OBB

Webster and Wind, 1972

 Difference between B2B and B2C buying and selling behaviour
 Organisational buying is a decision-making process carried out by individuals in interaction with other people
and within the context of a formal organisation, influenced by individual, social, environmental and
organisational factors.
 Buying centre and decision-making unit (user, influencer, decider, buyer and gatekeeper) at that time was
(only in B2B) in control of collection, management and decision-making in the selling process however
Wilson (2000) claimed that DMU can be found in B2C, for instance when the whole classroom decides where
to go on a trip so consumers also have DMU.
 Sheth (1996) if DMU undergoes from domestic to global, will this still be efficient? One DMU for the whole
world.
 Task and non-task, not relevant anymore because of the shift towards relationship marketing (Sheth, 1996)
 Information-gathering as a way of reducing uncertainty while decision avoidance and lowering of goals
means reducing the value of outcomes

Sheth, 1996
 Two-dimensional shift i.e. from transaction to relationship-centred philosophy and from decentralized
domestic sourcing to centralised global sourcing
 Shift in OBB influenced by global competitiveness, reverse marketing, mergers and acquisitions, information
technologies. (Jean et. al., 2010) thanks to IT resources there is increased international communication with
key customers, no need for face-to-face interaction
 Supplier as customer i.e. supply function becomes more strategic differentiator and core competitor,
suppliers less as vendors, more like partners. Vargo and Lusch (2010b) claim that in the ecosystem there are
no customers and producers, there are providers and beneficiaries to assure value co-creation.
 Due to outsourcing, an organisation becomes the hub and spoke operating on global basis however
Bharadvaj and Roggeveen (2008) state in their call centre study that people prefer domestic service
provision more than outsourced one.
 Service procurement. With increased outsourcing, suppliers engage in providing value-added services.
Resource integration between producers and customers to produce value resulting in customer no longer
being value-destroyers and producers being value-creators (Vargo and Lusch, 2010a). The goal of ecosystem
is to mutually create value (Frow et al. 2014).

Wilson, 2000
 Similarities between B2B and B2C buying behaviour
 Limitation of classic OBB theory (Webster and Wind, 1972) i.e. treats organisations as industrial complex
when in reality organisation can be a lot of things, for instance, individuals can behave as an organisation
(mother doing shopping for the whole family). Secondly, presents organisational purchasing as rational
whereas in reality it is influenced by behavioural factors and emotions. This is related to the difference in
B2B and B2C because there is no impulse or leisure buying in OBB.
 Inseparability of organisational buying and selling.

Relationship marketing
Morgan and Hunt, 1994
 Global dynamics: to be an effective competitor in global economy, one must be a trusted co-operator in a
network.
 The commitment- trust theory is key because marketers (1) cooperate in exchange, (2) resist short-term
attractive alliances and (3) view high-risk actions as prudent because of the belief their partner will not cheat
on you. However, Crosby et al. (1990) beliefs that trust is important but satisfaction and opportunism are
relationship quality as well. When your wife is ugly af, you need to ditch commitment and go get that model.
Carpe diem, motherfucker.
 Relationship commitment as a belief that ongoing relationship is so important that other will not terminate it
and put maximum effort in preserving it. Central to relationship marketing.
 Brand attitude is central to repurchase decision, however it is the commitment that build brand loyalty.
 Trust is important in effective service marketing because customer must buy a service before experiencing it.
Look branding.
  Casual relationship through reciprocity (no trust) operates with a concept that mistrust breeds mistrust.
Short-lived transactions. PDL.
 Factors directly influencing trust and indirectly commitment i.e. termination cost, benefits and shared
values, communication, opportunistic behaviour.
 In relationship there is intrinsic uncertainty that your decision is right because of emotions and impulse
behaviour, whereas in DMU everything was based on task variables. Nowadays, non-task variables in the
past might be task variables in the presence because it influences rationality of the decision. (Drumwright,
1996)

Cannon and Perreault, 1999

 Relationship connectors are information exchange, operational linkages, legal bonds, cooperative norms,
and adaptations by sellers and adaption by buyers.
 Understanding consumer needs and behaviours facilitate exchange or reduce transaction cost (unlike the
arm’s length transactions) but also they create dependency and involve switching costs. Sheth (1996) claims
that understanding needs and behaviours or involved parties is crucial for relationship. Also, Flow et.al
(2014) says that if parties don’t acknowledge each other’s needs and behaviour, the whole ecosystem will
collapse.

Coviello and Brodie, 2001

 B2B and B2C in context of transactional and relationship marketing. Transactional marking is PDS, relational
is SDL. Vargo and Lusch (2004).
 There are both differences and similarities. Webster and Wind (1972) is superficial. Wind (2006) ditched
Webster and agrees with that saying that B2B and B2C marketing are becoming similar, there are blurring
lines. Also, B2C customers act as a DMU or buying centre because of outsourcing, globalisation, SMEs
development and knowledge-based society. Value-added is through knowledge not manufacturing. For
instance, eBay C2C interaction.
 Relational dimension claiming that relation management is in the heart of B2B. Criticism of marketing mix
model (4P), there should be new model that comprises of 4P and relationship marketing. Abratt and Kelly
(2002) say that KAM is a crucial technique to build and improve relationships with key customers in B2C
markets.
 Gronroos (1997) says that marketing mix cannot be applied anymore because relationship marketing is
different than transaction marketing.

PDL to SDL
Vargo and Lusch, 2004 and Vargo and Lusch, 2010
 Marketing inherited model from PDL – exchange of goods, manufactured output, tangible resources,
embedded value and transactions.
 New evolving dominant logic i.e. service provision (intangible, co-creation of value and relationship
marketing) rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange.
 PDL – goods are operand resources and end products whereas in SDL goods are transmitters of operant
resources (knowledge and competencies), they are intermediate products used by other operant resources
(customers) as appliances in value creation process.
 PDL – producer and consumer are separated in order to ensure maximum manufacturing efficiency whereas
in SDL they dynamically work together to co-create value.
 Marketing is continuous series of social and economic processes focused on operant resources with which
firms are making value propositions. Customers take part in value proposition throughout application of
knowledge as SDL sees skills and competencies as an important aspect of an exchange leading to resource
integration where customers are no longer value destroyers (vargo and Lusch, 2010a). Value is defined and
co-created with the customer rather than being embedded in the output creating a self-reinforcing value
cycle instead of linear ones. B2C and B2B shifted towards AtoA. (Vargo and Lusch, 2010a).
 Outcomes are not to be maximised but are something to learn from in order to serve customers better and
improve performance.
 If the consumer is a focal point of marketing, value creation is only possible when a good or service is
consumed. An unsold good has no value and service provider without consumers cannot produce shit.
 Criticism of marketing mix. As Gronross (1997) discarded it in relation to relationship marketing and Coviello
and Brodie (2001) also hated it in relation to industrial marketing (no longer valid to B2B) this might suggest
 that this model is no longer acceptable and there is a need for new model that connects SDL and relationship
marketing in context of B2B marketing. Gummenson (2004) instead of marketing mix we should focus on
relationship portfolio.
 In 2004 they said there is SDL and in 2010b they took this view further saying that relationship emerge
throughout co-creation of value.

Key Account Management

Abratt and Kelly, 2002
 Relationship marketing increase key account customer retention and loyalty.
 Success factors of KAM implementation are trust and commitment. Implication: as Morgan and Hunt, 1994
said that trust and commitment are important for relationship marketing, so it is important for KAM as well
suggesting that KAM is build on relationship marketing.
 KAM is meant to improve customer-supplier relationship. Understanding of key account customer is essential
for successful implementation of KAM strategy. Key account managers must understand what the needs and
requirements of the key account customer. Sheth (1996) said that understanding of needs of behaviours is
essential to establishment of successful relationship. Cannon and Perrault (1999) also mentioned that
information exchange and understanding of needs of other actors in the ecosystem helps building successful
relationships.

Piercy and Lane, 2006

 KAM promises to replace buyer-seller relationships with cooperation, joint problem-solving and integration in
new model of buyer-seller interaction.
 The rationale for KAM is that there is a demand from large customers for the organisation to respond with
dedicated organisational resources that concentrate on these key, strategic accounts to incorporate special
value-adding activities.
 Pareto effect (80% of profit comes from 20% of customer) i.e. high degree of dependency on small number of
customers.
 Shift of power to powerful customers that exploit their buying power for lower prices, offer suppliers lower
profit, leaving them to make their money from SMEs.
 Unrealistic expectations.
 The closer the relation, the higher the risk.
 Key accounts are misunderstood with large companies. Size does not matter.
 Within an industry, key accounts for one supplier means key accounts for another company meaning a
horizontal conflict (Wengler et al., 2006).
 KAM is a model of collaboration based on strategic alliances and most of strategic alliances fail. Strategic
supplier relationship for many suppliers is temporary and transitory as customers develop their own market
strategies and adopt new technologies. Then they leave the supplier investing heavily in key account
relationship only to see that relationship disappears when the customer moves on.
 They propose a new business model that reduces dependency across different actors, limiting the undertaken
risk while participating in the market and distinguishing between key and large accounts that should be
managed in a different way.

Wengler et al., 2006

 Conditions and circumstances motivating companies to apply KAM
 Connection to personal selling
 Companies operating in highly competitive environment and intense coordination of business relationship
with most important customers should adopt KAM practices
 KAM requires extra unit for coordination however without it companies are characterised with no close
cooperation in their product research and development with most customers.

Branding
Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2003
 Branding and belief in brand’s values guarantees greater likelihood of commitment, internal loyalty and
consistent brand delivery across all stakeholders. Ballantyne and Aitkene (2007) said that all stakeholders are
involved in brand meaning creation.
 Service depends on the culture of the organisation, training and attitudes of employees. Ballantyne and Aitken
(2007) corporate branding under SDL should consider strategic vision, organisational culture and corporate
image. It is important to co-ordinate marketing relationships, direct the service vision not only to customers
but staff responsible for delivery and focus on control of the quality. Crosby et al. (1990) mentioned that sales
person is crucial when it comes to establishment of the long-term sales relationship.
 Employee satisfaction – Employee motivation – High service quality – High customer satisfaction – Increased
sales
 Classical product branding assumes internal, quality controlled, value delivery system that is not seen by
customers. However, value delivery system for service brands is visible to customers who are active
participants of value co-creation. (Vargo and Lusch, 2004)
 Service brands are clusters of functional and emotional value. For smooth delivery, companies must close
service quality gaps, focus on internal and external stakeholders and monitor the service delivery process.
 Positioning i.e. service brands must use clarity of focus and consistency across all stakeholders.
 Service branding is rooted in product branding. Roberts and Merrilees (2007) B2B service branding may be
similar to B2B product branding. Brand is influencing trust (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
 Gummesson (2004) employees are acting as full or part-time marketers.