Vargo and Lusch (2004) – change from goods to services marketing – SDL (from

tangible to intangible goods); updating previous model to follow the change;

operand resources (that we act on) vs. operant resources (that are employed to
act on operand resources; produce effect); co-creation
Morgan and Hunt (1994) – companies start to work together; qualities required
for relationships to work; decision making uncertainty; different actors in the
ecosystems
Cannon and Perreault (1993) – buyer – seller relationship; how information
exchange helps us; ecosystems
Webster and Wind (1972) – assumes that there is difference between B2B and
B2C (???); decision making, how do organisations buy; decision making unit; PDL
perspective

From week 1 to 2: how relationship marketing impacts buying behaviour

Drumwright (1996) – ethics, impact of social responsibility

Sheth (1996) – past and the future of buying behaviour; change from domestic to
global and from transactional to relationship marketing  two dimensional
shift;
Wilson (2000) – similarities between consumer and industrial buying behaviour;
difference is not as visible as we thought previously – its overstated; we cannot
always assume that decisions will be successful (?)

From week 2 to 3: To understand how to sell (industrial marketing), you have to

understand buying behaviour

Wind (2006) – blurring lines between B2B and B2C marketing, they are
becoming similar, they should not longer be separated; there is need for new
model of organisational buying behaviour; examples of ebay, costco, iTunes,
Coviello and Brodie (2001) – similarities between B2C and B2B marketing;
implication that B2B practitioners may learn from B2C practitioners; is the basis
for Wind (2006);
Sarin (2012) – markets in different countries differ (on the basis of India), so
what is true for one of them, may not necessarily be true for the other one;
change through time – globalisation etc.; you have to know your customers, what
they want etc.
Baack et al. (2015) – study that creative marketing is more persuasive than non-
creative one; using creative method of marketing from B2C in B2B marketing;
uses consumer marketing theory

From week 3 to 4: Successful buyer-seller relationship is more about

cooperation (establishing relationship) than just sell-buy-goodbye; Key Account
Management (Sellers – KAM; buyers – DMU)

Wengler, Ehret and Saab (2006) – value creation by targeting the most important
customers; divergent (new) form of management and relationship marketing–
Key Account Management; KAM is meant to solve organisational problems with
industrial marketing; integration of customers into the development process
Abratt and Kelly (2002) – buyer – seller relationship – success factors of
implementing Key Account Management; co-creation; seller & buyer
perspectives
Piercy and Lane (2006) – limitations of KAM; buyers gaining too much power
and suppliers becoming highly depending on them; confusing key accounts with
major customers
Guesalaga and Johnston (2010) – compare and contrast academic articles with
views of practitioners; sure on coordination, be careful on competition (??)

Is KAM a solution to all marketing problems? (marketing problems question,

not KAM question)
1. What are marketing problems? – what we know about buying (decision
making unit), and is there a problem with what we know (problems with
DMU)? - a lot of expertise to make decision about complicated things and
filtering non task criteria, Drumwright highlights idea that non task
criteria in the past may be task criteria now; DMU remains robust even
though we included task criteria; Sheth on globalisation (is DMU still
working if its about the globe not only the village); look at marketing –
4P’s;
2. Introduction of crisis – service dominant logic – before we haven’t look at
SDL; society demand relationships (Vargo and Lush; Sheth – companies
requiring relationship; someone – need of information exchange between
firms); kind of coordination crisis, bc we have to do things that we didn’t
have to before;
3. Solution to the problem – KAM; coordination of internal functions
(message from the market being send and coordinated throught out)
Abram and Kelly (going into details)

Should organisational buying and selling practices be different within a

services dominant (rather than product dominant) logic?
1. Organisational buying and selling practices within a product dominant
logic – organisational buying is different from organisational selling 
SEPARATE THIS MORE CLEARLY, BUYING AND SELLING ARE DIFFERENT
STEPS, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE COOPERATION IN PDL
2. Introduction of service dominant logic (Vargo and Lush, 2004);
introduction of relationship marketing (Cannon and Perreault, 1993)
3. How organisational buying and selling practices within a service
dominant logic should look like? – Abratt and Kelly – buyer seller
relationship and success factors of implementing KAM; Vargo and Lush
(2010) – limitations of PDL and how SDL is different
4. Implications – as in the new SDL B2B and B2C practices are similar
(Coviello & Brodie, 2001; Wilson, 2000; Wind 2006), B2B practitioners
may learn form B2C practitioners
5. Conclusion that it should be different because Sheth 1996 – change from
domestic to global and transactional to relationship so nothings is the
same as it used to be, so B&S practices should be updated as well to
reflect changes in the environment  THIS CONCLUSION IS BAD BC IT
DOESN’T FOLLOW WHAT WAS STATED BEFORE
Week 4 SERVICES MARKETING IN INDUSTRIAL MARKETS

Lovelock and Gummesson (2004) – service dominant logic, two solutions failed
so third was introduced; whether or not partnership can be transferred; critique
Vargo and Lusch (2004) (same as week 1) – introduction of the new dominant
logic (SDL), buying and selling are not separate things, cooperation is needed;
FP1, FP2, FP3, FP4, FP5, FP6 – Wengler et al (2006), FP7, FP8 – central argument
(??)
Vargo and Lusch (2010a) – SDL sees skills and competencies as an important
aspect of an exchange; resource integration (producers value);
Frow et al. (2014) – ecosystem approach; example of tesco and care…
(Australian company); value co-creation

Essay Question
The services dominant logic (SDL) is a radical change in
how we conceptualise exchange. Does the SDL require us to
rethink how we practice organisational buying and
industrial marketing as you have studied in the module so
far?

1. Organisational buying and selling under PDL

2. What is SDL – relationship marketing rather than transactional, global
rather than domestic (Sheth) – so it nasuwa sie that we should rethink
what was before, bc now its different; need for the new model; Vargo and
Lush (2010) – limitations of PDL and how SDL is different
3. How organisational buying and selling should look like under SDL?
4. KAM as something new what should be introduced in SDL what was not
present in PDL
5. Implications – as in the new SDL B2B and B2C practices are similar
(Coviello & Brodie, 2001; Wilson, 2000; Wind 2006), B2B practitioners
may learn form B2C practitioners
6. Conclusion

Summing up first 6 weeks.

Inseparability of production and consumption; importance of co-production;
existence of ecosystems  it need to be sustained and practiced; knowledge
resource (relationship capabilities/capital) for B2C, and analogy in the B2B
situation; how to maintain capability to have these kind of exchange?  need for
decision making unit to evaluate it;
Week 8: Service branding
Chernatony and Segal-Horn (2003) – model (reverse hierarchy) for successful
management of services and service organisations (service employees above
customers, as they are the ones delivering the service); success factors: having a
focused position and consistency, values and systems; link to relationship
marketing
Ballantyne and Aitken (2007) – brand image co-creation; brand identity vs.
brand image; corporate branding under SDL: strategic vision, organisational
culture, corporate image; all stakeholders are involved in the brand meaning
creation;
Roberts and Merrilees (2007) – B2B service branding may be similar to B2B
product branding; brand is influencing trust;
Bharadwaj and Roggeveen (2008) – call centres study; ppl prefer responses from
call centres that are domestic; general preference for domestic over outsourcing
when it comes to service provision

What are the key characteristics of services and how do these

characteristics shape services branding practices?

Week 9: Relationship Marketing

Gronroos (1997) – 4Ps marketing mix cannot be applied anymore; employees act
as a part-timer marketers; how relationship marketing is different than
transaction marketing;
Morgan and Hunt (1994) – trust and commitment are needed in relationship
marketing
Vargo and Lusch (2010a) –
Vargo and Lusch (2010b) – emergence of relationship through value co-creation;
lack of distinction of consumer and producer in the ecosystem as everyone is
provider and beneficiary;

Week 10: Relationship marketing implementation

Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) – importance of the trust; impact of
trust on user-researcher relationship; implication that trust was important before
emergence of SDL;
Crosby, Evans and Cowles (1990) – trust, satisfaction and opportunism as a
feature of relationship quality; relationship quality as a predictor of the future of
long-term service sales relationship; importance of the salesperson;
Tzempelikos and Gounaris (2014) – levels of KAM implementation: strategic,
organizational, tactical and evaluative; KAM practices are positively related to
relational outcomes (trust, satisfaction, commitment); KAM increases
cooperation; need for cooperation between KA and managers for problem
solving
Cannon and Perreault (1999) –
Jean, Sinkovics and Cavusgil (2010) – impact of IT resources on international
customer-supplier relationship; electronic integration with the international key
customer;
Week 11: Relationship Marketing Effectiveness
Gummesson (2004) – relationship scale, where transactional marketing is 0; 30
relationships approach; application of B2C to B2B marketing practices (there are
similarities but differences as well); ecosystem approach; importance of KAM;
employees as full/part-time marketers; return on relationship; analysis of ROR
basin on B2C, but can be easily applied to B2B (as they don’t differ that much
nowadays); focus on relationship portfolio instead of marketing mix

Revision
Organisational buying marketing – how do they buy and what must selling
organisations do in order to respond to it; decision making unit;
Services marketing – is it products that are being bought and sold or services
that are being co-produced; services branding – coproduced within ecosystems;
Relationship marketing – what are the interactions between different actors that
make it work; distinction between value co-production and patronage;
implementation of relationship marketing, direct and indirect relations; details
on practices; relationships enable co-production, selection of co-production
partners that decision making units carry out – not the selection of products (!!!);
measuring effectiveness of relationships

How to improve outsourcing?

 Need to write about before and after, picture change
 Outsourcing before: PDL; transactions of pre-produced values;
 Outsourcing after: SDL; value co-creation, using relationships;
 Do we have to have different practices to improve outsourcing or
different approach is enough?  Different practices because you have to
actually do sth to improve the situation
 Improved relationship between actors - Need for trust and commitment
(Morgan and Hunt), rich relationships between actors (C&P)
 Make sure to choose right outsourcing partner

 Make sure that outsourcing company has adequate resources
 Value match
 Capability to perform work efficiently
 Co-production  maintaining good relationship

Successful coproduction requires relationship managers in all actors in the

ecosystem?
 Relationship between KAM (selling organisations) and relationship
managers  relationship managers will solve the problem of complexity,
coordination within the firm and outside  DMU
 All actors in the ecosystem needs to coordinate activities within the firm
and then interact with actors outside the firm
  Relationship management function in order to deal with the complexity of
interaction with other firms and stakeholders
 Does it apply elsewhere? Some kind of relationship management function
will be needed
 What is coproduction, what makes it successful, what is the problem
without relationship manager and how he will solve this problem
 If there are other problems there may be other solutions that are not
directly asked about in the question but may be addressed

Are DMUs robust/resilient enough to resist industrial marketers branding

campaigns?
 Discuss role/characteristics of DMUs
 How industrial branding campaigns can influence DMUs
 Whether it should be influenced or not?
 How to resist the influence (only if it should not be influenced) or how to
enhance the influence if it should
 DMU –how it is likely to function, how should it function, how to make it
function in a desired way
 Just as value is coproduced in ecosystems so is the meaning (brand)
 In PDL brand identity is made by producer transported to consumer using
the symbol, can be imagined as a physical thing; in SDL brand identity is
coproduced
 DMU should not be impervious in the brand campaigns (?); DMU should
take into account interactions of various actors with a brand;

What are the characteristics of a good B2B relationship?

 PDL – value created by producers and given to consumers; transactional
relationship, its lasting just as long as transaction lasts
 SDL – value co-creation; need to look broader, ecosystems etc.;
relationships are continuum
 Cooperation between different actors; cooperation between DMU and the
firm
 Trust and commitment (M&H) and rich relationship between actors
(C&P)


KA manager – selling organisation; buying unit disappears wtf;

Relationship manager –
There are key account managers; there should also be relationship
managers. Critical evaluate this statement. Make sure you make links to
both services and organisational buyer behaviour.
 Change from PDL to SDL, change from transactional to relationship
(Sheth, 1996; Vargo and Lusch, 2004)
 Key account managers as response to relationship marketing, their role,
why are they needed etc. Abratt and Kelly (2002) – building relationship,
relationship marketing important in managing key accounts
 KAM is not really successful, need for a new model (Piercy and Lane,
2006)
 Relationship managers will solve problems in relationship marketing
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994) that in transactional marketing DMU took care
of (making decision who to be in relationship with), developing trust and
commitment and shit; making it less complex – helping decision making
unit in case of organizational buying which is now more focused on
services (Vargo and Lusch, 2004)
 Existence of ecosystems, everyone is dependant on the other actors, so
relationship managers will be useful to help everyone adopt, because
otherwise system will collapse (Frow et al., 2014)
 Relationship managers will improve information exchange and
understanding of needs of different actors in the ecosystems (Cannon and
Perreault, 1999);
 Work of relationship managers could be measured by Return on
relationship (Gummesson, 2004) – which in case of B2B can be measured
in a similar way to B2C
 IMPLICATIONS: are KA managers really needed if they are relationship
managers who could replace both DMU and KA managers, as now buying
and selling cannot be separated (Wilson, 2000)? Keeping in mind the fact
that KAM is a fail and new model is needed anyway (Piercy and Lane,
2006)

How can we improve the success of big services outsourcing contracts?

Make sure you make links to organisational buying, industrial marketing
and services.
 Outsourcing under PDL – describe PDL and DMU as the ones who make
the most important decisions about organizational buying (Webster and
Wind, 1972)
 Sheth (1996) – two dimensional change, so going more global, so DMU is
not so applicable anymore; but increased globalisation, outsourcing itp
 Relationship marketing (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), establishing
relationships on knowing needs of your customers (Cannon and
Perreault, 1999) and basing on commitment and trust – outsourcing to
partners that we trust can make outsourcing experience better, but also
opportunistic behaviour (Crosby et al., 1990), so we cannot be sure if sth
will be successful in the long term in 100%
 Jean et al., 2010 available IT resources make it easier to maintain
electronic relationship with suppliers offshore
  Change from PDL to SDL (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), and focus on value co-
creation, so for good outsourcing match and understanding of other
actors is needed because otherwise the ecosystem will collapse (Frow et
al., 2014)
 Emergence of KAM and cooperation with the KA (Abratt and Kelly, 2002),
again maintaining relationship and focusing on key accounts can improve
the whole experience of outsourcing
 However, KAM is shit (Piercy and Lane, 2006), and new model should be
created
 Even more however, are outsourcing contracts in service dominant logic
and relationship marketing a good idea? According to call centre study
(2008) people prefer domestic service provision than offshored one.
 Implication: So outsourcing only domestically (2008), to ppl that we fully
understand (Cannon and Perreault, 1999) and fully trust (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994) will be the best way possible????

The DMU is too good to be influenced by industrial branding campaigns.

Critical evaluate this statement. Make sure you make links to both services
and relationship marketing.
 What is DMU – Webster and Wind (1972), what is its role, how it works
etc. EXAMPLE
 How can DMU be influenced in transactional marketing under PDL
(maybe in can not, because its good, because they should focus only on
task criteria, but DMU can also be influenced by egoistic reasons of
members –Webster and Wind, 1972; DMU are also people Wilson, 2000),
but IS IT STILL RELEVANT?
 Two dimensional shift (Sheth, 1996), and critique of the DMU that it is not
relevant anymore in the globalized economy; Drumwright (1996) non-
task criteria becoming task criteria
 Change from PDL to SDL (Vargo and Lusch, 2004). So under SDL, where
value is co-created (Vargo and Lusch, 2004; 2010a) and everything is
based on relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Cannon and Perreault,
1999), DMU should be influenced (!!!) and according to Baack et al., 2015
organisations can be influenced by advertisement in the same way as
consumers
 Corporate branding under SDL: focus on corporate culture and corporate
image (Ballantyne and Aitken, 2007); trust importance in brand meaning
– brand is influencing trust (Roberts and Merrilees, 2007)– Chernatony
and Segal-Horn (2003) reverse hierarchy, focus on the employee;
importance of salesperson (Crosby et al., 1990)
 IMPLICATION: As times have changed, maybe we should reconsider the
role of DMU and accompanied it with a relationship manager, because
now is more about relationships than about conceptualisation of
transactions