N O R T H - H O L L A N D

An Exploration of
Brandi ng in Industrial
Markets
Susan McDowell Mudambi
Peter Doyle
Veronica Wong
Is branding important in industrial markets? To answer this
question, the authors synthesize previous research in branding
and related areas to develop a new conceptual model of indus-
trial brand value to the customer. Expected brand value con-
sists of f our components: product performance, distribution
(ordering and delivery) performance, support services perfor-
mance, and company performance, with each component inte-
grating both tangible and intangible elements. This model is
then compared to the views elicited from in-depth interviews
with manufacturers, distributors, and purchasers of precision
bearings. This exploratory study of the decision-making pro-
cess and the sources of industrial brand value highlights the
importance of relatively intangible product and company at-
tributes. The findings indicate that branding may play a pow-
Address correspondence to Susan Mudambi, Open University Business School,
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK. E-mail: s.mudambi@open.ac.uk
erful role, especially in industrial markets where it is increas-
ingly difficult to maintain meaningful differentiation on the
basis of product quality or price. 1997 Elsevier Science Inc.
I NTRODUCTI ON
A number of products in industrial markets have
nearly identical physical specifications and performance,
yet one of the products successfully maintains a high
market share, even at a premi um price. The question
arises as to what differentiates the successful product
from its competitors in the eyes of the customer. The ba-
sic explanation lies with customer perception of superior
value [1]. However, the processes involved in adding
value are complex and interrelated [2]. Many explana-
tions and prescriptions for meaningful product differenti-
ation and sustainable competitive advantage abound in
Industrial Marketing Management 26, 433-446 (1997)
1997 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
0019- 8501/97/$17.00
PII SO019-8501 (96)00151-4
Cus t o me r s pe r c e i v e t he a d d e d v a l u e s of a
s u c c e s s f u l brand.
the literature [3]. According to Aaker ([4, p. ix]), when
the industrial purchase decision is a "toss-up," the "deci-
sive factor then can turn upon what a brand means to a
buyer. " However, discussions of industrial markets only
occasionally refer to branding or brand equity [5]. More
common explanations for purchase decisions emerge
from the literatures of organizational buying behavior,
buyer-seller relationships, and industrial segmentation.
This article places industrial branding into this broader
context. This article first introduces brands and branding,
then briefly reviews the few studies explicitly on industrial
branding. Next, the article discusses how research in other
areas of marketing and management relate to industrial
branding. The paper introduces and describes a conceptual
model of industrial brand value to the customer. This model
is compared to the views emerging from field interviews
with technical, marketing, sales, and purchasing personnel
involved in industrial product markets. The final section
draws out the managerial implications of the research.
B R A N D S A N D B R A N D I N G
To some industrial marketers, the word brand connotates
a gi mmi cky tactic for a less serious consumer product.
To others, brands are simply products with brand names
or logos. These perspectives gloss over key differences in
the degree or level of branding. Brands are commonl y
depicted in the literature as a multiple level pyramid, with
basic physical attributes forming the base, upon which rests
SUSAN MCDOWELL MUDAMBI is Lecturer in Marketing, Open
University Business School and a doctoral student in marketing
at the Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK.
PETER DOYLE is Professor of Marketing and Strategic
Management, Warwick Business School, University of
Warwick, UK.
VERONICA WONG is Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Warwick
Business School, University of Warwick, UK.
the tangible benefits, the emotional benefits, the brand
personality characteristics, and with the soul or core of
the brand at the top of the pyramid. Alternatively, successful
brands can be vi ewed as a quality product surrounded by
several layers of product features of increasing intangibility
[1, 6]. A basic brand is a quality product that has been
differentiated from its competitors through marketing mix
decisions. An augmented brand offers buyers additional
tangible benefits such as support services and guarantees.
A potential brand is perceived by buyers to have real, i f
intangible, values that differentiate the product in a sus-
tainable way from compet i ng products.
A successful brand combines an effective product, dis-
tinctive identity, and added values, as perceived by cus-
tomers [ 1 ]. Brand equity is defined as the total value added
by the brand to the core product [7]. Aaker [4] identifies
five categories of assets underlying brand equity: brand loy-
alty, name awareness, perceived quality, brand associations,
and other proprietary brand assets such as patents and chan-
nel relationships. Brands add to customer value by giving
signals about the offer [8]. These signals are often inter-
preted in terms of risk reduction and enhanced satisfaction.
Discussions of branding imply the existence of an under-
lying process suggested by random utility theory. Custom-
ers form preferences based on their perception of attributes;
these preferences are translated into choice decisions, with
customers choosing the product with the highest expected
value or utility. In turn, choice decisions are directly
linked to actual behavior [9]. Figure 1 provides a simple
way of depicting the branding system, with the degree of
branding affecting buyer perception and attitudes, buyer be-
havior and brand financial performance, and thereby af-
fecting branding strategy. In reality, the relationships and
the process are more complex, because, for example,
buyer behavior also affects perception and attitudes.
L I T E RAT URE R E V I E WS
Although little research has been conduct ed explicitly
on industrial branding, several other research areas offer
4 3 4
\
DEGREE O F H
BRANDING
basic
augmented
potential
BUYER
PERCEPTION
& ATTITUDE
H B U Y E R H B R A N D
B E H A V IO R PER FO R M A N C E
H B R A N D
STRATEGY
benefits choice brand equity new services
values loyalty profits promotion
FIGURE 1. The branding system.
f i ndi ngs and t e c hni que s of mu c h gr eat er de pt h and
breadth. In particular, industrial br andi ng can dr aw f r om and
synt hesi ze research on cons umer brandi ng, organi zat i onal
buyi ng behavi or, buyer - suppl i er relationships, and industrial
s e gme nt a t i on. A c o mp r e h e n s i v e r evi ew of t he l i t er at ur e
o f t hese areas lies wel l b e y o n d t he s cope o f t hi s article.
Instead, t he f ol l owi ng subsect i ons exami ne several studies
i n each area, hi ghl i ght i ng t he r el evance o f t he mode l s or
me t hodol ogi e s .
I ndust r i al Br a n d i n g Li t er at ur e
The t e r mi nol ogy o f br andi ng can be pr obl emat i c, and
de c i di ng what cons t i t ut es an i ndust r i al pr oduc t can al so
be di f f i cul t . De f i ni ng i ndust r i al pr oduct s as pr oduct s sol d
t o bus i nes s es i mpl i es t hat Bi c TM pens and Wi n d o ws 95 TM
are i ndust r i al br ands. Be c a us e t hey are cl ear l y c o n s u me r
br ands as wel l , t hi s pi ct ur e is muddl e d. I ndus t r i al pr od-
uct s are de f i ne d her e as products used in manufacturing
that are not marketed to the general consuming public.
I ndust r i al pr oduc t s can be pr oces s i nput s, def i ned as
pr oduc t s c o n s u me d i n t he ma nuf a c t ur i ng pr oc e s s ( such
as i ndust r i al fi l t ers and abr asi ves) ; or pr oduc t i nput s,
pr oduct s r e ma i ni ng as i ngr edi ent s of t he f i nal pr oduc t
( such as bear i ngs and coat i ngs) . Bot h goods and ser vi ces
are c ove r e d by t he def i ni t i on, as are capi t al g o o d s and
c o n s u ma b l e i t ems.
Rel at i vel y f ew at t empt s have been ma d e t o anal yze or
expl ai n br andi ng i n i ndust r i al mar ket s . A Business Mar-
keting [10] edi t or i al not e d wi t h di s ma y t hat a Yo u n g and
Ru b i c a m mo d e l t hat char t s br and s t r engt h and val ue f or
6000 br ands in 19 count r i es, vi r t ual l y i gnor es br ands i n
t he i ndust r i al mar ket pl ace. Ot her s [11] de s c r i be d t he i n-
dust r i al br andi ng l i t er at ur e as "spar se and unf oc us e d. "
Fe w art i cl es or t ext s di s cus s i ndust r i al pr oduct s and
br andi ng i n t he s ame s ent ence, mu c h l ess quant i f y t he
benef i t s f r om t he sel l er or buye r per s pect i ve. A f ew ex-
cept i ons are s u mma r i z e d bel ow.
Saunder s and Wat t [12] anal yzed t he us e of br and
names f or ma n - ma d e fi bers, des cr i bed as essent i al l y
i dent i cal i ndust r i al pr oduct s . The y cr i t i ci zed t he br and
na me s as bei ng s o me wh a t c onf us i ng and i nef f ect i ve.
Howe ve r , t hey e x a mi n e d h o w hous e wi ve s pe r c e i ve d t he
br ands, r at her t han h o w weaver s and ot her i ndust r i al buy-
ers pe r c e i ve d t hem. Si ncl ai r and Sewar d [13] e x a mi n e d
t he br andi ng o f r econs t i t ut ed st r uct ur al wo o d panel s.
The y c o n c l u d e d t hat pr oducer s gener al l y pe r c e i ve d t hei r
br and st r at egi es t o be mor e ef f ect i ve t han t hey wer e. De-
spi t e wi de s pr e a d br andi ng, ret ai l ers i dent i f i ed pr i ce and
avai l abi l i t y as t he t wo mo s t i mpor t a nt pur chas e fact ors.
Th e f ew pr oducer s wi t h ef f ect i ve br andi ng wer e t hose
wi t h t he pr oduct s of t he hi ghes t pe r c e i ve d pr oduc t qual -
ity. Shi pl ey and Howa r d [14] f ound t hat UK i ndust r i al
c ompa ni e s us e br and na me s wi del y, and per cei ve t he m t o
be i mpor t ant . Howe ve r , t he s t udy pr ovi de d no e vi de nc e
of t he ef f ect i venes s o f t he br andi ng ef f or t s. Fi rt h [15] an-
al yzed t he pr i ci ng of a c c ount i ng ser vi ces in Ne w
Zeal and, bef or e and af t er t he l aw was c ha nge d t o pe r mi t
t he us e o f t he na me s o f t he bi g- na me a c c ount i ng f i r ms.
He f ound a ri se of about 4% i n pr i ces at t r i but abl e t o t he
n a me change. Gor don et al. [16] s ur veyed US el ect r i cal
cont r act or s c onc e r ni ng pur chas es of ci r cui t - br eaker s, and
c onc l ude d t hat br and equi t y is "al i ve and wel l " i n t he
sect or. Howe ve r , t hei r empi r i cal r esul t s s howe d t hat l oy-
al t y t o di st r i but or s is as i mpor t a nt as br and l oyal t y. The y
al so d e t e r mi n e d t hat br and l oyal t y is s y n o n y mo u s wi t h
f i r m l oyal t y, at l east i n t hi s pr oduc t s ubcat egor y.
C o n s u me r Br a n d i n g Li t er at ur e
Co n s u me r br a ndi ng pr ovi des a l ogi cal st ar t i ng poi nt
f or e xa mi ni ng addi t i onal ways t o anal yze i ndust r i al
br andi ng. The r i chness, s ophi s t i cat i on, and pr act i cal i t y o f
c o n s u me r br andi ng r esear ch of f er s gr eat chal l enges and
oppor t uni t i es f or i ndust r i al br andi ng r esear cher s [17].
Cons i de r a bl e r esear ch has been unde r t a ke n t o expl ai n
4 3 5
Res earch in many ar e as provi des i ns i ght s
i nto the rol e of i ndus t ri al brandi ng.
and predict consumer brand preference [18, 19], as well
as the dynami cs of consumer brand switching, with ef-
forts made to distinguish bet ween attitudinal and behav-
ioral components of loyalty [20]. Many of the studies
empl oy relatively sophisticated Markov or semi-Markov
approaches to predict brand choice [21]. Ehrenberg [22]
argues that changes in market share can override the un-
derlying switch probabilities, and that relative market
share is the simplest and best predictor of brand choice.
Other factors enter into the industrial situation, because
switching brands often implies switching suppliers as
well. Interesting comparisons can be made of the re-
search on consumer brand switching and the extensive
body of research into buyer-supplier relations [23]. An-
other relevant linkage is bet ween brand switching models
and segmentation analysis [24].
A number of models to explain or predict brand prefer-
ence decompose consumer attitudes into multiple at-
tributes. Modeling brand choice strictly as a function of
price and the ratings of basic product attributes fails in
many cases to explain differences in market share. A
number of studies have attempted to explictly identify
and measure both tangible and intangible product at-
tributes [25, 26].
Organizational Buying Behavior Literature
Research into the organizational buying process cov-
ers many aspects, and empl oys a wide range of tech-
niques. One very important area of inquiry is the decision
making unit (DMU) or buying center [27]. The size and
composition of the DMU vary according to product and
organizational characteristics. Research has demon-
strated how members of the DMU often have different
perspectives on the importance of various product at-
tributes such as price and technical sophistication. For
example, Wolter et al. [28] found significant differences
in how buyers and designers evaluated emot i ve or non-
functional product attributes, and called for greater rec-
ognition of the importance of emot i ve aspects of product
evaluation. Anot her key issue is the distinction bet ween
straight rebuy, modi fi ed rebuy, and new task situations
[29], distinctions whi ch reflect the extent of problem
solving behavior involved. The nature and types of buy-
ing decisions change over time. Past research appears to
indicate that branding may be more important the more
compl ex the buying decision. Anot her large area of re-
search analyzes the factors influencing industrial buying
decisions. These can be categorized as environmental,
organizational, interpersonal, and individual [27].
The organizational buying literature has identified and
measured non-product characteristics and intangible ele-
ments of the buying decision in a number of ways. Using
an experimental design, Levitt [30] found that the com-
pany' s overall reputation is generally more influential
than the sales presentation, but that the presentation effect is
more powerful the greater the riskiness of the decision.
However, technical personnel under high-risk situations
relied more heavily on company reputation than on the
presentation. Levitt' s [30] research opened the door for
more analyses of intangible aspects of industrial market-
ing, and of differences within the buying center.
Attribute measurement is an important aspect of the
research. Lehmann and O' Shaughnessy [31] used dis-
criminant analysis to examine, across product types, how
US and UK purchasing agents rated attributes in choos-
ing a supplier. The 17 attributes included basic brand fac-
tors such as technical specifications, tangible examples
of brand augmentation such as training, and more intan-
gible factors such as overall supplier reputation. Reputa-
tion lies at the heart of branding strategy, so their finding
that supplier reputation is one of the most highly rated at-
tributes is of special interest. Supplier reputation was
found to be more important to US purchasing agents than
to those in the UK. Other research [32] implies that
branding is more important for generic products, those
perceived by buyers to have little difference in product
characteristics, although not necessarily in other key buy-
436
Brandi ng i s more i mport ant in s ome
s e g me n t s t han ot hers.
ing factors. The importance of particular attributes and
the decision-making process has been found to vary be-
tween the consideration stage and the choice stage [33,
34]. One implication of this is that branding effects, too,
can be expected to vary between decision-making stages,
although this hypothesis has not been systematically
tested in industrial markets.
Shaw et al. [35] found that most buyers are more con-
cerned with psychological or intangible attributes of the
vendor than with physical attributes of the product, and
concluded that promotional activities should reflect this
concern. Similarly, a study of buyers across a range of
products [36] revealed a relative lack of sensitivity to
physical product attributes, and a relatively high sensitiv-
ity to seller image and other intangible product attributes.
And Smith and Andrews [37] noted the importance of cus-
tomer perception of the company' s "domain of expertise."
Buyer-Supplier Relations Literature
Research in this area incorporates a wide range of is-
sues, including partnerships, networking, strategic alliances,
relationship marketing, and transaction cost economics,
all of which recognize that current buyer-supplier rela-
tions defy simple explanation [38]. Demi ng [39] advo-
cated "long-term relationships of loyalty and trust," and
some evidence indicates that Western companies are mov-
ing away from their traditional adversarial relationships
with multiple suppliers. Research on industrial relation-
ships [23] can be viewed in a broader context of relation-
ship marketing [40]. Whatever the terminology, compa-
nies appear to be placing increasing importance on a wide
range of relationships. Many top companies are switching
from selling products to finding broader approaches to re-
ducing the cost structures of their suppliers and customers.
Industrial Segmentation Literature
Customers in industrial markets can be segmented in
many different ways, as others have discussed in detail
[41, 42]. Few segmentation analyses explicitly address
branding, but they do highlight branding issues, as the
following studies illustrate. Doyle and Saunders [43]
demonstrated how segmentation by product application
or end use can assist a company in developing its posi-
tioning strategy as it moves from basic commodities to
specialty products. In addition to several general measures
of market attractiveness, the model variables include six
product specific features, which can be seen as elements
of basic brands, and four company characteristics, which
indicate the degree of brand augmentation and potential.
The incorporation of branding can help in evaluating the
attractiveness of the alternate segments, and in making
decisions on positioning and the marketing mix. Segments
with a high degree of branding pose higher barriers to entry,
and demand different marketing skills than do segments
with low levels of branding present. Depending on the
situational dynamics, companies can consider a range of
strategies, from large investments in branding to de-
branding [44].
Segmentation on the basis of benefits [45] can be
strengthened by the branding framework. The benefits
sought include elements of basic brands, namely product
attributes and performance characteristics, and greater
degrees of branding, such as parts availability and sup-
port services. Similarly, others [46] distinguish between
segments defined by technical parameters and those de-
fined by buying factors. An understanding of the degree
of branding can help the company become more respon-
sive to customer expectations as the product market ma-
tures and competitive pressure increases.
Within the steel industry, for example, research has
identified three distinct segments, a price-sensitive seg-
ment, a service segment, and a commitment segment [47].
These cut across traditional segments of type of product
and type of consumi ng industry. This knowl edge can
help to explain the existence of a difference in profitability
between similar shipments of up to 20% in some com-
modity markets [48].
437
Drawing from two in-depth segmentation studies [42,
49], Table 1 illustrates how branding can be considered
in the context of industrial market segments. In this ex-
ample, customers are segment ed by price sensitivity, or
willingness to pay high prices. A basic brand may in-
volve relatively low costs, but customers rarely pay high
prices for a basic brand. Augmenting a basic brand increases
the costs of the offer, sometimes quite significantly, yet
does not guarantee high prices. Some customers do not
need higher levels of service or quality, and are thus un-
willing to pay more. Other customers will initially pay a
premium price for the recognizable services and guarantees
of an augment ed brand, but only up until these services
become widely copied and available. More difficult to
generate, and to copy, are the real, but intangible benefits
or values of a potential brand. These intangible benefits
can be costly to develop and maintain, but provide the
key to sustainable differentiation, and to the mai nt enance
of premi um prices.
C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E WO R K
These and other findings on the importance of tangible
and intangible attributes make a strong case for under-
standing more about branding. The literature review pro-
vides a small taste of a word soup of t ermi nol ogy used to
explain how customers choose between similar competing
products. Simply stated, intangible factors matter, even
in rational and systematic decision making. The difficulty
lies in organizing the interrelated, overlapping aspects to ex-
plain this phenomenon.
To understand successful brands, each attribute must
be analyzed from the perspective of expected value to the
customer. Brand value to the cust omer is a function of
the expected price, and the expected performance of tan-
gible and intangible attributes. Figure 2 presents these
conceptual underpinnings in a pinwheel of brand value to
the customer. In operation, a pi nwheel ' s individual vanes
revolve and blur together. Exami ni ng a pinwheel at rest
TABLE 1
Branding in the context of buying segments
Costs Price
Brand Low High Low High
Basic X X Rarely
Augmented X X X
Potential X X
may give a false impression of its purpose, but is necessary
to understand how it works. Similarly, it is difficult, but
important, to stop and systematically analyze the compo-
sition of brand value.
Brand value to the cust omer is comprised of four per-
formance components: product, distribution (ordering
and delivery) services, support services, and company.
Each performance component involves both tangible as-
pects, the dark vanes, and intangible aspects, the light
vanes. The idea of tangible and intangible attributes is
well established in the buyer behavior literature, as previ-
ously reviewed. Although tangibility can be thought of as
existing as a continuum, at the extremes, the differences
in the terms are clear. Tangible aspects of the offer are
physically present or can be seen, experienced, or mea-
sured in some way. Intangible aspects of the offer are
more "elusive or visionary" (Oxford Reference Dictio-
nary), are understood using cognitive processes, and also
often contain an emotional dimension. Generally, these
concepts have been applied by identifying some at-
tributes important to the choice decision, such as physical
quality as tangible, while identifying other attributes,
such as reputation, as intangible. The pinwheel of brand
value takes this concept one step further. The pinwheel
recognizes that, because evaluations of physical quality
also involve measuring quality that is at times quite elu-
sive or difficult to define (the "art" of engineering), then
even this very tangible performance component contains
an intangible aspect. Similarly, because the intangibility
of performance components, such as reputation, gener-
ates risk and uncertainty, buyers seek out tangible mea-
sures of reputation. As shown in Figure 2, tangible per-
formance aspects may have limited connection with each
other. The intangible aspects of performance strengthen
the connections and help the brand to provide meaningful
value to the customer.
Four performance component s comprise brand value
to the customer: product, distribution (ordering and de-
livery) services, support services, and company. The four
performance component s require further explanation.
Product performance lies at the value base, centering
on the core physical product. Tangible product perfor-
mance is quantifiable by measures such as number of de-
fects and usable product life. Issues of quality control
management have been thoroughly explored in the litera-
ture, yet performance measures also involve intangible
elements and subjectivity. Two products may have identical
failure rate histories, but a production manager may rate
one as more reliable or of higher quality than the other
4 3 8
Z

cd3
COMPANY
PRODUCT
C

CJ~
rJ~
FIGURE 2. Performance components of
the pinwheel of brand value to the
customer, with examples.
because of prior experience or due to ot her influences.
Garvin [50] explored the issue of percei ved quality, rec-
ognizing that decision makers oft en have incomplete or
conflicting information.
Distribution performance encompasses aspects of order-
ing, availability and delivery. Distribution is clearly central
to the performance of industrial distributors, yet distributors
also have to provide a quality product, support services,
and be a stable company. Industrial manufact urers are
also evaluated on their distribution performance, both by
distributors and by end users. Tangible measures such as
required lead times and the number of late deliveries are
routinely quantified, and the presence of online ordering
systems is also tangible. Del i very performance has often
been cited as a critical factor in the literature. More intan-
gible elements such as the ease of ordering, general reli-
ability, and the willingness and ability to respond in an
emer gency also add value.
Support services performance includes the provision
of services that augment the basic product. These include
technical support, training, and financial support services,
either as part of the standard offer, or at an additional
charge. A tangible checklist can identify whi ch services
are offered, the times and number of staff available, and
coverage of financial guarantees. For example, suppliers
are increasingly expect ed to provide technical support at
the research or design stage, during installation, and in
the operating environment. More intangible are notions
of service quality and the degree of rapport and under-
standing bet ween the service providers and the customer.
Suppliers routinely try to measure cust omer satisfaction
with the service support, as distinct from satisfaction with
the product itself. Distributors and manufacturers are both
offering an increasingly wide range of support services.
Company performance encompasses aspects of the
company as a whole, rather than any particular company
product, brand, or service, and is an appropriate consider-
ation both for manufact urers and for distributors. The un-
derlying assumption is that industrial purchasers prefer to
conduct business with companies that are relatively stable,
successful, reliable, and culturally compatible. Tangible
evaluations of a company include measures of financial
stability, such as reported profitability and market share.
Smith and Andrews [37] noted that the percei ved amount
439
The pi nwheel of brand val ue represent s a
dynami c customer vi ew of expect ed val ue.
of adver t i si ng i nve s t me nt be hi nd a pr oduc t can al so ser ve
as a pr oduc t and c o mp a n y qual i t y cue. Ma ny i nt angi bl e
el ement s are of cons i der abl e val ue, i ncl udi ng c o mp a n y
r eput at i on, qual i t y i mage, and count r y o f or i gi n. Gr oss
[51 ] des cr i bed this aspect as t he "r el at i ons hi p val ue, " and
i ncl uded i n it fact ors such as t echni cal pot ent i al , rel i abi l -
ity, pl easant ness, and t r ust wor t hi ness. The pr oces s es and
i mpor t a nc e of bui l di ng r el at i onshi ps on t he basi s of
shar ed exper t i se, and t he d e v e l o p me n t of st rat egi c part -
ner shi ps are areas o f cons i der abl e r esear ch, bot h f r om t he
per s pect i ves of t he pur chas er and of t he s uppl i er [52, 53].
The pi nwhe e l of br and val ue t o t he c u s t o me r c ompl e -
me nt s t he basi c, a ugme nt e d, pot ent i al mode l of br andi ng.
For basi c br ands, t he pr oduc t pe r f or ma nc e vane is t he
mos t pr omi ne nt , wi t h t he vanes of s uppor t servi ces, di s-
t r i but i on, and c o mp a n y pe r f or ma nc e r e ma i ni ng r el at i vel y
indistinct. For augment ed brands, distribution and support
ser vi ces pe r f or ma nc e gai n pr omi ne nc e . Pot ent i al br ands
can be des cr i bed wi t h a wel l - bal anced pi nwhe e l f eat ur i ng
all t he pe r f or ma nc e c ompone nt s . The pi nwhe e l of br and
val ue al so pr ovi des an i mpor t a nt cont r ast t o c onve nt i ona l
depi ct i ons of br ands as di st i nct l ayers of i ncr eas i ng i nt an-
gi bi l i t y. The l ayer ed depi ct i on o f br ands ma y under s t at e
t he r ol e i nt angi bi l i t y and subj ect i vi t y pl ay at even t he
physi cal pr oduc t core. The pi nwhe e l o f br and val ue ac-
knowl edges, for exampl e, t hat cust omer eval uat i on of a core
product attribute, such as t he t echnol ogy utilized, i nvol ves
i nt angi bl e and even ps yc hol ogi c a l aspect s. The di agr am
recogni zes t he synergy bet ween tangible and i nt angi bl e fac-
tors and t he overall dyna mi s m of the deci si on envi r onment .
METHODOLOGY
Thi s st udy is part of a l arger pr oj ect exami ni ng deci si on
ma ki ng and sour ces o f c u s t o me r val ue across a r ange of
industries. Appr oxi mat el y 15 i n-dept h i nt ervi ews wi t h man-
ufacturers, di st r i but or s, and pur chas er s of i ndust r i al con-
sumabl e product s expl ored in what ways pract i t i oner vi ews
mat ch or cont r ast wi t h c onve nt i ona l des cr i pt i ons of t he
de c i s i on- ma ki ng pr ocess. The i nt er vi ews s ought t o pr obe
t he s our ces of i ndust r i al br and val ue t o t he cus t omer .
Sample
The UK pr eci s i on bear i ngs ma r ke t me t t he over al l
s t udy' s sel ect i on criteria: a wel l es t abl i s hed sect or; pr od-
uct s gener al l y r egar ded as of cons i s t ent l y hi gh qual i t y
[54]; i nt er nat i onal l y r e c ogni z e d phys i cal pr oduc t stan-
dards; c us t ome r access t o mul t i pl e suppl i er s; hi gh in-
v o l v e me n t by mul t i nat i onal suppl i er s; and t he pur chas es
or pr oduct s per cei ved t o be r el at i vel y c ompl e x, wi t h
s ome e l e me nt s of r i sk i nvol ved. The i nt er vi ews f oc us e d
pr i mar i l y on deci s i on ma ki ng c onc e r ni ng pr eci s i on bear-
i ngs, especi al l y st andar d or cat al og bear i ngs.
The s ampl e f or t he expl or at or y i nt er vi ews was se-
l ect ed on a j u d g me n t basi s, and refl ect s t he i nt ent i on t o
avoi d k n o wn bi ases and t o ma ke t he st udy r epr es ent at i ve
of t he sect or ' s manuf act ur er s , di st r i but or s and cus t omer s .
The pr i mar y obj ect i ve was t o sol i ci t i nsi ght s i nt o t he de-
c i s i on- ma ki ng pr ocesses, st eps or st ages, and i nf l uences,
as vi e we d by ma na ge r s at di f f er ent par t s o f t he bear i ngs
s uppl y chai n. Secondar y i nf or ma t i on sour ces wer e
t apped t o i dent i f y t he t op t en manuf act ur er s of bear i ngs
in t he UK, all of whi c h are l arge, mul t i nat i onal c ompa -
nies. Two of t he l ar gest c ompa ni e s wer e sel ect ed. Two
ot her manuf act ur er s wer e chos en, pr i mar i l y on t he basi s
of geogr aphi c c onve ni e nc e t o t he r esear cher . Al l of t hese
c ompa ni e s agr eed t o cooper at e, and i nt er vi ews wi t h mar -
ket i ng ma na ge r s and e ngi ne e r i ng or t echni cal ma na ge r s
wer e conduct ed, s uppl e me nt e d i n s ome cases wi t h a
mai l ed quest i onnai r e. Si mi l ar l y, a list of bear i ngs di st ri b-
ut or s was c ompi l e d, wi t h t he t wo l ar gest di st r i but or s and
one s mal l er di st r i but or chos en and i nt er vi ewed.
Thr ee key bear i ng c u s t o me r s e gme nt s wer e i dent i f i ed,
namel y, aut omot i ve, hous ehol d appl i ances, and heavy ma-
chi nery. Leadi ng compani es i n each of t hese sect ors whi ch
pur c ha s e d l arge quant i t i es of bear i ngs, and whi ch wer e
rel at i vel y geogr aphi cal l y conveni ent wer e chosen. Agai n,
440
Deci si on maki ng i nvol ves eval uat i ons of
t angi bl e and i ntangi bl e el ement s.
purchasing personnel at each company selected agreed to
cooperate. The sampl e included respondent s i nvol ved in
purchases for new designs and existing designs; for orig-
inal product and repl acement or service needs; for utili-
zation in final products; and for production processes.
Interview Process and Analysis
Initial contact with the respondents to ask for cooperation
was generally made via telephone. Where telephone contact
proved difficult, a bri ef letter describing the proj ect was
sent, and subsequent l y fol l owed up. In most cases, a
copy of the t ypes of questions to be asked in the inter-
vi ews was mailed or faxed to the the respondent prior to
the interview. Most of the interviews were conduct ed
face-t o-face at the respondent s' place of work. A few
were conduct ed by telephone. The average interview
lasted bet ween 60 and 90 minutes. All of the interviews
were conduct ed by one of the authors, fol l owi ng a semi-
structured interview format.
Similar to the met hodol ogy used by Kohli and Jawor-
ski [55] and others, the concept ual framework was not
shared in any way with the interviewees, nor was the
word "branding" used in any of the questions. Open
ended and cl osed ended questions were used. Inter-
viewees were also asked to draw a map or diagram to depict
the process, including any important steps or stages, and
to draw the various influences on the process. A series of
probing questions were asked about the criteria customers
used in deciding between competing product offers. Inter-
vi ewees then revi ewed a preliminary list of choi ce crite-
ria, and modi fi ed the list to more accurately reflect their
preferred wording, etc. They ranked the criteria in terms
of importance, and applied scaled and percentage weights
to the rankings.
Various techniques were used to analyze the inter-
views. Responses to the open ended questions on the de-
cision process were exami ned to identify patterns in
word usage, and to see i f and how words such as brand,
quality, relationship, and risk were used. Efforts were
made to capture the language of the practioners. Cl osed
ended and scaled questions were summarized using de-
scriptive statistics, but were not further analyzed due to
the small sample, and the apparent differences in inter-
pretation of the questions and terms by some respondents.
Diagrams and pictoral representations by the respondents
were not formally analyzed, but provi ded insights to the
researchers on the processes involved.
FI NDI NGS
Deci si on Pr ocess
Characterization of the decision process generally un-
derscored the importance of technical product evaluation,
with the product and decision generally percei ved to be
of moderat e to high complexity. Cust omers without ex-
tensive in-house technical expertise tended to seek out
distributors or manufacturers who were generous with
technical advice. More sophisticated customers also viewed
technical input from the manufacturers as an important
part of the process. These relationships were cited in re-
sponse to a general question about the nature of the deci-
sion. Int ervi ewees were asked to explain whet her the de-
cision-making process on this particular industrial
product was primarily a decision on supplier, or a deci-
sion on product. Practical guides to purchasing [56, 57]
often characterize the industrial purchasing process as
one of supplier sourcing, while consumer decision mak-
ing is primarily presented as one of product evaluation.
Responses varied, but more senior managers were more
likely to emphasi ze supplier selection, while j uni or man-
agers emphasi zed product selection.
When asked to draw a map or diagram of the process,
the resulting drawings were relatively similar across
companies and applications. Supplier and product screen-
ing were depicted as occurring simultaneously or in par-
allel, until the final choi ce stage, where the decision was
usually characterized as one of choi ce of supplier. The
processes did vary in the degree of regimentation or for-
mality of the process, although this was not al ways obvi-
ous from the diagrams themselves.
441
The power of i ndustri al brands remai ns
l argel y unexpl ai ned and unt apped.
I nf l ue nc e s
The issue of risk as an influence on the process was
explored. The consequences of product risk in terms of
bearing failure ranged widely. In many aut omot i ve and
heavy machinery applications, bearing failure is a safety
issue, as well as a recall or warranty issue. In domestic
appliance applications, the risk is that malfunction will
result in a product recall, but more importantly in the per-
manent loss of a customer, with extensive negative word-
of-mout h costs. For production processes, risk lies in
manufacturing downt i me, with its very measurable costs.
Suppl y risk was also a critical factor, because many com-
panies in recent years have suffered from shortages and
del ayed shipments of bearings. Price risk was also impor-
tant, as bearings prices significantly vary across the
globe, complicating sourcing and production decisions.
Throughout the discussions, the interviewees often
highlighted areas of the process that involved subjective
evaluations and elements. Nearly all mentioned that the
final decision somet i mes "si mpl y comes down to per-
sonal preference." This led to questions seeking to identify
the component s of personal preference, and their relative
influence. Some of the component s were admittedly re-
flective of "non-professional attitudes," such as favoritism,
"politics" and the reliance on outdated information. Yet,
in general, the interviewees generally characterized per-
sonal preference as a key aspect of professional j udg-
ment. "No one can know everything," noted one manager.
"It makes sense to want to feel comfortable about working
with a company and its representatives. "
Cr i t er i a a n d So u r c e s of Va l ue
Price was al ways mentioned early in the conversa-
tions, both by the buyers and the sellers. Several suppliers
warned that buyers woul d probabl y understate the impor-
tance of price, and instead emphasi ze other criteria.
However, buyers did generally rate price as the most im-
portant criteria, with some buyers estimating that price
accounts for 70% of the final decision. Price was less im-
portant at the early screening stage, and on several occa-
sions buyers stated that it is "unprofessional" to put t o o
much weight on price alone. Price was considered more
important in replacement or aftermarkets than to original
equi pment manufacturers. Pricing terms and conditions
were quite standardized, but factored in some decisions.
Large buyers often expect ed suppliers to adopt an "open
book" pol i cy in which devel opment costs and expect ed
margins were scrutinized. One purchasing manager ad-
mitted that price negotiation is risky. "We have been
known to push our first choice too far and cause the supplier
to withdraw itself from consideration. Then we have to set-
tle for our second choice supplier at an even worse price."
For non-price issues, Table 2 provides an exampl e of
how the concepts that came out of the interviews relate to
the conceptual model.
Product quality was defined using a combi nat i on of
TABLE 2
Summary of Customer Perceived Sources of Value
Product Distribution Support Company
Tangible Tangible Tangible Tangible
Precision Stated availability Design advice Financial stability
Load bearing Stated lead times Product testing Years of experience
Dimensions EDI and J1T Site support Global coverage
Intangible Intangible Intangible
Innovation Ease of ordering Intangible World class
Fit for purpose Reliable delivery Understands our needs/business Technical leadership
Over-engineered Emergency response Troubleshooting Global perspective
4 4 2
technical product specifications, underlying design features,
reliability, and innovation. Purchasers generally sub-
j ect ed products to a series of technical testing bot h before
and after initial purchases, in accordance with formal
quality control procedures. Test results were cited as being
of great importance to the decision-making process, but
"are pl aced into a broader cont ext , " in the words of one
technical manager. Anot her manager noted, "so many
other factors can affect even the best run test, that we
don' t take the test results literally," as factors such as op-
erator error and environmental conditions could unfairly
affect the results. Assessment s of product quality involve
"a measure of faith," said one manager. Specific design
and product features were generally most critical in the
early stages of the process, when the final specifications
were being formalized by technical personnel. Yet, as
one marketing manager noted, "we also need to sell these
features to the purchasing agents as a rationale for choos-
ing us, and to j ust i fy our [higher] price. Our unique fea-
tures are a symbol of our quality. "
Overall, product quality was seen as the foundation for
overall product and company reputation. When asked
what is the key to a bearings manufacturer reputation, the
responses were remarkabl y similar to the comment s of
one customer: "The key to reputation is no quality issues
of any kind ever. " Added another, "For some t ypes of
purchases we tolerate a quality slip up now and then, but
not with bearings. "
Distribution services were cited as key decision criteria.
Product availability and delivery reliability were high-
lighted by participants, which is understandable in this
market which has been characterized by significant product
shortages in recent years. Standard lead times were im-
portant, but the ability to respond qui ckl y to emergency
requests was seen as more critical. Also, the willingness
of the manufacturer to control or limit the buyer' s inventory
carrying requirements was a factor. Just-in-time del i very
was a plus (especially if it was not accompani ed by re-
quirements for "just in time payment s, " one j oked). Pur-
chasers frequently descri bed the kinds of record keeping
activities t hey undert ook to track del i very performance,
although some admitted that they hoped to i mprove in
this area. "There is somet i mes a halo effect, " said one.
"Somet i mes we come to realize that a favored supplier
hasn' t been as perfect as we thought. "
Ease of ordering was another factor, with EDI and re-
lated facilities commonpl ace. Di fferences in the clarity
and comprehensi veness of product catalogs were noted.
Others cited the day-t o-day "ease of ordering" at the in-
terpersonal level, which in some instances came down to
efficient telephone answering and compet ent clerical as-
sistance. Ease of ordering in emergenci es was also men-
tioned, with words such as trust and t eamwor k used. "I
like to know that i f I make a mistake and forget to place
an order, the supplier will be willing to do me a favor and keep
me out of trouble," summed up one purchasing manager,
"even though sometimes I feel I end up repaying the favor
many times over. " Senior managers were said to be more
likely to remember the times when the supplier failed to
perform, and be less willing to credit past good behavior.
A global supply net work was important to compani es
who operated in several international markets, but this
depended on their particular sourcing policies. In con-
strast, some small UK- based compani es who rely on
bearings distributors do not percei ve a strong need for
their distributor to have even a national network.
A wi de range of support services were consistently
mentioned. The ability to provi de technical support and
troubleshooting for products in the field was important
on both an on-going and emergency basis. The availabil-
ity of hotlines, on-call services, and regular site visits
were cited. Training of technical staff upon request was
also expect ed and commonl y provided. Increasingly, the
technical support is expected earlier in the decision process,
with suppliers actively participating in design brainstorm-
ing sessions. A medi um sized manufacturer said its will-
ingness to help with design was a way of "getting a foot
in the door" and saw technical support as a strategic asset.
"We make it a point to emphasi ze that our support comes
without strings attached, unlike some of our competitors."
Although technical support is generally provi ded free
of charge, it often comes with the expectation of a future
order. As one supplier said, "We expect to be paid for the
advice one way or another." In some instances, i f the
market leader has a reputation for technical leadership, it
"can afford to pl ay hard to get." Said one leading com-
pany, "we somet i mes let the cust omer struggle with an-
other manufacturer before offering to step in. We don' t
want to throw our expertise away and be taken for
granted." The technical advi ce was pl aced in the context
of general rapport and understanding of the cust omer re-
quirements. Said one manufacturer, "our cust omers stay
with us because we understand the nuances of their busi-
ness." A buyer said, "we try to get the supplier to feel
part of our team."
The company itself was described as having various influ-
ences on the decision. As stated earlier, after systematic
evaluation and negotiation of the price, product, delivery
443
and availability, and support services, the differences be-
tween competing offers may be quite slight and subtle. The
process then becomes one of price negotiation and the
choice of company. To some buyers, the decision comes
squarely down to price. Others "go out of their way" to
choose a particular supplier. A marketing manager of a lead-
ing manufacturer explained this as the customers "buying
[our] message." The "message" was described as made up
of technical experience, a history of innovation, a stable
future supply, and worl dwi de coverage. More intangible
associations with a market leader included "less risk" and
"no need to explain or justify the choice." Several respon-
dents went so far as to claim that "some buyers feel they
gain prestige or status" by buying from a market leader, and
that buyers "feel good to be a [market leader] buyer, proud
to wear [our] hat."
Some disagreement emerged over which type of buy-
ers are more influenced by the "big names" in the indus-
try. To a medi um sized manufacturer, "the big names
give confi dence to smaller replacement buyers, but big
compani es aren' t influenced by that as much. " A market
leader had a different view: "to the [big] compani es it
matters. We are a company they can feel comfort abl e
working with. They know they can count on us when
something goes wrong. " A supplier' s large size and mar-
ket share does appear to inspire confidence in buyers, but
can be a negative factor as well. Some thought medi um
sized compani es were "more interested in the concerns of
smaller cust omers, " a sentiment not disputed by several
market leaders. Several large purchasers of bearings em-
phasized the importance of buying from a "global" com-
pany, with the ability to support their operations in the
United States, Europe, and the Far East. "Ideally, our
suppliers think globally, and understand why movi ng to a
global design is important to us." Anot her cust omer
noted that in the early screening phase it was important
for the supplier to "l ook world class, and be able to make
our price requirements. "
The importance of devel opi ng a relationship with the
company, was often mentioned. The relationships were
described in relatively formal terms. Multiple (5 to 7)
year contracts were common, with contracts for a partic-
ular part number covering the life of the production run,
plus a service repl acement period. These contracts had
multiple "out clauses" for the customer, "but we have
never broken one, " said one buyer. Even so, the perva-
sive sentiment seemed to be the "door is open for the
next generation [of product]. The current supplier may
think it has the edge, but that is not al ways the case. " In
contrast to the United States, most bearings in the UK are
sold directly to users. In the UK, distributors in the UK
are becomi ng increasingly important, but play a much
smaller role than in the United States.
M A N A G E R I A L A N D R E S E A R C H I MP L I C A T I ON S
These interviews, summarized in Table 1, can be used
to illustrate the conceptual framework, but cannot be said
to prove or confirm it, especially given the exploratory
nature of the research. The four sources of performance
of product, distribution services, support services, and
company were repeatedly mentioned in the field inter-
views, although these were somet i mes described in unex-
pected ways. The interviews helped to clarify the specific
performance concerns of each particular market and em-
phasized the role of the tangible and intangible elements.
As one purchasing manager explained, "We are very
aware of the subjectivity involved. What we try to do is
devel op relatively obj ect i ve measurement s for each of
the subjective elements. " That j udgment in many ways
captures the spirit of the pinwheel of brand value and
drives ongoing efforts to quantitatively measure influ-
ences on the decision-making process. In addition to the
summary in Table 2, the following suggestions and im-
plications for managers and researchers stem from the lit-
erature revi ew and the field interviews.
RECOGNIZE THAT INTANGIBLE FACTORS MATTER,
EVEN IN RATIONAL AND SYSTEMATIC DECISION MAK-
ING. This is perhaps the most central point arising from
the literature and the interviews. Price and the hard, tan-
gible attributes of the physical product do not fully
explain purchase decisions and the resulting market
share. It may be true that "the intangible features of the
brand play a less potent role in industrial purchase deci-
sions than in the consumer sector" ([58], p. 60), but this
has not been confi rmed by research. Proven methodolo-
gies can be adapted to identify and measure how impor-
tant the intangible attributes of industrial brands are to
the choi ce decision.
NOTICE THE NAMING STRATEGIES. There is more to a
brand than its name, but naming strategies are a good
place to start an analysis. Insights can be gained by
examining the use of the manufacturer name in company
literature and advertising for products in a particular mar-
ket sector. A range of options is available for each prod-
uct. The products may use the company name with
simple product identification numbers or letters, or may
use names that combi ne the company and the product
444
brand name, or may use product brand names, with fre-
quent references to the company name, or may use the
product brand names, with little or no ment i on of the
company name, or some combi nat i on of these strategies.
Product winners and losers di ffer in many ways. Type of
name utilized may be one of the differences.
RELATE THE PRESENCE AND DEGREE OF BRANDI NG TO
PRODUCT FI NANCI AL PERFORMANCE. T h e analysis of
names can be used as a starting point for an analysis of
the levels of branding (basic, augment ed, or potential)
present in the sector. This analysis can be devel oped into
a profile of branding patterns. The patterns can be com-
pared to differences in product financial performance.
For example, two compet i ng specialty chemi cal s may
meet the same physical specification (basic brands), and
offer a similar package of technical support and guaran-
tees (augment ed brands), but have very different market
shares. One company' s communi cat i ons emphasize and
detail these services, while the communi cat i ons of the
other company, the market leader, focus on corporate
leadership themes. What a manufact urer says in an ad
campai gn does not necessarily change cust omer percep-
tion of the important di fferences in the offers. Talking
about leadership does not create a potential brand in the
cust omer' s eyes, but it does indicate a compet i t or' s view
of itself in the marketplace, and may indeed reflect cus-
t omer views.
Questions such as "In whi ch segment s do basic brands
perform well?", and "Does the market leader offer a product
with a hi gher degree of branding than its competitors?"
should be raised. These questions can help managers to
modi fy their branding strategies to suit particular industry
segments.
CONSI DER ALTERNATI VE WAYS TO ADD VALUE TO THE
PRODUCT. The most direct met hod of adding value is to
enhance the physical product, but this basic branding
approach has limitations. Products can become over-
engineered, resulting in customers turning to those with a
better sense of fit for purpose [5]. In other cases, when
competitors are quick to copy enhancement s, customers
may simply expect continual physical product improve-
ment, and look further for value.
Augment i ng the brand can take several forms. Distri-
bution performance, in terms of required lead times, and
on-time delivery, can be a critical factor, as is the avail-
ability and performance of a range of support services.
The strength of a potential brand stems from equally
valuable, but more intangible sources. Improvement s in
the overall quality of the buyer-seller relationship, com-
munications, and i mage are more difficult to achieve, but
may have more lasting value. One marketing manager,
who regularly measures cust omer satisfaction, com-
mented, "i f our performance is seen as weakeni ng by our
customers, we exami ne it to det ermi ne i f it is a functional
performance issue, or i f it is a weakness in the communi -
cations message getting through. "
C O N C L U S I O N
This article has attempted to challenge academi cs and
managers to place industrial branding into a broader con-
text. Consumer branding strategies are not directly trans-
ferable to industrial markets. They need to take into account
the insights gained from research in organizational buying,
buyer-supplier relationships, and industrial segmenta-
tion. The pi nwheel of brand value to the cust omer pro-
vides a way of organizing the very compl ex origins of
added value, with tangible and intangible aspects rein-
forcing the four basic component s of performance.
The conceptual framework and the interviews perhaps
raise more questions than t hey answer. Further research
is needed to shed light on the way cust omers in particular
industrial markets actually value different tangible and
intangible attributes, and how various product and market
characteristics affect these valuations. The exploratory
field interviews summari zed in this article provide a
starting point for broader, sector specific and cross-sector
qualitative and empirical research, and highlight the need
to examine buyer attitudes within a segmentation analysis.
Questions on how best to quantitatively measure branding
phenomena remain to be answered. Practical industrial
brand management issues also merit further attention.
For example, guidelines on nami ng products obtained
through acquisitions and brand extensions, and the coor-
dination of multinational communi cat i ons need further
development. The potential power of industrial brands is
great, but remains largely unexpl ai ned and untapped.
R E F E R E N C E S
1. Doyle, Peter, Marketing Management & Strategy. Prentice Hall, Hemel
Hempstead, UK, 1994.
2. Porter, Michael E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining
Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York, 1985.
3. Day, George S., and Wensley, Robin, Assessing Advantage: A Framework for
Diagnosing Competitive Superiority. Journal of Marketing 52, 1-20 (1988).
4. Aaker, David A., Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, New York, 1991.
5. Hague, Paul, and Jackson, Peter, The Power of Industrial Brands.
McGraw-Hill, London, 1994.
4 4 5
6. Levitt, Theodore, Marketing Success Through Di fferent i at i on--of Any-
thing. Harvard Business Review 58, 83-91 (1980).
7. Farquhar, Peter H., Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research 1, 24-33
(1989).
8. de Chernatony, Leslie, and McDonald, Malcolm. Creating Powerful
Brands. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1992.
9. Louviere, Jordan J., Conjoint Analysis, in Advanced Methods of Marketing
Research, Richard P. Bagozzi, ed., Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. 1994.
10. Brands Need More Attention. Business Marketing 79, 8 (1994).
11. Egan, Colin, Shipley, David, and Howard, Paul, The Importance of Brand
Names in Industrial Markets, in Perspectives on Marketing Management,
Vol. 2, Michael J. Baker, ed., Wiley, Chichester. UK, 1992.
12. Saunders, John, and Watt, F. A. W., Do Brand Names Differentiate Identical
Industrial Products? Industrial Marketing Management 8, 114-123 (1979).
13. Sinclair, Steven A., and Seward, Kevin E., Branding a Commodity Product.
Industrial Marketing Management 17(1), 23-33 (1988).
14. Shipley, David, and Howard, Paul, Brand-Naming Industrial Products.
Industrial Marketing Management 22(1), 59-66 (1993).
15. Firth, Michael, Price Setting and the Value of a Strong Brand Name. biter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing 10(4), 381-386 (1993).
16. Gordon, Geoffrey L., Calantone, Roger J., and di Benedetto. C. Anthony,
Brand Equity in the Business-to-Business Sector: An Exploratory Study.
Journal of Product and Brand Management 2(3), 4- 16 (1993).
17. Kapferer, Jean-Noel, Strategie Brand Management. Kogan Page, London,
1992.
18. Bass, Frank M., and Wilkie, William L., A Comparative Analysis of Atti-
tudinal Predictions of Brand Preference. Journal of Marketing Research
10, 262-269 (1973).
19. Shocker, Allan D., Srivastava, Rajendra K., and Ruekert, Robert W., Chal-
lenges and Opportunities Facing Brand Management. Journal ~fMarket-
ing Research 31, 149-158 (1994).
20. Jacoby, Jacob, and Kyner, David B., Brand Loyalty Vs. Repeat Purchasing
Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 10, 1-9 (1973).
21. Columbo, Richard A., and Morrison, Donald G., A Brand Switching
Model With Implications for Marketing Strategies. Marketing Scienee 8,
89-99 (1989).
22. Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Repeat Buying: Facts, Theory and Applications.
Oxford University Press, New York, 1988.
23. Ford, David, The Development of Buyer-Supplier Relations in Industrial
Markets. European Journal of Marketing 14(5/6), 339-353 (1980).
24. Grover, Rajiv, and V. Srinivasan, V., An Approach for Tracking Within-
Segment Shifts in Market Shares. Journal ~fMarketing Research 26, 230-
236 (1989).
25. Srinivasan, V., Network Models for Estimating Brand-Specific Effects in
Multi-Attribute Models. Management Science 25, 11-21 (1979).
26. Park, Chan Su, and Srinivasan, V., A Survey-Based Method for Measur-
ing and Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendability. Journal of
Marketing Research 31, 271- 288 (1994).
27. Webster, Frederick E.. Jr. and Wind. Yoram, Organizational Buying
Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clift~, NJ, 1972.
28. Wolter. James F.. Bacon, Frank R.. Duhan, Dale F., and Wilson, R. Dale,
How Designers and Buyers Evaluate Products. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement 18, 81-89 (1989).
29. Robinson, P. J., Faris, C. W.. and Wind, Y., hldustrial Buying Behavior
and Creative Marketing. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, 1967.
30. Levitt, Theodore, Industrial Purehasing Behavior." A Study of Communi-
cation Effects. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Admin-
istration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 1965.
31. Lehmann, Donald R., and O' Shaughnessy, John, Difference in Attribute
Importance for Different Industrial Products. Journal of Marketing 38,
3 6 4 2 (1974).
32. Parket, I. Robert, The Effect of Product Perception on Industrial Buyer
Behavior. Industrial Marketing Management 1, 339-345 (1972).
33. Howard, J. A., and Sheth, J. N., The Theory of Buyer Behavior. Wiley,
New York, 1969.
34. Heide, J. B., and Weiss, A. M., Vendor Consideration and Switching
Behavior for Buyers in High-Technology Markets. Journal of Marketing
59, 3 0 4 3 (1995).
35. Shaw. Jim, Giglierano, Joe, and Kallis, Jeff, Marketing Complex Techni-
cal Products: The Importance of Intangible Attributes. Industrial Market-
ing Management 18(1), 45-53 (1989).
36. Kauffman, Ralph G., Influences on Industrial Buyers' Choice of Products:
Effects of Product Application, Product Type, and Buying Environment.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30, 29-
38 (1994).
37. Smith, Daniel C., and Andrews, Jonlee, Rethinking the Effect of Perceived
Fit on Customers' Evaluations of New Products. Journal of the Academy
~?f'Marketing Science 23(1), 4- 14 (1995).
38. Mudambi, Ram, and Mudamhi, Susan M., From Transaction Cost Eco-
nomics to Relationship Marketing: A Model of Buyer-Supplier Relations.
hzternational Business Review 4(4), 419~-33 (1995).
39. Deming, W. Edwards, Out of Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineer-
ing Study, Cambridge. MA, 1988.
40. Morgan, R. M., and Hunt, S. D., The Commitment-Trust Theory of Rela-
tionship Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58, 20-38 (1994).
41. Plank, Richard E., A Critical Review of Industrial Market Segmentation.
Industrial Marketing Management 14, 79-91 (1985).
42. Rangan, V. Kasturi, Moriarty, Rowland T., and Swartz, Gordon S., Seg-
menting Customers in Mature Industrial Markets. Journal ~f Marketing
56, 72-82 (1992).
43. Doyle, Peter, and Saunders, John, Market Segmentation and Positioning in
Specialized Industrial Markets. Journal of Marketing 49, 24-32 (1985).
44. Parasuraman, A., Debranding: A Product Strategy With Profit Potential.
Journal of Business Strategy 4(1), 82-87 (1983).
45. de Kluyver, Coruelis A., and Whitlark, David B., Benefit Segmentation for
Industrial Products. Industrial Marketing Management 15, 273-286 (1986).
46. Brown, Herbert E., Shivashankar, Ramesh, and Brucker, Roger W.,
Requirements Driven Market Segmentation. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement 18, 105-112 (1989).
47. Schorsch. L. L., You Can Market Steel. The MeKinsey Quartet4y l , I 11-
120 (1994).
48. Ahlberg, J., Hoover, W. E., Jr., deMora, H., and Naucler, T., Pricing Com-
modities: What You See Is Not What You Get. The McKinsey Quarterly 3,
67 77 (1995).
49. Shapiro, Benson P., Rangan, V. Kasturi, Moriarty, Rowland T., and Ross,
Elliot B., Manage Customers For Profits (Not Just Sales). Harvard Busi-
tress Review 65, 101-108 (1987).
50. Garvin, D., Competing on Eight Dimensions of Quality. Harvard Business
Review 65, 101-109 (1987).
51. Gross, Irwin, The Future ofCorpcom. ISBM Report I 1-1994, ISBM. The
Pennsylvania State University, 1994.
52. Asmus, David, and Griffen, John, Harnessing the Power of Your Suppli-
ers. The McKinsey Quarterly 3, 63-78 (1993).
53. Lamming, Richard, Beyond Partnership: Strategies f or Innovation and
Supply. Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1993.
54. Avery, Susan, How 20 Commodities Rate. Purchasing 116(1), 106-109
( 1994 ).
55. Kohli, Ajay K., and Jaworski, Bernard J., Market Orientation: The Con-
struct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of
Marketing 54, 1-18 (1990).
56. Lysons, C. K.. Purchasing. M +E Handbook Series, Pitman, London, 1993.
57. Syson, Russell, Improving Purchase Performance. Pitman, London, 1992.
58. Murphy, John M., Brand Strategy. Director Books, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
446