business to service marketing

7/28/2019 Business to Service Marketing

1/13


2/13

JOURNAL OFBUSINESS & INDUSTRIAL

MARKETING

industrial innovation have concentratedalmost solely on products, ignoring theaccompanying business-to-business serviceinnovations. It is clear from viewing theFortune Service 500, however, that thedominant service providers in the USAgain a substantial portion oftheir revenues from business-to-businessservices. These include diversifiedservices companies (AT&T),commercial banking companies(Citicorp), diversified financialcompanies (American Express), lifeinsurance companies (Prudential ofAmerica), transportation companies(UPS), and utilities (GTE).This study begins with a discussion ofthree common myths associated withservices marketing in the business-to-business sector. Later sections examinethe use of customer value creation in thedevelopment of business-to-businessservice offerings and the way theseservices are evaluated by customers.Results of a survey oftelecommunications industry managersare presented that compare serviceevaluation criteria to product evaluationcriteria. Finally, managerial implicationsand recommendations for business-to-business service providers are provided.

THREE MYTHS ABOUT BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS SERVICES MARKETINGCommon misconceptions exist regardingthe role and importance of business-to-business services. First, services are oftenconsidered "low-value added, small-scale,low capital intensive, and technologicallyunsophisticated industries" (Quinn, 1988).Second, the importance of theinteractions between service providers andother business firms is sometimesoverlooked. Finally, the differences

between services and products, whilecertainly present, can be overstated; themarketing strategies developed forbusiness-to-business services need notalways be different from those developedfor products.

Misconception 1. Service Firms AreSmall and Low-TechThe services literature might suggest thatservice firms are highly labor-intensive,focusing on meeting individual customerneeds, but evidence is mounting that theopposite is true. Current spending byservice firms on technology capitalinvestments far exceeds the amount beingspent by manufacturing organizations.Service providers now account forapproximately 84 percent of the total USstock of information technology items(Roach, 1988). As a result, neweconomies of scale are causing manysmaller service providers to merge withlarger firms; these firms can handle moredata and cover larger customer bases,and can develop customized serviceapplications for business customersthrough improved technology (Quinn,1988). Such changes have occurred, forexample, in airlines, utilities, banking andfinancial institutions, communicationscompanies, and hospitals. Many largeservice institutions currently support largeresearch programs, creating and guidingnew technological developments.

Misconception 2. Purchased ServicesAre Inconsequential to BusinessSuccessResearchers have not always recognizedthe importance of the interactionsbetween service providers and otherbusiness firms. Purchases of services by

46


3/13

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 11993

industrial and other business firmsinvolve large investments of time, money,and personnel (Stock and Zinszer, 1987).Manufacturers have come to recognizethat efficiencies gained from servicesuppliers markedly affect direct costs andthat the use of service technologiesimproves their responsiveness tofluctuating demand patterns."Technologies developed by serviceproviders are enabling manufacturers togain more rapid feedback from themarketplace, develop more customizedproducts, and allow for more accuratedelivery" (Quinn and Doorley, 1988).Such companies as Apple, Honda, Land'sEnd, and Merck have developedmanufacturing or marketing strategiesthat greatly benefit fromacknowledgement of the importance ofservice or product bundling (Quinn et al.,1990).In many industries (large appliance,automotive, telecommunications,computers, office equipment, andindustrial machinery, for example),leading firms are turning to servicesupport as a way to achieve sustainablecompetitive advantage. In recent years,the financial services portion of GeneralMotors accounted for about 41 percentof the company's earnings, while at IBM,service-based operations generated one-third of its $51 billion in revenues(Canton, 1988).Misconception 3. Services Are InherentlyDifferent from Products, So MarketingStrategies Must Be DifferentBusiness-to-business marketing is morecomplex than consumer marketingbecause of several characteristics of theformer:(1) a more rationalized buying process;(2) longer-term relationships;

(3) more technically complex services/products;(4) more people and procedures involvedin the process;(5) more join t efforts between buyer andseller; and(6) more custom designed services/products (Cooper and Jackson,1988).Although many consumer and business-to-business services/products are similar,e.g. telephone service, financial accounts,tax preparation, usually the extent andnature of underlying need and use differ.There is also general agreement on aset of traits distinguishing services fromproducts. These include intangibility,inseparability of production andconsumption, heterogeneity (non-standardization), and perishability(cannot be inventoried) (Cooper andJackson, 1988).

Little empirical evidence exists tosupport or to refute the claim thatrequirements for success in marketingbusiness-to-business services differ fromthose required for products. A recentstudy found only one significantdifference in strategies pursued byproduct and service firms: the servicefirm's tendency to offer a wider varietyand assortment (Parasuraman andVaradarajan, 1988). In perhaps the mostcomprehensive survey completed, none ofthe above service characteristics wasviewed as being among the most pressingproblems facing service marketers(Zeithaml et al., 1985). Indeed, it wasconcluded that service firms shouldconduct their business on the basis ofcustomer need satisfaction. Thisapproach is in keeping with the primarytenet of the marketing concept theneed for marketers to fulfill customerneeds and wants.

47


4/13


MARKETING

The marketing of services is similar inmany ways to the marketing of goods.Both types of marketers must makedecision on pricing, promotion,distribution, and new service/productdevelopment. In many cases, thecustomer purchases a package consistingof both products and services. The degreeof emphasis placed on various strategycomponents may depend on situation-specific variables, but nevertheless thesame variables are used. Companiescompeting in the business-to-businesssector, whether they be classified asprimarily service or product providers,have in common one overriding need: theability to provide customers with whatthey want to buy. Service managers, justlike product managers, must understandwhy services succeed, how customersevaluate services, and when to invest inservice initiatives (Coyne, 1989).With these three myths refuted, itbecomes clear that both business-to-business service and product providersare business-to-business marketers firstand foremost. They seek answers to thequestion of how customers' needs andwants can best be satisfied. We contendthat the answer to this question is thesame for both services and products.

CUS T O ME R V A L UE CRE A T IO N A S ADRI V I NG F O RCE IN SERVICED E V E L O P M E N TThe underlying goal of all marketingefforts to individual customer is toconsummate the exchange process.Marketers must satisfy customer needsand wants better than the competitiondoes; they must therefore begin byexamining these needs and wants.The overriding goal of both serviceand product organizations is to makeprofits (or enhance organizational

effectiveness or other indicators) (Narverand Stanley, 1989). Profit making is oneof the three tenets of the marketingconcept. The intermediate customer'sgoal is also profitability (or enhancingsome other organizational indicator)(Scheuing and Johnson, 1989). Therefore,to satisfy an intermediate customer'sneeds and wants, companies must providevalue to the customer's organization, thatis, improve the customer's short-term orlong-term operating results through, forexample, increasing efficiency oreffectiveness of product or servicedelivery. "Value" here can be defined asgains to the customer in excess of thedollar a mo unt paid (Fallon, 1971; Forbisand M ehta, 1981; Narver and Stanley,1989; Porter, 1985). The customer'sdecision to adopt a new service orproduct will be based on the perceptionthat the benefits derived are worth morethan the cost (Day and Wensley, 1988).

Business-to-business marketers faceseveral problems in attempting to marketnew products or services. First is buyeruncertainty. Will the technologyembodied in the service or productrender current technology obsolete? Willdelivery and installation timetables bemet? Will the new service/productfunction as promised? Will there be sideeffects from its adoption? Will theprovider be able to give high qualityservice (Moriarty and Kosnik, 1989)?The provider must be aware of theseuncertainties and find creative ways toreduce them (through, for example,guarantees or reputable and timelyservice).

Second, the new service or product isoften marketed as a replacement for anexisting one used by the customer. Adecision to adopt may require dropping acurrent service or product, and there maybe reluctance to replace a trustedsupplier.

48


5/13


Third, customers may change theirevaluative criteria because of changes inusage patterns, competitive influences, orbuying behavior. For example, thepersonnel comprising the decision-makingunit may change (Takeuchi and Quelch,1983). Companies must therefore notonly monitor their markets but do socontinually.The successful business-to-businessmarketer will thus be the firm which candevelop and market services or productswhich provide maximum long-term valueto their customers. It is critical, then,that the firm be able to determine whattraits of the service or product are valuedmost highly by the individual customer.The firm must also realize that theevaluation of value may differsubstantially among customers, and thatit must obtain knowledge about howcustomer value is created (Barnes andAyars, 1977; Campbell and Cunningham,1983; Cina, 1989; Coyne, 1989). Thevalue of a service is based solely on thecustomer's perspective, and the firm mustseek to understand its customers'particular way of attaching value to theproduct or service (Forbis and Mehta,1981). That is, the attributes consideredby customers to be key determinants ofvalue must be specified from acustomer's perspective (Day and Wensley,1988). Though it may be impossible todetermine the exact value of a firm'sofferings to all customers, the firm canstrive to ascertain the approximate valuefor a majority of the customers. It mustfirst gain a thorough understanding ofthe components of the customerevaluation process. The greater themanagerial knowledge of this process, thegreater the chances for successful servicedevelopment and marketing of theseservices.

It is critical, then, that marketersundertake the efforts necessary to

determine how specific customersevaluate new services; doing this meansventuring out into the field and obtaininput from customers.

METHODOLOGY OF EMPIRICALSTUDYA study was made of customerorganizations involved in evaluating andpurchasing new telecommunicationsservices and products. On the basis of: aliterature review, of a series of interviewswith telecommunications vendors,managers in customer organizations, andindustry analysts and consultation withother researchers, a survey instrumentwas developed and pretested by anational market research company. Aftersome minor adjustments suggested in thepretest, the survey instrument was used tocollect data from managers in thecustomer sample.

The survey questions related to fourcomponents of the service/productevaluation process: evaluation of thevendor, the novelty of the service orproduct, financial aspects of the serviceor product, and the uniqueness of theservice or product. The instrumentconsisted of 20 items, shown in Table I.Respondents indicated the importance ofeach of the criteria in influencing theadoption decision both for a new serviceand for a new product. A six-pointLikert-type scale was used, with anchorsof 1 = extremely unimportant; 6 =extremely important.Prospective respondents were contactedby telephone. Questionnaires were thendelivered to and picked up from thosemanagers who agreed to participate, byrepresentatives of a national marketresearch company. Of 680 telephone callsplaced, 379 managers agreed toparticipate in the study and 345 usable

49


6/13


MARKETING

Vendor criteriaImage, experience, and reputationPersonnel competence (experience,education, training)Financial stabilityReliabilityAccessSelection offered; ability to serve as a singlesourceResponsiveness to customer demands, needs,and wants

Service/product novelty criteriaCompatibility with existing customer skillsand capabilitiesCompatibility with existing customertechnologiesEase of integration into customer'sorganization and existing systemsService/product financial criteriaSavings from service/product usePrice advantages and alternativesTrial on a small scaleAvailability of financing, warranties, andguaranteesService/product uniqueness criteriaLong service/product lifeSuperiority to competing and existingproducts/servicesEase of operation and maintenanceCustom designUse enables customer to perform new orunique tasksUse improves some or all of customer'soperations

TABLE I.Scale Items by Category

surveys were returned, for a totalresponse rate of 51 percent. Respondentswere encouraged to comment on anymaterial contained in the survey; thequotes in this article were obtained inthis manner.Companies of all sizes were represented(self-reported comparison of number ofemployees compared with the industryaverage). About 60 percent of therespondents reported their scope ofresponsibility as being company-wide;almost all of the remainder had

division-wide or departmental-wideresponsibility. A wide variety of firmswere represented; 34.2 percent wereinvolved in manufacturing, 31.6 percentwere consumer service firms, 13.0 percentwere industrial service firms, and theremainder were government agencies orother types of firms.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONHow Services A re EvaluatedRespondents were asked to name onespecific service and one specific producttheir firm had recently decided to adopt.For both product and service, they ratedthe importance of each of the 20 items(criteria) to the firm's adoption decision.Table II presents these results as meanscores and importance rankings. Forservices, respondents placed the greatestweight on vendor criteria (average score= 5.29), followed by novelty criteria(average score = 5.02), uniquenesscriteria (average score = 4.92), andfinancial criteria (average score = 4.76).As would be expected from previousresearch on services and high technologyproducts (Scheuing and Johnson, 1989;Takeuchi and Quelch, 1983; Zeithaml,1988), "reliability" and "responsiveness tocustomer demands" received the highestindividual scores by significant margin(mean importances of 5.61 and 5.52,respectively). More than 90 percent of therespondents rated these two criteria aseither generally or extremely important.Their comments indicated that "vendor'sability to perform as promised" was ofprimary importance. However, of equalimportance was "vendor's willingness tohelp customers and provide promptservice". As one manager stated: "Whenwe have a problem, we want it solvednow. Service disruptions mean businessdisruptions. Responsiveness is critical!'

50


7/13


Vendor criteriaImage, experience, and reputationPersonnel competence (experience, education, training)Financial stabilityReliabilityAccessSelection offered; ability to serve as single sourceResponsiveness to customer demands, needs, wantsAverage for vendor criteriaService/product novelty criteriaCompatibility with existing customer skills, capabilitiesCompatibili ty with existing customer technologiesEase of integration into customer 's organization andexisting systemsAverage for novelty criteriaService/product financial criteriaSavings from service/product usePrice advantages and alternativesTrial on a small scaleAvailability of financing, warranties, guaranteesAverage for financial criteriaService/product uniqueness criteriaLong service/product l ifeSuperiority to competing and existing products/servicesEase of operation and maintenanceCustom designUse enables customer to perform new or unique tasksUse improves some or all of customer 's operationsAverage for uniqueness criteriaSignificant at the level: * 0.05; ** 0.01

ServiceMean

5.255.355.025.615.384.885.525.29

4.865.095.125.02

5.065.054.284.654.76

5.195.105.174.394.705.014.93

(Rank)

(5)(4)(13)(1)(3)(15)(2)

(16)(10)

(8)

(11)(12)(20)(18)

(6)(9)(7)(19)(17)(14)

P roduc tMean

5.11**5.19**4.965.53*5.26**4.79*5.41**5.18

4.885.115.105.03

4.95**5.044.41**4.70**4.78

5.245.135.244.364.705.014.95

(Rank)

(8)(6)(13)0)(3)(16)(2)

(15)(8)

(10)

(14)(11)(19)(17)

(4)(7)(4)(20)(17)(12)

TABLE II.Respondent Rankings of Service/Product Evaluation Criter ia and Value of Service Adopted (Mean Scores andRankings)

Respondents rated "vendor access","image", and "personnel competence"as also being key criteria in the decisionprocess. These findings too are consistentwith previous research. Surprising,however, were the relatively low scoresassigned to "vendor's financial stability"and "ability" to serve as a singlesource" (offering a wide selection ofservices). These results seem to contradict

earlier findings indicating that it isimportant for the vendor to offer a widearray of service offerings (Parasuramanand Varadarajan, 1988). Severalrespondents, in fact, viewed reliance on asingle vendor as a severe negative. Asone respondent reported: "We spentdecades having to deal with only onevendor (AT&T), prior to deregulation.We are certainly enjoying our new-found

51


8/13


MARKETING

freedom of choice!' Perhaps this findingis particular to the telecommunicationsindustry because of the recentderegulation."Compatibility of the service withexisting systems", "ease of integrationinto the customer's organization", and"ease of operation" were all also seen asimportant criteria by the majority ofrespondents. Considering the servicebeing evaluated, these high ratings makeintuitive sense. Unlike such specializedservices as consulting or tax services,telecommunications affects the customer'sentire operation. Because of its rapidlyevolving marketplace, a high degree ofvariablity exists in both technologies usedand user sophistication. Therefore, it isimportant for the adopter to chooseservices that are compatible with the skilland expertise of their personnel.

It is interesting to examine the criteriarated relatively less important byrespondents. The lowest ratings wereassigned to "custom design", "trial", and"availability of guarantees". Severalrespondents suggested that vendors donot possess enough customer knowledgeto customize services effectively and socustom design was not an issue.Adoption of most telecommunicationsservices is usually an "all or nothing"proposition at a given site, and trial isnot a feasible option. Also, there was ageneral feeling that once a service isadopted, no amount of guarantees couldcompensate for a service failure.Therefore, it was essential that carefulevaluation be made prior to serviceadoption.

In summarizing the above, severalobservations can be made. First, riskminimization was the key purchasecriterion. Companies wishing to marketbusiness-to-business services mustemphasize the lessening of customer risk.

Telecommunications managers view anyadoption decision as one fraught withuncertainty. Since service failure canaffect their entire operations, reliability iscritical. However, mere promises ofreliability are not enough. What thesemanagers look for are signs that promiseswill be backed up by actions. Specifically,does the potential provider have a proventrack record? Are requests for pre-purchase information funneled to theright sources and met promptly? Arepotential problems anticipated upfrontand contingency plans developed? Dovendor personnel truly understand howtheir service fits into the customer'soperations? As one respondent stated:"Choice of a service provider does nothinge on whether the service will operateas promised 100 percent of the time.That's not reality. Rather, choice dependson what actions the provider promises totake (as evidenced by experience or othercredible proof) after the service fails toperform as promised. That's reality!'Second, customers are not interested inradical change. Ease of integration andoperation, and compatibility, are likely tobe of greater importance thantechnological sophistication. For example,most business telephone systems todayare equipped with a wide variety offeatures: call transfer, three-wayconferencing, call park or pick-up andgroup intercom. Yet to a large degree, notonly are these services not being used,but also most potential users do notknow how to use them. While all vendorsare capable of citing the means by whichtheir service can help their customer, themost successful will be adept at showinghow to apply its service's capabilities tothe customer's needs in a way that makesclear business sense. In short, the serviceprovider must go beyond marketing theservice solely on a performance basis,merely detailing technical specifications

52


9/13


and productivity measures, and insteadshould stress how the service allowsmembers of the customer's firm to work"smarter" instead of "harder". One ofthe most valuable acts a service providercan perform, as a prelude to marketingnew services, is to help customers gain anunderstanding of how better to useexisting services.Third, pricing issues and promises ofcost savings did not rank among the topten evaluation criteria. If one were toview value as being a function of bothquality and price, it appears thatcustomers are willing to forego lowerprices in order to gain higher quality.Judging from respondent ratings,companies in this industry sector whichcompete solely on price may be misled.Their efforts should be redirected toemphasizing the good fit between theservice and the customer's organization.

Differences between Products andServicesThe issue of whether services are trulydifferent from products and requireunique strategy formulation is animportant one and has received somerecent attention in the literature (Cooperand Jackson, 1988; Parasuraman et al.,1991; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Thetelecommunications industry is ideal forcomparing services and products, forseveral reasons. First, in many casesservices and products are substitutablefor each other. For example, customerorganizations may choose to have eitheron-premise equipment (key systems orPBXs) purchased from companies such asNorthern Telecom or AT&T, or topurchase Centrex (central office) servicesfrom one of the regional Bell OperatingCompanies. Both options can serve asthe main telecommunications system for

organizations of all sizes. Second, there isa great diversity of suppliers, someoffering mainly services (the regional Bellcompanies, long distance providers), someoffering both products and services(AT&T), and some mostly products(Northern Telecom, NEC). Third, servicesand products are usually evaluated by thesame telecommunications managers, andso there is a basis of comparison.As was noted above, respondents ratedthe importance of the 20 criteria on theirdecision to adopt products as well as

services. Table II shows two methods ofcomparison used to determine ifdifferences existed between product andservice evaluation criteria.The first method used was acomparison of the rank importanceorderings. Table II indicates that there aremore similarities than differences. ASpearman rank test indicated that therewas indeed a significant, strongrelationship between the rankings of theservice and product evaluation criteria(Spearman correlation coefficient =0.9571; t = 14.014; tabled t-value for = 0.05 and 18 df = 2.101; reject nullhypothesis of no relationship between therankings)."Reliability", "responsiveness", and"access" were rated in the first, secondand third positions respectively for bothproducts and services. Clearly, customers

place a premium on the ability to interactwith and receive good service from theprovider. Whether for a service or aproduct, vendor actions andaccountability are critical.A review of the remaining rankingsreveals many more similarities. Only threeof the 20 criteria changed in rank orderby more than two positions: "ease ofoperation and maintenance" (rankedseventh for services and fourth forproducts), "image, experience and

53


10/13


11/13


services play in the development andmarketing of business-to-businessproducts. In many companies, substantialprofit can result from the marketing ofbusiness-to-business services. A majorobjective of this study has been toprovide both researchers and managerswith a call for action. This empiricalstudy can provide a basis from whichfuture studies can evolve. On the basis ofthe results, several conclusions can bereached.

First, criteria associated with theservice provider are deemed the mostimportant aspect of the service adoptionevaluation process. Perceived reliabilityand responsiveness to customer demands,needs, and wants were accorded thehighest scores. Thus, companiesmarketing their services must markettheir ability to respond to customers. Toaccomplish this, the firm should beginwith preliminary marketing efforts .Communication activit ies shouldemphasize the provider's willingness andability to help customers and deliver whatis expected. Actions taken in response torequests for information or proposals areseen as indicators of a provider's abilityto perform in the future. As onerespondent to the study noted: "If avendor treats me with indifference,neglect, or as insignificant before wepurchase their services, imagine whatwe'll be treated as after the purchase!"

Second, services provided must becompatible with existing customertechnologies and skills. Ease of adoptionand integration criteria were rated as veryimportant. Especially in thetelecommunications industry, change isviewed with much uncertainty. Whileimproved performance and cost savingsare important to the user, so isdemonstrating that changeover to a newtelecommunications system will berelatively painless. Service providers must

apply a user-based approach to marketingtheir services, taking into accountdifferences in customers' technicalsophistication, degree of usage, and otherrelevant factors. For example, the sellercan increase the extent of contact withpurchasing agents and other managers, inorder to gain key information aboutbuyer-specific requirements. Both buyerand seller can benefit from thisinteraction; the seller obtains informationabout the buyer's organization andoperations, while the buyer gets aproduct that matches particular needs.Third, the most critical serviceevaluation criteria were "long life" and"ease of operation". Respondents wereconcerned that services purchased offeredlasting improvements over existingservices and were easy to operate andmaintain. This finding seemscontradictory to the trend seen amongservice suppliers on becoming one-stopsources of supply for a company's totaltelecommunication needs. Perhaps,because of the nature of this industry,there is reluctance among customers todepend too heavily on one vendor.However, this finding may also apply inother industries characterized by rapidtechnological changes.

Fourth, services seemed to be evaluatedvery similarly to products. Despite allthat has been written on differencesbetween services and products, thefindings found much similarity in theranked importances and very fewsignificant differences between serviceand product mean importance scores.One could conclude that because serviceaspects related to product offerings arebecoming more significant, at least in thebusiness-to-business sector, boundariesbetween what constitutes a "service" anda "product" are becoming blurred.

What is striking however, is that, onalmost all the vendor criteria, the role of

55


12/13


MARKETING

the service provider was seen to be moreimportant than that of the productvendor. This finding may hold especiallyin cases where services and products aresubstitutable for each other. The serviceprovider firm must be aware of theimportant role of the vendor in the saleof services; image, reliability, accessibility,responsiveness and competence are likelyto be key factors in the vendor selectiondecision.In conclusion, in the business-to-business sector, managing servicebusine sses is no t th at different frommanaging tangible-good businesses. Wewill try here to anticipate criticism of thiscontention. First , al though this studytook place in a high technology sector,one can argue that business-to-businessservice offerings are increasinglybecoming more technology dependent.Second, as both products and coreservices become more generic in nature, itis the associated services provided byvendors that are becoming increasinglymore important in the purchase decisionprocess; thus, it is pointless to try toextract the service portion from productofferings. Third, few can dispute that,regardless of whether services or productsare being marketed, the winner willalways be the firm which offers the mostvalue to the customer. Therefore,although services do possess somedifferent characteristics than products,strategy development for marketingservices should be grounded in the samebasic principles that serve to guide allmarketers.

Managers of service firms shouldconcentrate on applying the same basicmarketing principles as successful productmarketers have for years: understandcustomer demand, needs, and wants, andbe responsive to them. They should alsorealize that service customers place a highdegree of importance on reliability, image,

competence and accessibility. Thesecriteria ought to be periodically assessedand improved by the service firm.To answer the question posed in ourtitle, then, the study suggests thatbusiness-to-business service marketingand product marketing are not all thatdifferent, at least in the telecommunications industry. We have not tried togeneralize our results to other industries,but suspect that much the same findingwill be found elsewhere. Whether it be aservice or a product being marketed,fundamental marketing principles arelikely to apply. The service provider whoignores this simple fact is indeed verymyopic.

ReferencesBarnes, J . and Ayars, W.B. (1977), "ReducingNew P roduct Risk through Understanding

Buyer Behavior", Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 6, pp. 189-92.Bowers, M.R. (1989), "Developing NewServices: Improving the Process Makes ItBetter", Journal of Services Marketing, Vol.3 No. 1, pp. 15-20.Campbell, N.C.G. and Cunningham, M.T. (1983),"Customer Analysis for StrategyDevelopment in Industrial Markets",Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 369-80.Canton, I.D. (1988), "How Manufacturers CanMove into the Service Business", Journal ofBusiness Strategy, Vol. 9 No. 4, J uly-August, pp. 40-4.Carey, J . (1990), "The Myth that AmericaCan't Compete", Business Week, 15 J une,pp. 44-8.Cina, C. (1989), "Creating an EffectiveCustomer Satisfaction Program", Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 6, Fall,

pp. 31-40.56


13/13


Cooper, P.D. and J ackson, R.W. (1988),"Applying a Services Marketing Orientationto the Industrial Services Sector", Journal ofServices Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 67-70.

Coyne, K. (1989), "Beyond Service Fads -Meaningful Strategies for the Real World",Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30 No 4,Summer, pp. 69-76.Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), "AssessingAdvantage: A Framework for DiagnosingCompetitive Superiority", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, April, pp. 1-20.Fallon, J . (1971), Value Analysis to Improve

Productivity, J ohn Wiley and Sons, NewYork, NY.Forbis, J .L. and Mehta, NT. (1981), "Value-based Strategies for Industrial P roducts",Business Horizons, Vol. 24 No. 1, May-J une,pp. 32-42.Monger, R.F. (1981), Mastering Technology,Free Press, New York, NY.Moriarty, R.T. and Kosnik, T.J . (1989), "High-tech Marketing: Concepts, Continuity, andChange", Sloan Management Review, Vol.

30 No. 4, Summer, pp. 7-17.Narver, J .C. and Stanley, S.F. (1989), TheEffect of Market Orientation on BusinessProfitability, Marketing Science Institute,December, pp. 1-35.Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.(1991), "Understanding CustomerExpectations of Service", Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 32 No. 3, Spring, pp. 39-48.

Parasuraman, A. and Varadarajan, P. (1988),"Future Strategic Emphasis in Serviceversus Goods Business", Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 57-66.

Peterson, R.A., Rudelius, W. and Wood, G.(1972), "The Spread of MarketingInnovations in a Service Industry", Journalof Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, October, pp.485-96.Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage,The Free Press, New York, NY.Quinn, J .B. (1988), "Managing Innovation:Controlled Chaos", Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 66 No. 3, May-J une, pp. 73-84.

Quinn, J .B. and Doorley, T.L. (1988), "KeyPolicy Issues Posed by Services",Technological Forecasting and SocialChange, Vol. 34, December, pp. 405-23.Quinn, J .B., Doorley, T.L. and Paquette, P.C.(1990), "Technology in Services: RethinkingStrategic Focus", Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 31 No. 2, Winter, pp. 79-87.

Roach, S.S. (1988), "Technology and theService Sector: The Hidden CompetitiveChallenge", Technological Forecasting andSocial Change, Vol. 34, December, pp.387-403.Scheuing, E.E. and J ohnson, E.M. (1989), "A

Proposed Model for New ServiceDevelopment", Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 25-34.

Shostack, G.L. (1984), "Designing Servicesthat Deliver", Harvard Business Review, Vol.62 No. 1, J anuary-February, pp. 133-9.Stock, J .R. and Zinszer, P.H. (1987), "TheIndustrial Purchase Decision for ProfessionalServices", Journal of Business Research,Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-16.Takeuchi, H. and Quelch, J .A. (1983), "QualityIs More than Making a Good P roduct",Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, J uly-August, pp. 139-45.Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), "Consumer Perceptionsof Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-EndModel and Synthesis of Evidence", Journalof Marketing, Vol. 52, J uly, pp. 2-22.Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L.(1985), "Problems and Strategies in ServiceMarketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,Spring, pp. 33-46.

Geoffrey L. Gordon is in the Departmentof Marketing, Northern IllinoisUniversity, DeKalb; Roger J. Calantone isin Business Administration atMichigan State University, East Lansing;and C. Anthony di Benedetto is inMarketing at Temple University,Philadelphia, USA.57

business to service marketing

Documents