customer attractive-
ness (Mortensen et al., 2008).
An interesting issue is how customer attractiveness relates to
supplier satisfaction. It has been argued that attraction not only
precedes 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 customer
satisfaction since the literature on supplier satisfaction has been
limited (Wong, 2000). However, more recently, Essig and Amann
(2009, p. 104) have put forward a denition of supplier satisfaction
as a supplier's feeling of fairness with regard to buyer's incentives
and supplier's contributions within an industrial buyerseller rela-
tionship. They operationalize this via a 29-item instrument made
up of ve dimensions, titled: order process, delivery process, com-
munications, conict management, and intensity of cooperation.
In addition, Ghijsen, Semeijn, and Ernstson (2010) report testing a
model that looks at the role of inuence strategies and supplier de-
velopment as antecedents to supplier satisfaction and commitment.
The authors principally employ the denition of supplier satisfaction
provided by Benton and Maloni (2005, p. 2) as consisting of the feeling
of equity withthe relationshipno matter what power imbalances exists.
They operationalize the construct via a 3-itemuni-dimensional measure.
Wilson and Jantrania (1994) suggest that supplier satisfaction is impor-
tant to relationship success, while MacKenzie and Hardy (1996) argue
that satisfaction and partnering attractiveness of the distributor are cor-
related. Both the denitions by Ghijsen et al. (2010) and Benton and
Maloni (2005) focus on satisfaction with events (Oliver, 1997, p. 13)
that happen during interaction.
The conceptual delineation between customer attractiveness
and supplier satisfaction is challenging. The domains of these two
constructs appear to be distinct but related. While supplier satisfac-
tion results from ex-post performance assessments made about a
customer following recent interactions, customer attractiveness is
anticipatory and value focused. The assessment of the customer at-
tractiveness is grounded in direct and indirect experience and rela-
tional t.
1242 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
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 marketing
and the broad idea is that the value of a customer to a supplier is
given by the protability of the customer to the supplier. While the
notion of economic value appears conceptually straightforward, the
complexity of factors that impinge on the protability of a customer
renders the determination of the economic value less simple than
what may at rst appear to be the case. The protability of customers
to a supplier is provided by the difference between the revenues
achieved and costs incurred in connection with a customer during a
specied period of time (Pfeifer et al., 2005). Protability, in turn, de-
pends on factors that include: return on sales, product mix, share of
purchases, strength of preference for one manufacturer over another,
customer satisfaction, and relationship handling costs. Measuring
protability ex-post is conceptually rather straightforward, but in
practice there are various difculties that are compounded by the ac-
counting principles and practices used (Hkansson & Lind, 2004). An-
ticipating customer protability is complex and determining future
protability of a specic customer requires extensive probing into
the features of a customer's business.
The concept of customer protability is linked to that of the lifetime
value of the customer, to the extent that some scholars consider the two
as one and the same concept (Mulhern, 1999). The lifetime value of a
customer can be used as an indicator of customer attractiveness where-
by the greater the lifetime value of a customer, the more attractive the
customer will be to the supplier. The lifetime value of a customer can
be said to be a synthetic indicator that takes into account both the prof-
itability (size of the periodic revenues and costs) of the customer as well
as 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 ow. But assessing the lifetime
value 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 difcult, if not impossible, to forecast
properly at the single customer level. Difculties may arise because of:
(1) a lack of historical data; (2) difculty to access data that are not
available electronically; (3) a customer is new and the data series are
not yet available; and (4) competing requirements, particularly
among smaller rms, may act to restrict the time available to perform
forecast 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 dened as the value generated by
the customer calculated on the basis of net cash ows 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 generated
and the costs of activation, development and maintenance of the cus-
tomer relationship (Wayland & Cole, 1997). It has been claimed that
assessing customer equity is strategic for managing long-term prot-
ability and that an effective analysis of its antecedents are a prerequi-
site for an efcient allocation of strategic resources (Rust, Lemon, &
Zeithaml, 2000). The main difculties in measuring and assessing cus-
tomer equity are similar to those involving estimates of the lifetime
value of customers. While it is difcult, but possible, to undertake such
an assessment for a category of customers such as a segment, it is ex-
tremely difcult to foresee and measure the equity of a single individual
customer.
Customer attractiveness has also been more directly addressed in the
customer 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 customer
in more relative terms and not simply as related to the features of the
business of a customer. Fiocca (1982) proposed undertaking customer
portfolio analysis in two phases: rst, a general analysis of the account
that seeks to classify the customer portfolio on the basis of two variables,
namely: strategic importance and difculty to management; second, an
analysis of key accounts based on the attractiveness of the customer's ac-
tivity and the intensity of the customerseller relationship. In addition,
Fiocca (1982) observes that the value of a customer is relative and can
only be dened in relation to the value of the relationships to other cus-
tomers in the portfolio of the supplier rm. Attractiveness in this context
has been dened broadly by Fiocca (1982), p. 57) as the attractiveness
of the customer's market and the status/position of the customer's busi-
ness for the supplier. Fiocca also proposes a set of characteristics that
make a customer attractive, namely: market factors (e.g. customer's
share, growth and inuence on the market); competition (customer
strength, weakness, vulnerability to new technology and level of
integration); nancial andeconomic factors; andsocio-political factors.
Overall, the evidence from the literature indicates that while cus-
tomers are valuable assets to the rm, their value varies greatly. A
number of different factors have been identied in this research as
being important characteristics of customer value and thus linked to
the attractiveness of a customer, but the same research also shows
that 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 the
importance of the t between the features of the business of the cus-
tomer and those of the supplier rather than only the characteristics of
the customer. These studies argue that the value of a customer arises
from the interaction processes of the relationship between the supplier
and the customer. This perspective of customer attractiveness dovetails
neatly with the growing interest in customersupplier relationships in
marketing generally, and in business-to-business marketing in particu-
lar. It is also in line with the resultant expressed desire to assess the
value of customer-supplier relationships (Anderson & Narus, 1998;
Lindgren & Wynstra, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ravald & Gronroos,
1996; Ulaga & Eggert, 2006; Walter, Ritter, & Gemnden, 2001).
Interaction with a customer in the context of a relationship, which
extends beyond considerations of the characteristics of a customer,
has been shown to provide superior economic benets (Ramani &
Kumar, 2008). Interactive relationships offer access to important re-
sources (Harris et al., 2003); produce positive outcomes in terms of
innovation and information about the market (Walter et al., 2001)
and ensure the exchange of knowledge that acts as the basis for the
inter-organizational capability to innovate (Christiansen & Maltz, 2002).
Interactionprocesses are alsoimportant for reaping the benets of attrac-
tiveness for the customer because a supplier is likely to employ various
ways 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 benets accrued as a result of being an attractive customer. Indeed,
most attractive customers will get the best brain power and supplier
commitment (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002, p. 1); vendor managed inven-
tories (Holmstrm, 1998); third party logistics (Maltz &Ellram, 1999); as
well as trust, openness, shared info-systems and multiple communica-
tion channels (Hines, 1993; Stuart, Deckert, McCutcheon, &Kunst, 1998).
Assessing benets accruing froma customer relationship and decid-
ing which relationships to terminate and which to maintain, are central
tasks for relationship marketers (Helm, Rolfes, & Gnter, 2006). Attrac-
tion in this context has been dened as the extent to which relational
partners perceive past, current, future and potential partners as profes-
sionally appealing in terms of their ability to provide superior economic
benets, access to important resources and social compatibility (Harris
1243 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
et al., 2003, p. 12). Such a denition implies that in a relational context,
value is always uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the
beneciary (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. Attraction
lies 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 context
of the supplier.
Research on the value of customer relationships has identied sev-
eral different features of the business of a customer that affect the
expected revenues and costs to a supplier. Examples of these include:
the benets provided by the quality of the product, delivery perfor-
mance, service support, supplier know-howand acquisition and opera-
tion costs (Ulaga & Eggert, 2006). Walter et al. (2001), who distinguish
between direct and indirect functions of customer relationships, ob-
serve that despite the growing trend toward considering and using
business relationships as means of value creation, the marketing litera-
ture is decient in some important ways. There is a high concentration
on prot 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 benets of business
relationships.
There are a number of studies that have directed their attention to
more soft factors that play a part in customer attractiveness in so far
as they affect how the relationships work. Thus, Harris et al. (2003)
have argued that customer attractiveness is inuenced by the degree
of 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 attractiveness
varies by the particular stage reached in a relationship. Ellegaard et al.
(2003) add the complexity of the content of the relationship as a further
variable to consider while Mortensen et al. (2008) suggest that custom-
er attractiveness tends to evolve over time and is dependent on the ma-
turity of the relationship.
3. Developing the customer attractiveness scale
Past research suggests a signicant number of customer characteris-
tics and relationship features of customer attractiveness dened more
or less broadly and at various levels of abstraction. The various factors
suggested in the literature often overlap and it is not always clearly
spelled out how the single elements of attractiveness relate to each
other or whether there is some hierarchy in their relative importance.
Given that the conceptualization of customer attractiveness in the
literature is relatively limited, it is not surprising that a search of the lit-
erature does not provide a suitable customer attractiveness scale that
could lend itself well to further research on customer attractiveness in
business markets. A four-phase procedure is therefore pursued aimed
at developing a psychometrically sound customer attractiveness scale
that could be used in a business-to-business marketing context. The
procedure, reported below, follows the general process for instrument
development recommended by several marketing scholars (Churchill,
1979; D'Astous & Boujbel, 2007).
In the rst stage of the process we seek to specify the domain of the
construct and consider the theoretical perspective to delineate the cus-
tomer attractiveness construct. Analysis of the literature led to the iden-
tication of a number of aspects that belong to the concept of customer
attractiveness. These appear to fall into three broad headings: aspects
linked to the current protability of the customer for the supplier, as-
pects that inuence expected future protability of a customer, and
those related to various benets derived from the interaction processes
in a customersupplier relationship. Based on the literature review
undertaken, we propose a conceptual denition of customer attractive-
ness as consisting of: a supplier's assessment of a customer, made on the
basis of anticipated outcomes arising from customer-supplier interaction
within a relationship.
The second stage sets out to generate a sample of items. Four major
B2B rms located in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland and in
Northern Italy were selected. The choice of these rms was based on
the already established relationship between the researchers and the
companies involved. It was believed that this approach would permit
strong 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 sales
managers and salespeople at each of the participating rms. By includ-
ing such relevant participants in the research it was possible to obtain
considerable understanding of the phenomenon being investigated. In-
deed, the use of focus groups is considered a fundamental initial step in
the development of sound measures in marketing (Churchill, 1979;
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985).
Each focus group was moderated by one of the researchers who
asked the participants to discuss the aspects they usually took, or
would take, into consideration in assessing the attractiveness of a cus-
tomer. After a quarter of an hour of unstructured conversation, aimed
at verifying if participants had put forward some aspect not identied
during the literature review, participants were solicited by the re-
searcher to discuss the actual and potential protability of their cus-
tomers and the relational factors which they consider as important
benets. In order to avoid the researcher inuencing the interpreta-
tion of respondents' answers, one member from each focus group
was asked to take notes of the matters raised. On average, this process
lasted about an hour and the four focus groups were able to generate
a signicant number of issues. A panel consisting of the three authors
was able to formulate a total of 118 separate items from the issues
raised. These items were deemed as being representative of the con-
ceptual space for customer attractiveness. As part of this process, the
possibility 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 can
create confusion in cross-cultural research (Wong, Rindeisch, &
Burroughs, 2003). Our respondents were mostly sales persons and
sales managers of B2B rms that were often dealing internationally.
The predominance of English as the common language of business
meant that these respondents had a strong command of the language
and could deal with such wording well. On balance, we therefore opted
to include two negatively worded questions.
To ensure content validity, the itemstatements generated were sub-
mitted to an expert panel that consisted of 12 sales managers each with
over 15 years' experience (Zaichkowsky, 1985). These were asked to
categorize each item as: clearly representative; somewhat representa-
tive; and not representative of customer attractiveness. This exercise
sought to understand how well the developed items captured the con-
struct and it also helped eliminate items that were seen as not being
representative or ones that were not sufciently clear. This phase in
the process resulted in a 20-item measure of customer attractiveness.
The third phase consisted of a survey stage that sought to collect data
that wouldlater be used to purify the measure. Respondents were select-
ed with the help of the four companies involved in the focus groups
which enabled us to establish contact with 14 customer and 11 supplier
companies. These 25 contact rms were each asked to select at random
six potential respondents (among their sales personnel) which resulted
in a list of 152 individuals. Respondents were then contacted and asked
to identify the top ve 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 any
importance bias that could arise from respondents focusing their replies
solely on their top customer. Respondents were then asked to provide
answers with respect to the selected customer. The personal interviews
1244 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
were conducted in English with a total of 128 salespersons and sales
managers at B2B rms in the Italian speaking part of Switzerland and
in Northern Italy. 24 individuals from the original list were dropped for
various reasons (these included: not available for interview during the
period, declined to participate, impossible to establish appointment for
the interview).
The nal researchinstrument employedconsistedof the 20-itemcus-
tomer attractiveness measure, an item that sought to capture supplier
satisfaction with the customer relationship and three classicatory vari-
ables that captured respondents' gender, age, and years in employment
with the company. The wording of the satisfaction item is derived from
one of the supplier satisfaction items proposed by Kumar, Stern, and
Achrol (1992) and asked respondents how satised they were with
their relationship with a particular customer. All items, with the excep-
tion of the classicatory variables consisted of a seven-point Likert-
type scale that ranged from 1=Strongly disagree to 7=Strongly
agree while the satisfaction item ranged from Very Dissatised to
Very Satised. Having collected the data it was possible to proceed to
the purication stage of the measure. Results indicated that respondents
were primarily males (98%), in the 31 to 45 age bracket (83%), and had
been in employment with their respective company for less than
10 years (81%). In analyzing the rest of the data, negatively-worded
items were reverse-scored and descriptive statistics for all items in
the scale were computed. Investigation of individual items for skewness
and kurtosis indicated that these parameters were all within acceptable
levels, providing comfort for univariate normality of the data collected.
In addition, a plot of Mahalanobis distance of the data against ordered
quantiles of a chi-square distribution provided a straight 45 line that
provided 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 are
within the acceptable range of 1.96.
To investigate the factor structure of the customer attractiveness
measure that was developed, the data was subjected to principal com-
ponent factor analysis followed by an Oblimin rotation. The latter was
used because the dimensions of customer attractiveness were expected
to be correlated. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the number
of factors were set free and resulted from the exploratory factor analy-
sis. Results of the factor analysis are also shown in Table 1. During the
exploratory factor analysis, item 3 exhibited high factor loadings on
more than one factor and this item was therefore eliminated (Costello
& Osborne, 2005, p. 4).
The factor analysis results provided four clear factors. The items on
each of these four factors were investigated with a view to providing
meaningful names for each of the dimensions. The items that load on
Factor 1 appear to relate to the development potential of the customer
and this dimension has been labeled: Development potential. Items that
make up Factor 2 can be interpreted as characterizing the level of
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and results of factor analysis for customer attractiveness scale.
Items Mean Std dev. Skewness Kurtosis Loadings CR AVE
Development potential 0.88 0.51
1. Customer A guarantees large volume
purchases.
4.63 1.21 0.17 0.58 0.68
2. Customer A has good growth potential. 4.22 1.52 0.35 0.42 0.79
3. Customer A is useful as a bridge to
other people, companies or institutions.
Deleted
4. Customer A is proactive. 4.92 1.15 0.51 0.13 0.78
5. Customer A is cooperative. 4.01 1.34 0.59 0.13 0.82
6. Customer A is an innovative company. 4.77 1.23 0.67 0.66 0.56
7. Customer A has most of the knowledge
needed to answer questions.
4.76 1.35 0.66 0.44 0.69
8. Customer A has plenty of resources. 4.95 1.43 0.88 0.94 0.62
Intimacy 0.74 0.42
9. Customer A is willing to listen and
understand our position.
4.71 1.39 0.06 0.88 0.78
10. It is difcult to understand Customer
A's needs. (R).
5.07 1.45 0.25 1.03 0.59
11. Customer A gives us particular
individual attention and care.
4.71 1.40 0.34 0.01 0.69
12. The relationship with Customer A is
demanding because of the complexity
of the products bought. (R).
5.92 1.23 0.86 0.40 0.49
Relational t 0.84 0.53
13. Customer A is reliable. 5.66 0.87 0.30 0.18 0.60
14. In the event of a problem Customer A
always tries to nd a solution.
5.36 0.83 0.08 0.53 0.80
15. It is easy to work with Customer A. 5.65 1.06 0.78 0.40 0.78
16. Customer A makes it possible to allow
for planning in advance (e.g. its orders
are programmed; few last-minute requests).
5.12 0.96 0.51 0.48 0.72
17. We have no problem managing the
relationship with Customer A.
4.80 1.20 1.16 1.86 0.68
Protability 0.87 0.68
18. Customer A allows us to gain high margins. 4.57 1.21 0.19 0.45 0.82
19. Customer A provides information that is
useful for our business.
4.88 1.09 0.58 0.27 0.82
20. Customer A helps us achieve good prots. 5.04 0.90 0.14 0.20 0.84
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization (R)=Negatively worded.
1245 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
understanding between customer and supplier and this dimension has
been labeled: Intimacy. Those items that compose Factor 3 appear to be
related to the protability of customers and the dimension has been la-
beled as: Protability. Finally the items that make up Factor 4 can be
seen as referring to the capability to interact in the relationship and
this dimension has been labeled: Relational t. Cumulatively, the four
factors explained 67.7% of the variance in the data.
Reliabilities were subsequently tested using coefcient alpha
(Cronbach, 1951). The resulting four factors provided alpha scores
of: 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 loadings
reported 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 0.7
threshold while all composite reliabilities exceed the values for AVE. In
addition the AVE for each of the factors exceeds the 0.5 level except for
the second factor which is marginally below the threshold. The correla-
tions among the dimensions exhibit signicance for: Development poten-
tial with Protability (r=0.59; pb.01) and with Relational t (r=0.29;
pb.01); Intimacy with Relational t (r=0.29; pb.01) and Protability
with Relational t (r=0.31; pb.01).
A second factor analysis of the single-item measure of supplier
satisfaction that was collected together with the resultant 19-item
measure of customer attractiveness shows that the satisfaction item
loads separately fromthe dimensions of customer attractiveness thereby
providing initial support for discriminant validity. In addition, a signi-
cant relationship can be expected between customer attractiveness and
supplier satisfaction, analogous to what has been argued for partnering
attractiveness and customer satisfaction (MacKenzie & Hardy, 1996).
To test this proposed link, a correlational analysis between the items
making up the customer attractiveness measure and the satisfaction
itemwas undertakenandfound to be signicant (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 reported
suggest that it can be used with reasonable condence for data collec-
tion aimed at measuring and assessing customer attractiveness. Al-
though it has been shown to have acceptable psychometric properties,
it can benet fromfurther testing and elaboration involving a newsam-
ple that would allow using conrmatory factor analysis together with
the collection of further related and unrelated constructs to test other
aspects of internal validity.
4. Implications for management
The suggestion that being an attractive customer can be protable is
recognized in the literature. The same can be said for the need for busi-
ness customers to manage their attractiveness if they are to reap the po-
tential benets (Cordon & Vollmann, 2002; Mortensen et al., 2008;
Schiele et al., 2011). It is an established maxim in management that it
is only possible to manage what can be measured. Hence, the concept
of customer attractiveness only becomes useful in management prac-
tice if it can be assessed. Measuring customer attractiveness is complex
because 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 its
merit 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 the
variation in customer attractiveness across relationships, over time,
and in relation to particular business circumstances.
Awell-established idea in economics and management is that anob-
ject does not have a value in itself; rather its worthdepends on the use a
subject makes of it. Applied to customer attractiveness this suggests
that customer attractiveness cannot be dened in an absolute sense,
but the customer always has to be dened as attractive for someone.
Consequently, customer attractiveness is not simply a function of the
features of the customer or the relationship but, as observed earlier, re-
ects the property of the attracted (Ellegaard &Ritter, 2007, p. 8). This
suggests that customer attractiveness can only be dened in relation to
a specic supplier and is thus always relative. Since customer attractive-
ness is always supplier specic, having an instrument that allows com-
paring attractiveness of customers and how attractiveness of the same
customer varies across suppliers, is extremely useful. The measure can
assist bothsuppliers and customers in decisions that are crucial to effec-
tive relationship management. On the one hand, it can assist suppliers
in effectively allocating efforts and resources to different customers.
Onthe other hand, froma customer's perspective, it allows for the mon-
itoring of howperceived attractiveness varies across different suppliers.
This canallowmanagement inunderstanding the potential andlimits of
their supplier relationships and in selectively dening relationship
strategies to improve supplier satisfaction.
Because of the multiplicity of elements constituting customer attrac-
tiveness and the subjectivity of the factors and the dynamics involved in
assessing customer attractiveness, a measure that allows the monitor-
ing of change in customer attractiveness among the subjects involved
and over time, can be of particular interest for management. Given
this multiplicity, it is likely that management will not be able to assess
actual or potential customer attractiveness using all possible elements
but will use different heuristics (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Past re-
searchshows that decision makers (inour case suppliers) will selective-
ly use only a subset of elements that are perceived as relevant for the
specic situation that the supplier is concerned with at a specic mo-
ment in time and under specic circumstances (Greeno, 1998; Tuli,
Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007). Not all customer attractiveness dimensions
and elements may always be equally important and the relative weight
of the dimensions that managers will use will reect the situation and
context. 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 which
dimensions are used since managerial action is formed by what man-
agers happen to see at a specic point in time and how they interpret
what they happen to see (Weick, 2001).
Since customer attractiveness is assessed by a limited subset of
knowledge that managers use when facing a situation or a problem
(often as they interact in a business relationship) perceived customer
attractiveness will reect the agenda of the supplier as determined by
the prevalent circumstances of the supplier's own business. The scale
proposed permits researchers and managers to explore how the ele-
ments, and thus the prole, of customer attractiveness are linked to
the different problem situations in customersupplier relationships.
For instance, it can permit the identication of what are the elements
of customer attractiveness when the main issue of concern for the sup-
plier is protability as opposed to when it is innovation, diversication
or something else. Customer attractiveness has its dynamics and
changes over time as the circumstances and issues of strategic concern
for the supplier business evolve. It also tends to play a different role in
different stages of the relationship (Dwyer et al., 1987; Mortensen et
al., 2008). The scale proposed can be used, both in practice and in re-
search, to track how customer attractiveness assessment changes over
time and how it relates to specic 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 method
to assess it (Ellegaard et al., 2003). The developing of a measure for
the assessment of customer attractiveness that has been undertaken
brings forward a more articulate conceptualization of the concept. It
can support management in taking informed decisions, regarding a
selective and effective allocation of resources and efforts, within and
across relationships. The availability of the customer attractiveness
measure can thus assist management in both customer and supplier
businesses to manage relationships more effectively.
1246 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
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 in
the study that need to be borne in mind and that suggest further av-
enues for future research. First, further testing of the psychometric
properties of the instrument via a second data collection and conr-
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 the
development process of this research instrument the results obtained
are generally acceptable. However, future replications can consider
eliminating item 12 and using a positively worded version for item
10. These actions are likely to help push the AVE for the intimacy fac-
tor above the .50 threshold. Second, the robustness of the instrument
can also be tested further in relation to the expected linkages that
customer attractiveness has, both in terms of antecedents and conse-
quences. Although we report a correlational link between customer
attractiveness and supplier satisfaction, it is important to note that
our measure of satisfaction is a single-item measure. A better under-
standing of the linkages of customer attractiveness with supplier satis-
faction can contribute signicantly to a better elaboration of customer
attractiveness that could provide useful support to management in
portfolio decision making. In looking at customer attractiveness, this
study has focused on practitioners' perceptions of both potential and
existing customers. The precise nature of customer attractiveness may
warrant clarication. If customer attractiveness is conceptually applied
solely to potential customers it could be argued that customer attractive-
ness can be viewed as an ex-ante construct that explains howa supplier
perceives potential customers. However, when customer attractiveness
is used in relation to existing customers, it would be of interest to inves-
tigate how it relates to supplier satisfaction which may be envisaged as
an ex-post assessment that occurs once a relationship is established.
Third, the research took place among respondents from rms in the
Italian speaking part of Switzerland and in Northern Italy. Broader
cross-cultural investigation across more regions and industries would
help 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 has
been further investigated in the context of the prevailing opinions of
practitioners. Both the literature and the opinions of practitioners are
known to evolve over time and these can in turn affect how the ele-
ments of customer attractiveness are framed and used. Future research
should monitor this and also seek to deepen the understanding of what
constitutes customer attractiveness among practitioners.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers and
the editors for their suggestions that contributed to improving the
manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1998). Business marketing: understand what customers'
value. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 5361.
Benton, W. C., & Maloni, M. (2005). The inuence of power driven buyer/seller rela-
tionships on supply chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1),
122.
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
protability in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 433447.
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, 369380.
Christiansen, P. E., & Maltz, A. (2002). Becoming an interesting customer: procurement
strategies for buyers without leverage. International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications, 5(2), 177195.
Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6473 (February).
Clark, M. S., & Pataki, S. P. (1995). Interpersonal processes inuencing attraction and
relationships. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced Social Psychology (pp. 283331). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Cordon, C., & Vollmann, T. E. (2002). The next game in purchasing: Be the most attractive
customer to key suppliers (pp. 86). Lausanne: IMD International (January).
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 19.
Cronbach, L. J. (1946). A case study of the split-half reliability coefcient. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 37(8), 473480.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297334.
D'Astous, A., & Boujbel, L. (2007). Positioning countries on personality dimensions: Scale
development process and implications for country marketing. Journal of Business Re-
search, 60(3), 231239.
Day, G. S. (1977). Diagnosing the product portfolio. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 2938.
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 buyerseller relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 51(2), 1127.
Ellegaard, C., Johansen, J., & Drejer, A. (2003). Managing industrial buyersupplier
relations The case for attractiveness. Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
14(4), 346356.
Ellegaard, C., & Ritter, T. (2006). Customer attraction and its purchasing potential. Paper
presented at the 22nd IMP Conference, Milan.
Ellegaard, C., & Ritter, T. (2007). Attractiveness in business markets: Conceptualization
and propositions. Paper Presented at the 23nd IMP conference, Manchester.
Essig, M., & Amann, M. (2009). Supplier satisfaction: Conceptual basics and explorative
ndings. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 15, 103113.
Fiocca, R. (1980). L'analisi del portafoglio clienti nel marketing industriale. In R. Fiocca
(Ed.), Il marketing dei beni industriali (pp. 217240). Milano: Giuffr.
Fiocca, R. (1982). Account portfolio analysis for strategy development. Industrial Marketing
Management, 11(1), 5362.
Galt, J. D. A., & Dale, B. G. (1991). Supplier development: A British case study. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 27(1), 1622.
Ghijsen, P. W. Th., Semeijn, J., & Ernstson, S. (2010). Supplier satisfaction and commitment:
The role of inuence strategies and supplier development. Journal of Purchasing &Supply
Management, 16, 1726.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychol-
ogist, 53(1), 526.
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The effects of customer satisfaction, re-
lationship commitment dimensions, and triggers on customer retention. Journal of
Marketing, 69, 210218 (Oct.).
Hkansson, H., & Lind, J. (2004). Accounting and network coordination. Accounting,
Organization and Society, 29(1), 5172.
Hald, K. S., Cordn, C., & Vollmann, T. E. (2009). Towards an understanding of attrac-
tion in buyersupplier relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(8),
960970.
Halinen, A. (1997). Relationship marketing in professional services: A study of agency client
dynamics in the advertising sector. London: Routledge.
Hallberg, G. (1995). All consumers are not created equal: The differential marketing strategy
for brand loyalty and prots. Chichester: John Wiley.
Harris, L. C., O'Malley, L., & Patterson, M. (2003). Professional interaction: Exploring the
concept of attraction. Marketing Theory, 3(1), 936.
Helm, S., Rolfes, L., & Gnter, B. (2006). Suppliers' willingness to end unprotable customer
relationships: An exploratory investigation in the German mechanical engineering sec-
tor. European Journal of Marketing, 40(3/4), 366383.
Hines, P. (1993). Integrated materials management: The value chain redened. Inter-
national Journal of Logistics Management, 4(1), 1322.
Holmstrm, . J. (1998). Business process innovation in the supply chain A case
study of implementing vendor managed inventory. European Journal of Purchasing
& Supply Management, 5(4), 127131.
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 managing
buyerseller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 25(9), 7282.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Achrol, R. S. (1992). Assessing reseller performance from the
perspective of the supplier. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(2), 238253.
Lindgren, A., & Wynstra, F. (2005). Value in business markets: What do we know?
Where are we going? Industrial Marketing Management, 34(7), 732748.
MacKenzie, H. F., &Hardy, K. G. (1996). Manage your offering or manage your relationship?
The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 11(6), 2037.
Maltz, A., & Ellram, L. (1999). Outsourcing supply management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 35(2), 417.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitmenttrust theory of relationship mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 2038.
Mortensen, M. H., Freytag, P. V., & Arlbjrn, J. S. (2008). Attractiveness in supply chains:
A process and matureness perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, 38(10), 799815.
Mulhern, F. J. (1999). Customer protability analysis: Measurement, concentration,
and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13(1), 2540.
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), 101113.
1247 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors inuencing the ef-
fectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4),
136153.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150.
Pfeifer, P. E., Haskins, M. E., & Conroy, R. M. (2005). Customer lifetime value, customer
protability, and the treatment of acquisition spending. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 17(1), 1125.
Ramani, G., & Kumar, V. (2008). Interaction orientation and rm performance. Journal
of Marketing, 72(1), 2745.
Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept in marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 30(2), 1930.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2000). Driving customer equity: How customer
lifetime 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), 307316.
Schiele, H., Veldman, J., & Httinger, L. (2011). Supplier innovativeness and supplier
pricing: The role of preferred customer status. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 15(1), 128.
Shapiro, B. P., Rangan, V. K., Moriarty, R. T., & Ross, E. B. (1987). Manage customers for
prots (not just for sales). Harvard Business Review, 101108
(September/October).
Steinle, C., & Schiele, H. (2008). Limits to global sourcing? Strategic consequences of
dependency on international suppliers. Cluster theory, resource-based view and
case studies. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14(1), 314.
Stuart, I., Deckert, P., McCutcheon, D., & Kunst, R. (1998). Case study A leveraged
learning network. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 8193.
Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From
product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1117.
Turnbull, P. W., & Zolkiewski, J. M. (1997). Protability in customer portfolio planning. In
D: Ford (Ed.), Understanding Business Markets (2nd ed.). London: Dryden Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment and uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 11241131.
Ulaga, W., & Eggert, A. (2006). Value-based differentiation in business relationships:
Gaining and sustaining key supplier status. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 119136.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 110.
Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemnden, H. G. (2001). Value-creation in buyer seller relationships:
Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier's perspective. Industrial
Marketing Management, 30(4), 365377.
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), 5566.
Wong, A. (2000). Integrating supplier satisfaction with customer satisfaction. Total
Quality Management, 11(4/5&6), 427432.
Wong, N., Rindeisch, A., & Burroughs, J. E. (2003). Do reverseworded items confound
measures in crosscultural consumer research? The case of the Material Values
Scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 7291.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer
Research, 12, 341352.
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 her
PhDwith a dissertation on Actors' Identities in Business Relationships. Her research inter-
ests are in business relationships and communication processes, and newbusiness devel-
opment in B2B markets.
Albert Caruana, Ph.D., is Professor of marketing at the University of Malta, Malta and at
the 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 on market strategy development and organization in B2B mar-
kets. He is co-author of several books onbusiness networks andpapers inScandinavianJour-
nal of Management, Industrial Marketing Management and Journal of Business Research.
1248 A. La Rocca et al. / Industrial Marketing Management 41 (2012) 12411248