An executive summary
for managers and
executives can be found
at the end of this article
The buying center
Complex structure of
buying centers
96 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998, pp. 96-108 © MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS, 0885-8624
Buying center research and
business marketing practice:
meeting the challenge of
dynamic marketing
Morry Ghingold
Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Bloomsburg
University, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, USA
David T. Wilson
Alvin H. Clemens Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies,
Managing Director, Institute for the Study of Business Markets,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA
Introduction
Among the limited areas of agreement among business buying researchers
are two principles: real world business buying is a sequence of activities or
subdecisions that takes place over time and is carried out by diverse
individuals within the firm, i.e. a multi-person process. Various names and
descriptions have been conferred upon the collection of individuals involved
in business buying decisions but the most commonly used term in marketing
is the buying center (Robinson et al., 1967; Webster, 1984). Most recently,
the process dimension of the buying center has gained prominence,
promoting the view that the buying center’s composition and functioning are
fluid, not static. Practical experience, intuitive reasoning and recent research
findings have all demonstrated that most buying center members rarely
participate in all buying activities nor do they have influence or attempt to
exert authority during all aspects of the buying decision.
Several research studies have specifically attempted to study changes in
buying center composition and structure over the buying process and
determine their effect on decision making (e.g. Dowling, 1994; Jackson et
al., 1984; Lilien and Wong, 1984; Lynn, 1987; McQuiston, 1989;
McWilliams et al., 1992; Naude, 1994; Silk and Kalwani, 1982). However, a
lack of consistency and continuity in research methods and objectives has
limited the generalizability of these works. In some studies only parts of the
buying process were examined. In others, only single respondents or
convenience samples were used. In the absence of consistent,
complementary research which examines the complete buying process as
experienced by multiple buying center members in a firm, generalizable
conclusions regarding the dynamic nature of buying center structure and its
implications for business marketing practice remain cloudy at best.
Business marketers do, however, have a vested interest in understanding
buying centers and how they are structured. In most business purchases
different people participate in or have influence or authority over different
aspects of the decision process. Moreover, these various buying center
members often have very different perceptions of the buying problem,
company needs, suppliers’ abilities, and more. As a result, business
marketers are faced with several daunting tasks. They must at first identify
who the buying participants are, who the key influences are likely to be and
where decision making authority rests. Then, to the extent that it is possible,
person-specific communications must be tailored for each key buying center
member and a means of reaching these key targets developed. Generic

Dynamic nature of
buying centers
Mulit-person nature of
business buying
Limitations of previous
research
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998
messages will be of limited use since different targets will likely view the
purchase situation and the relevant buying criteria differently and will
probably perceive alternative suppliers quite differently as well. Information
that addresses each key buying center member’s “hot buttons” must be
packaged and delivered. But, if the buying center’s composition and
structure are constantly changing, how does one do this?
Knowledge of how buying centers change over time and how these changes
affect decision making is therefore of great importance to business
marketers. This paper will attempt to bring the question of buying center
dynamism to the forefront. This will be accomplished by a brief review of
current work in buying center research, the presentation of new research
which specifically explores the dynamic nature of buying center structure,
and a discussion of the practical implications of buying center theory and the
new research findings for business marketers.
Buying center research: past and present
The notion of multi-person involvement in a multi-phase buying process has
been grounded in business marketing theory for three decades (Robinson et
al., 1967; Webster and Wind, 1972). At first, business marketing researchers
were interested in profiling buying centers, describing and measuring
interpersonal communications, trying to determine the locus of power and
decision making authority, and to identify the organizational and
environmental factors that affect buying center behavior and buying
decisions in general (e.g. Johnston and Bonoma, 1981; McCabe, 1987;
McQuiston, 1989; Moriarty and Spekman, 1984; Spekman and Stern, 1979;
Thomas, 1980).
This body of research confirmed the multi-person nature of business buying
and offered interesting insights into the evolution of informal
communication networks during buying decision making and the effects of
internal and external factors in determining the locus of authority within the
buying center (e.g. Jackson et al., 1984; Johnston and Bonoma, 1981; Lilien
and Wong, 1984; Webster, 1984).
It became clear, however, that static or “snapshot” explorations of buying
centers were limited. Descriptions based on research studies which did not
separate out the various activities or subdecisions in the buying process were
lumping together buying center members, influence and authority structures,
and the execution of specific buying activities in ways which confounded
actual practice. Although more difficult to carry off, a number of researchers
attempted to incorporate process-oriented effects of the buying process itself
on the buying center’s structure and functioning. As expected, these studies
found that buying center involvement was dynamic, with individuals
participating in some subdecisions but not others, and influence and
authority often shifting from one buying activity to the next. In general,
earlier stages of the buying process (i.e. need recognition, description and
specification of the purchase) tended to have wider involvement than later
stages (vendor qualification and contact, vendor proposals and analysis) (e.g.
Dowling, 1994; Lilien and Wong, 1984; Lynn, 1987; McWilliams et al.,
1992; Naude, 1994).
An important contribution from this process-oriented body of research has
been empirical confirmation that buying centers are truly dynamic.
Differences in buying center size and composition were repeatedly observed
for various stages of the buying process. In some studies, buying authority,
97
 influence or power was tracked. Again, variations in the locus of control
over different buying activities were observed. These studies have forged an
important path for new buying center research by demonstrating that buying
center structure, communications and influence all change over time.
However, the lack of consistency in these explorations has left some gaps.
Many of the studies were limited to condensed representations of the buying
process. Others used single informants or convenience samples of
respondents rather than multiple respondents from the buying centers
examined. These simplifications or shortcuts were probably used because
capturing process effects is exceptionally difficult for both researchers and
respondents. However, these efforts to facilitate data gathering or to ease the
burden on respondents may have contributed to the incomplete and
sometimes incongruent findings in the buying center literature.
Process effects in buying A starting point in better understanding process effects in buying behavior
behavior would involve an examination of what happens to the buying center itself in
terms of the stability (or dynamism) of its composition and structure. These
factors are likely to drive time-specific communication and influence
patterns within the buying center as well as its information needs at any
given point in time. Key concepts related to buying center structure have
already been documented (Johnston and Bonoma, 1981). Those of particular
interest that may well change during the buying process include the number
of participants in the buying center (extensivity), the number of functional
areas or departments within the firm represented in the buying center (lateral
involvement), and the number of hierarchical levels of the firm involved in
the purchase (vertical involvement) (Johnston and Bonoma, 1981).
Several questions If the buying center does in fact change during the buying process, as it is
identified presumed to do, then several research questions come to the forefront:
(1) Are there discernible differences in buying center structure between
firms? One would expect a positive finding here since larger companies
probably have larger buying centers, more departments or functions and
more hierarchical levels than smaller firms.
(2) Are there differences in buying center structure across the stages of the
buying process? Past research suggests that business buying is dynamic,
not static. Hence, this finding should also be positive.
(3) If process effects are observable, are these process effects company
specific or do specific patterns emerge across companies? This is clearly
the most interesting question. If process effects are company specific
then it would be impossible to draw generalizable conclusions about
buying center structure or offer broadly applicable suggestions for
improved marketing performance. However, if patterns emerge, we can
then consider means for business marketers to more effectively navigate
and manage buyers’ decision-making processes and improve
communication with buying centers.
A study which attempted to reach multiple buying center members and
obtain data for the major buying process activities was undertaken to
overcome some of the limitations of past research noted above and expand
our understanding of the dynamic nature of buying center structure. The
methods and findings of this study are presented below.

A dynamic-process study of buying center structure research overview

A study was undertaken to document the extent of structural changes in the
buying center during the buying process. Using descriptors presented in a

98 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998


Purchase of multi-user
computer system
Characteristics of sample
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998
major contribution to the literature on buying center structure (Johnston and
Bonoma, 1981), a study was fashioned that tracked three key variables
(extensivity, vertical and lateral involvement) across the six major buying
process subdecisions from need awareness through supplier choice (see 4 for
a discussion of alternative process models and a description of typical stages
in the buying process). Table I presents the stages or subdecisions examined
in the study.
1. Need recognition, purchase initiation and/or approval
2. General description of needed item
3. Precise buying specifications developed
4. Vendor search and qualification
5. Vendor interactions and proposals
6. Evaluation of alternative vendors and supplier selection
Table I. Buying process stages examined in study
Product class examined
The study examined a single product purchase, the purchase of a multi-
user (client-server) computer system with multiple workstations and a
central processor or server. This purchase situation was selected because it
was believed that the rapid rate of technological change and intense
competition among vendors made this a challenging and non-trivial
purchase for most businesses that would require at least some information
acquisition and evaluation prior to vendor selection (i.e. a modified rebuy
or new task, as per Anderson et al., 1987). Additionally, this type of
purchase would likely represent high levels of purchase importance, task
uncertainty, and extensiveness of choice for all buying organizations
suggesting a fairly similar buying decision approach in all organizations as
well (Bunn, 1993).
The computer system buying decision is also desirable because it is likely to
have involvement and influence patterns that cut across functional areas or
hierarchical levels of the firm (Ghingold, 1988; Webster and Wind, 1972).
Observing changes in these patterns during the buying process is a principal
objective of the present study.
Sampling and data collection
Businesses in the Great Lakes (midwest region of the US) were contacted by
phone to determine if they had recently made such a purchase. Ten
businesses were identified that had recently made this type of purchase and
were willing to allow researchers access to company personnel for the
purpose of data gathering. A listing of the industries represented in the
sample is shown in Table II.
A snowball technique (see Johnston and Bonoma, 1981, for a description)
was used in an attempt to identify and reach all buying center members
following primary interviews with representatives from the
purchasing/materials management area of each cooperating firm. A
retrospective scenario method was used which provided study participants
with a short description of the computer purchase situation. Respondents
were then asked to complete a questionnaire indicating what would happen
in this type of purchase in their firm. Since all firms had recently made such
a purchase, the method was expected to yield fairly accurate buying
information from each firm. Data were collected in person and via mail.
99
 Organization
number Major product line(s) Major markets/industries served

1 Mineral processing Mining

equipment and systems Basic raw materials
using industries

2 Process machinery Pulp and paper

Feed and grain processing
Materials handling
Chemical

3 Electric wire and cable Electric utilities and cooperatives

OEMsa
Distributors

4 Custom steel fabrication Chemical

including pneumatic Plastics
conveying systems and
air pollution equipment

5 Printed circuit boards, Office equipment and

electrical assemblies telecommunications
and connectors Defense contractors
OEMs

6 Picture tubes, Television and computer OEMsa

Glass components Television picture tube manufacturers

7 Flat glass Residential and commercial construction

Auto/aircraft

8 Primary metal Packaging and containers

(aluminum) Transportation
Building and construction
Electrical

9 Nonwoven fabric products Consumer product manufacturers

Wallcoverings
Apparel
Building Supplies
Filtration

10 Nuclear grade tubing Internal and licensees for

power plant construction
Utilities
Fuel fabricating plants
Note: aOriginal equipment manufacturer

Table II. Overview of organizations in sample

Measurement
Information on three The extensive questionnaire used asked respondents to indicate the names
structural characteristics and titles of all company personnel they believed were involved for each of
six stages of the buying decision. Subsequent coding of these data (cross-
checked by two independent coders) yielded information on three key
structural characteristics of buying centers for multiple stages of the buying
process. Specifically, data were analyzed to determine buying stage-specific
extensivity (how many people were involved at each stage); lateral
involvement (how many different functional areas or departments were
involved at each stage); and vertical involvement (how many hierarchical
levels of the firm were involved at each stage).

100 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998


Consistent pattern of
structural change
Analysis and findings
A statistical approach known as repeated measures analysis of variance was
used to analyze the data. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table
III and shown graphically in Figures 1 to 3.
The data confirm our expectations regarding two of the research questions
raised earlier. Buying center size, vertical involvement and lateral
involvement were all found to vary between the firms in the study. And, there
was a highly significant process effect (i.e. there were very real differences in
buying center structure during the buying process). Lastly, no interaction
effect was detected for extensivity and vertical involvement. Thus, although
there were differences in buying center size and the degree of
multidepartmental involvement between firms, the general pattern of the
changes in these structural characteristics was fairly consistent across all
participating firms. The strong interaction effect for lateral involvement
indicated that a singular, predictable pattern of change for this structural
dimension was not evident among the sampled firms, however. It may well be
that differences in the intended breadth or specific nature of intended product
applications could explain this finding of company-specific lateral

Degrees Greenhouse
of F Tail Geisser
Effect freedom statistic probability probability

A. Extensivity
Buygroup 9 1.91 0.076 –
Process 5 11.05 < 0.001 < 0.001
Interaction 45 1.26 0.142 0.174

B. Vertical involvement
Buygroup 9 3.01 0.007 –
Process 5 14.12 < 0.001 < 0.001
Interaction 45 1.20 0.202 0.231

C. Lateral involvement
Buygroup 9 3.67 0.002 –
Process 5 15.54 < 0.001 < 0.001
Interaction 45 1.68 0.008 0.018

Table III. Summary of repeated measures analysis of variance results

Extensivity
10

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stage of Buying Process

Figure 1. Mean extensivity by stage of buying process

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998 101

 Vertical Involvement
4

3.75

3.5

3.25

2.75

2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stage of Buying Process

Figure 2. Mean vertical involvement by stage of buying process

Lateral Involvement
9

5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Stage of Buying Process

Figure 3. Mean lateral involvement by stage of buying process

involvement. Perhaps a future study which controlled for product applications

as well as the product itself might observe consistent patterns of lateral
involvement. This unexpected finding should prompt further investigation.
Limited sample Clearly, a study that examines buyer behavior for a single product purchase
within a limited sample of ten firms cannot yield sweeping, absolute and
generalizable conclusions. Moreover, as is often the case in business buying
research, data could not be obtained from each and every buying center
member. Many buying center members refused to participate. In one
company management withdrew its participation claiming too much
employee time was being used up by the research. And, there is always some
risk in performing sophisticated statistical analyses with small samples.
Still, some interesting findings emerged, most importantly pointing to
patterns of structural changes in buying centers. As we gain understanding
of buying centers’ dynamic properties, we should be better able to develop
more effective business marketing strategies and tactics.

The elusive nature of dynamic buying: implications for business

marketing
Buying center research, including the study described above, offers many
useful lessons for business marketers. Nonetheless, the inescapable
complexity of business buying and the dynamic nature of buying centers
pose real challenges for marketers.

102 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998

 Inherent process effects
Guidance for effective
marketing
Early stage marketing
efforts more successful
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998
Business marketers have long recognized the multi-person nature of business
buying. Marketers and sales professionals are often preoccupied with
determining the scope of involvement and the locus of buying authority. Yet,
past research and the present study confirm that the buying center is not
something that can be described as a static “thing”. It is fluid, changing over
time in composition and structure, thereby creating shifting patterns of
influence and authority. Business marketers must be sensitive to these
process effects inherent in buying centers. It is inadequate to simply list
which departments or individuals are involved in a given purchase. Rather, it
is more important to determine when they are involved and which buying
issues or subdecisions they participate in and/or try to influence. Business
marketers can concentrate sales and promotional resources when and where
they are needed by applying this process view of business buying. Doing so
avoids wasting valuable marketing resources (time, people, money, etc.).
This can occur when resources are directed toward buying center members
who are not relevant or interested in a particular phase of the buying process.
Increasing marketing efficiency makes more resources available to be used
precisely when and where they are needed, yielding greater impact, more
productive use of marketing resources and a higher return on marketing
investments in individual accounts.
The dynamic patterns of buying center structure highlighted in the findings
of the present study offer some guidance for business marketers. Clearly, it
would be valuable for the marketer or sales professional to know when the
buying center is likely to grow or contract, when more or fewer departments
or functions are likely to play a role in a particular buying activity, and
which levels of management participate as the buying center moves toward a
buying decision. Effective business marketing often hinges on identifying
key buying center members, determining their concerns and needs, and then
crafting solutions for individual buying center members that meet their
needs, fulfill buying requirements and minimize perceived risk.
The “U” shaped curves in Figures 1 to 3 suggest that early stage marketing
efforts will be more successful than later stage efforts since the buying
center tends to contract and involve fewer individuals, functions and
hierarchical levels once buying needs begin to firm up. It is probably too late
to direct marketing resources toward many buying center members once the
buying center has reached agreement or consensus on what needs to be
purchased. Although supplier selection brings many people back into the
decision, the framework for evaluating suppliers and selecting the vendor
has been locked in for some time, hence marketing efforts at this stage are
not likely to bear much fruit. Proactive marketing is clearly required. The
earlier the marketer is able to approximate buying center composition and
buying process status, the greater the opportunity to reach participants,
influencers and decision makers before product specifications or other
drivers of vendor choice are firmly established. If this opportunity is missed,
so too may be the marketer’s chances for success.
Multi-person selling is old hat to most business marketing sales and
marketing organizations. It has been standard practice in many industries
long before marketing researchers began to look at it as an important issue.
Successful business marketers have recognized that buying decisions and
decision making authority are often diffused in many areas and among many
individuals in a given prospect firm. The typical approach has been for
someone, usually the salesperson, to try and diagnose the situation and
identify who is involved, who the key influencers are, and what information
103
 is important. Team selling is now gaining momentum among many business
marketers. The team selling approach spreads these responsibilities beyond
the individual salesperson, but the diagnostic objectives remain the same.
The dynamic nature of buying decision making and buying centers continues
to represent a major challenge for business marketers, however. Simply
drawing up lists of players or influencers will not get the job done. Knowing
when to communicate with someone is just as important as knowing who to
communicate with (Ghingold, 1988).

The business marketing challenge: dynamic marketing

Complexity of buying The complexity of business buying behavior evidenced in past research and
behavior the present study places a substantial burden on the business marketer. The
ever-changing make-up of buying decision-making units and shifting
patterns of influence clearly mandate proactive marketing efforts, i.e.
dynamic buying calls for dynamic marketing. Building upon research in
adaptive selling (Spiro and Weitz, 1990; Weitz et al., 1986) and responsive
business marketing (Bunn, 1993; Ghingold, 1988), dynamic marketing
should be viewed as a customer driven marketing process that it is both well
planned and flexible. Dynamic marketing is a continuous process that is
based on customers’ buying processes and buying center feedback. It
requires that the business marketer determine or at least estimate how
customers’ buying centers grow or contract, when more or fewer
departments will be involved (and which ones), when hierarchical
involvement increases or decreases (and where it is located), which buying
center members will be involved in which activities and who seems to be
influencing or dominating specific phases of the decision process.
Judgments on these factors will help determine the timing, intensity, medium
and content of marketing communications. Dynamic marketing is an
iterative process. Each marketing action should include a review and
possible modification of previous actions. Dynamic marketing is also an
ongoing process. It is cyclical, constantly updating itself based on customer
data.
Clearly, dynamic marketing is difficult to execute. It places significant
responsibilities on salespersons, sales team members, field
service/engineering, customer service/order processing, marketers in
general, and anyone with customer contact opportunities. It is much more
difficult to execute than “stock” or generic marketing approaches that
saturate customers or prospects with multimedia-delivered integrated
marketing communications delivered in bursts. Dynamic marketing ties
marketing activities to dynamic buying by adapting marketing activities to
changes in buying center membership and structure. It is subjective, highly
individualistic in its communications strategies, and process-oriented.
Benefits of dynamic Although outwardly it may appear costly to implement dynamic marketing,
marketing its benefits are significant and far outweigh the resources invested. Dynamic
marketing creates greater efficiency in allocating resources within and
among customers and prospects. It generates a richer and more meaningful
appreciation of the buying decision and decision-making unit within the
marketing organization. It leads to customers’ problems being better
understood and more effectively resolved. And, as customers gain
confidence in the dynamic marketer’s enhanced understanding of and
responsiveness to the customer’s needs, it fosters high perceived switching
costs to vendors who do not know the buying firm as well, contributing to
enhanced customer commitment and long-term relationships, and greater

104 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998


Challenges for business
marketing practice
Constantly changing
process
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998
customer loyalty. Dynamic marketing leads to greater sensitivity to and
understanding of complex buying needs and concerns on the part of the
marketer. This facilitates more effective communications and solutions, a
classic win-win situation.
Concluding remarks
Past buying center research and the findings of a process-oriented study of
buying center structure have yielded a number of useful lessons and real
world challenges for business marketing practice. This paper has developed
a process-oriented view of marketing, dynamic marketing. Dynamic
marketing requires that business marketers carefully look at buyers’ decision
processes. A key goal of dynamic marketing is the gathering of process-
oriented customer intelligence to guide marketing activities. Although
difficult and time consuming to execute, dynamic marketing creates
efficiencies, improves marketing success and leads, over time, to stronger
relationships with customers. Dynamic marketing incorporates detailed
elements of customer buying behavior in tactical planning and marketing
resource allocation. In so doing, it should enhance responsiveness to
customers’ needs, allay perceived risks, satisfy information requirements
and ultimately, increase marketing effectiveness.
Business buying behavior is dynamic. It represents a complex, constantly
changing and often mysterious process of informal interpersonal
communications, influence attempts and authority structures. Although this
complexity poses real challenges for business marketers, they do have the
potential to proactively position themselves for better marketing
performance. By practicing dynamic marketing marketers can better adapt
marketing communications to the changing information requirements within
the buying center over time and better manage the marketing and selling
effort throughout the buying process. Dynamic marketers increase the
efficiency of marketing spending, enhance customer satisfaction and forge
more successful marketing relationships.
References
Anderson, E., Chu, W. and Weitz, B. (1987), “Industrial purchasing: an empirical exploration
of the buyclass framework”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, July, pp. 71-86.
Bunn, M.D. (1993), “Taxonomy of buying decision approaches”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57, January, pp. 38-56.
Dowling, G.R. (1994), “Searching for a new ad agency: a client perspective”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 13, pp. 229-42.
Ghingold, M. (1986), “Testing the ‘BUYGRID’ buying process model”, Journal of Purchasing
and Materials Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 30-6.
Ghingold, M. (1988), “Bridging theory and practice in the allocation of industrial sales and
promotional resources within customer organizations”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 17-26.
Jackson, D.W., Keith, J.E. and Burdick, R.K. (1984), “Purchasing agents’ perceptions of
industrial buying center influence: a situational approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48,
Fall, pp. 75-83.
Johnston, W.J. and Bonoma, T.V. (1981), “The buying center: structure and interaction
patterns”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, Summer, pp. 143-56.
Lilien, G.L. and Wong, M.A. (1984), “An exploratory investigation of the structure of the
buying center in the metalworking industry”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21,
February, pp. 1-11.
Lynn, S.A. (1987), “Identifying buying influences for a professional service: implications for
marketing efforts”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 16, pp. 119-30.
McCabe, D.L. (1987), “Buying group structure: constriction at the top”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 51, October, pp. 89-98.
105

This summary has been
provided to allow
managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of
the content of this
article. Those with a
particular interest in the
topic covered may then
read the articles in toto
to take advantage of the
more comprehensive
description of the
research undertaken and
its results to get the full
benefit of the material
present
106
McQuiston, D.H. (1989), “Novelty, complexity and importance as causal determinants of
industrial buyer behavior”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 66-79.
McWilliams, R.D., Naumann, E. and Scott, S. (1992), “Determining buying center size”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 43-9.
Moriarty, R.T. and Spekman, R.E. (1984), “An empirical investigation of the information
sources used during the industrial buying process”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 21, May, pp. 137-47.
Naude, P. (1994), “Changes in attribute salience among DMU members during a decision:
some empirical results”, in Biemans, W.G. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), 10th IMP Annual
Conference, Vol. 2 (Groningen, September 29-October 1), pp. 195-215.
Robinson, P., Faris, C. and Wind, Y. (1967), Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing, Allyn
and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Silk, A.J. and Kalwani, M. (1982), “Measuring influence in organizational purchase
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, May, pp. 165-81.
Spekman, R.E. and Stern, L.W.(1979), “Environmental uncertainty and buying group
structure”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, Spring, pp. 54-64.
Spiro, R. and Weitz, B. (1990), “Adaptive selling: conceptualization, measurement and
nomological validity”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 27, February, pp. 61-9.
Thomas, R. (1980), “Correlates of interpersonal purchase influence in organizations”,
unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1984), Industrial Marketing Strategy, John Wiley.
Webster, F.E. Jr and Wind, Y. (1972), Organizational Buying Behavior, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Weitz, B., Sujan, H. and Sujan, M. (1986), “Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior: a
framework for improving selling effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, October,
pp. 174-91.
■
Executive summary and implications for managers and
executives
Adapt your sales strategy not just the tactics
Knowing and targeting those who really make the purchase decision lies at
the heart of business and industrial marketing. It is not enough to know
which type of firm buys our type of product or that our product is most used
in one or other department. We need to know who makes the decision to buy
our product rather than our competitor’s product.
Given the need to know about the decision-making unit or buying center, it
may come to worry some marketers that this buying center is not static. Not
only cannot we assume that the people who made the decision this time will
choose the same next time but during the buying process different
individuals enter and leave the decision process. The more complicated or
significant the purchase is to the buyer, the harder it is to understand fully
the make up of the buying center.
Ghingold and Wilson criticise the typical industrial marketing strategy.
Because buying centres are dynamic, marketing must be dynamic to match.
Simply using media communications backed with sales calls will not suffice.
We need to “get under the skin” of the buying organization and direct our
efforts to the particular dynamics within that firm. The result of this
approach is what Ghingold and Wilson call “dynamic marketing.”
To make “dynamic marketing” work we need change how we operate:
(1) Identify the process of decision making at prospect and customer
companies.
(2) Adapt selling methods to accommodate individual needs of customers.
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998
 (3) Feed back information about changes in process, structure or policy to
adjust future sales strategies.

Decision-making processes
Buying decisions involve a varying number of people within an organization.
We have overall buying policies and strategies (for example policies on the
environment or country of origin), budget, pricing and cost control issues,
operational considerations and individual preferences or prejudices. The
purchasing function (assuming one exists) acts both in advisory and reactive
ways. Buyers respond to demands from their “customers” and provide a
service to those “customers” by advising on the best solution to a particular
need.
Marketing to such a situation requires us to understand the perspective of
the buyer and the attitude or preference of the ultimate user of our product.
Chances are that the purchasing manager placing the order will not use our
product but acts on the advice of the user department or function.
Ghingold and Wilson observe that the buying center diminishes in size as the
firm approaches its purchase decision. In the case they use – computers –
the buying center starts with a wide range of people representing the
ultimate users and culminates in a small decision team to choose the actual
supplier. At the first stage the process is evaluating needs rather than
making an actual product choice. By reaching this stage of the process we
can influence the decision to match solutions possible from our product.
If we wait till the later stages we have had no opportunity to advise or
inform the needs assessment. Instead we deal with a smaller group charged
with evaluating products against identified needs. If our competitor got in
earlier then the definition of needs may well reflect their product rather than
ours – we’ve lost the sale!

Adapting sales methods

Adaptive selling is one of those things successful salespeople have always
done – pretty much instinctively. We can all see that changing how we
approach a customer to meet their circumstances, preferences and
requirements makes good business sense.
However, under “dynamic marketing” we need to go one step further. It is
not just changes to sales tactics that are needed but changes to the whole
sales strategy. Such strategy changes may mean that selling to one
organization only needs the traditional selling methods whereas another
requires a team selling approach followed by intensive after care. And such
changes reflect how the target firm will make its decision, not merely size of
the organization or its potential value as a customer.
What industrial marketers need is a cookbook of sales strategy that can fit
any situation – seminars, exhibition invites, corporate hospitality,
presentations, individual sales calls, telemarketing and team selling. The
sales person’s initial task is to define the strategy on the basis of the target’s
buying process. And then that salesperson drives through the
implementation of the strategy.
Such an approach turns normal sales and marketing strategy formulation on
its head. Rather than a generic strategy that might be adapted we have a
strategic toolkit for each salesperson to deliver the most effective sales
effort.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998 107

 Feedback
To make this “dynamic marketing” approach work long-term, we need
feedback. Since the process will change next time we sell, we need to gather
information about the target organization between sales as well as during
the sales process. Here, engineers, customer service executives must support
and advise sales teams so as to improve understanding of the sales method.
The result will be selection of the right tools come the time of re-selling.
Given the nature of this feedback process it is important that a database
exists to store and manage information about customers. Not only does this
ensure consistency in information gathering but we also get the same
information to all those with an interest in our relationship with a given
organization. The days have gone where we could rely on what is in the
salesperson’s head or scrawled in the margins of his orders.
Ghingold and Wilson give us a glimpse of how a flexible strategy for
industrial selling can bring benefits. Such an approach may not fit every
business-to-business situation but, for most of us, “dynamic marketing,”
driven by understanding buyer’s decision processes, is a valuable
contribution to the emerging paradigm of relationship marketing.
(A précis of the article “Buying center research and business marketing
practice: meeting the challenge of dynamic marketing.” Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for MCB University Press.)

108 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL MARKETING, VOL. 13 NO. 2 1998