Search results

This chapter helps to establish a characterization system for industrial and consumer companies. Marketing science shows that industrial brands and consumer brands have to be managed in significant different ways. The reason is the variety of distinctions. Marketing literature often fall back to the same definition for companies. Usually, companies are defined business-to-business (B2B) when they deal with other companies and business-to-consumer (B2C) when they make their revenues with private consumers. However, both definitions do not represent the knowledge from marketing literature about the specifications in both market categories. The characterization system here separates companies by the demand drivers (derivate and origin) of their costumers, by their communication strategy, by the roles individuals play in the buying process, and recommend the appropriate branding strategy. The results of a survey about B2B knowledge show how important such a characterizing system for the discussion is. Often managers have no clear picture of a company in terms of B2B and B2C marketing. The system helps them to find a common basis for understanding the crucial issues, based on an empirical analysis.

The final chapter of the book titled ‘Beyond multi-channel marketing: Critical Issues in Dual Marketing’ aims at summarising issues related to the concept of dual marketing (DM). Starting from the analysis of a structured literature review on the selected subject, spread across three decades and reflecting on the different contributions of the research showed in the present book, the chapter tries to open the path to giving to the topic a new guise. In order to fulfil this duty, not only works on DM and multichannel marketing were taken into account, but also other research paths that share several features with the main topic were under scrutiny.

Customers in business-to-business markets are sellers of goods and services on their own. Thus, business-to-business suppliers may exert an influence on their customers’ buying decisions when performing marketing activities toward the customers of the customers by employing the concept of “multistage marketing”. Multi-stage marketing involves all sales-related measures which are aimed at the subsequent market stages (“customers of the customer”) which follow one or several primary customers in order to influence the buying behavior of these primary customers. Although the positive impacts of such activities are known, business-to-business companies often exclude the customers further along in the downstream supply chain from their marketing plans. But in a business-to-business context, the demand is always derived from buying decisions made further down the supply chain. The primary customers buy products or services because they want to use them – directly or indirectly – for either the production or the sale of other goods and services. Hence, derived demand, which can be traced to the end-user's primary demand, can be seen as the basis of multistage marketing.

The most common form of multistage marketing is ingredient (co-)branding, which occurs when a marketer providing an ingredient or component to an OEM advertises the ingredient to the customer of the assembled product. In addition to ingredient branding, this chapter identifies several other forms of multistage marketing and examines the underlying dimensions and processes of the phenomenon. The design of a marketing strategy using the concept of multistage marketing and its preconditions are discussed on a theoretical basis and are illustrated through concrete examples. The chapter provides a number of best practice examples in order to elucidate the issues concerning multistage marketing and its application in a company's marketing strategy serving business-to-business markets.

The failure to manage the firm's brand successfully with trading partners is a potentially fatal obstacle to success in today's hypercompetitive global economy. Strong brands serve as an important point of differentiation for firms, assisting customers in their evaluation and choice processes. Considerable research exists on the branding of consumer goods, and the literature on business-to-business (B2B) brands and service brands is increasing. However, research on branding in the context of B2B services is relatively sparse. This paper integrates research in B2B brands and service brands to explore B2B service brands. The paper reports a multiple methods study of brands and brand management in the logistics services industry as a specific case of B2B service branding. The study addresses two research questions that are relevant for B2B service brands. First, how are brands perceived when the customer is an organization rather than an individual? Second, how do brands differentiate intangible offers that customers often consider as commodities? The first study reports data collected in an exploratory investigation comprised of depth interviews with representatives of logistics services firms and customers. The study supports the extendibility of Keller's brand equity framework into the B2B services context. The second study tests the framework using data collected in a mail survey of logistics service providers and customers. Results suggest that brands do differentiate the offerings of logistics service providers and that brand equity exists for this commodity-like B2B service. However, findings reveal differences in perceptions between service providers and customers. Specifically, brand image is a stronger influence on customers' perceptions of service providers' brand equity, whereas brand awareness is a stronger driver of the service providers' perceptions of their own brand equity. The paper discusses implications of these differences for managing B2B services.

Companies in all industries are searching for new sources of competitive advantage since the competition in their marketplace is becoming increasingly intensive. The resource-based view of the firm explains the sources of sustainable competitive advantages. From a resource-based view perspective, relational based assets (i.e., the assets resulting from firm contacts in the marketplace) enable competitive advantage. The relational based assets examined in this work are brand image and corporate reputation, as components of brand equity, and customer value. This paper explores how they create value. Despite the relatively large amount of literature describing the benefits of firms in having strong brand equity and delivering customer value, no research validated the linkage of brand equity components, brand image, and corporate reputation, simultaneously in the customer value–customer loyalty chain. This work presents a model of testing these relationships in consumer goods, in a business-to-business context. The results demonstrate the differential roles of brand image and corporate reputation on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. Brand image influences the perception of quality of the products and the additional services, whereas corporate reputation actions beyond brand image, estimating the customer value and customer loyalty. The effects of corporate reputation are also validated on different samples. The results demonstrate the importance of managing brand equity facets, brand image, and corporate reputation since their differential impacts on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. The results also demonstrate that companies should not limit to invest only in brand image. Maintaining and enhancing corporate reputation can have a stronger impact on customer value and customer loyalty, and can create differential competitive advantage.

This chapter sheds light on the ‘country of origin’ concept. The author contends that this concept is composed of micro- and macro-components. He argues that the tourists’ hedonic and monetary gratifications are derived from the travel experiences. Therefore, the country-of-origin image (COI) can have an impact on the destination’s brand extension. In this light, this contribution examines the relationship among COI, overall brand equity and brand extension. The author implies that the hedonic and monetary values can have a moderating effect on the impact of COI and on destination brand extension.

This paper analyses expansion strategies of international hotel operators in Eastern Central Europe (ECE) in relation to the changes in tourism supply and demand in ECE. Potential market sectors for the ECE region are explored, with the most promising for Eastern Central Europe being an emphasis on green or nature tourism, cultural tourism, the tourist business market and, finally the rejuvenation of the traditional spas and medicinal tourism of the region. Two groups of International hotel companies are identified. The majority group who are pursuing a follow-the-customer approach for the international business client in Prague, Budapest or Warsaw, and the smaller group who have expressed interest in supplying the budget and mid markets in secondary and tertiary locations.

Purpose – To examine how drug prices for specific diseases vary across payers in the United States and how insurer and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs vary by payer type.

Methodology – This study uses data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 1996 to 2006. We estimate multivariate price regressions for four major drug product classes (antihypertensive, antidepressant, antiasthma drugs, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)). Separate models are estimated for brand and generic drugs within each of these drug product classes. In addition to estimating overall transaction price equations for brands and generics, the study estimates patient OOP payments and insurer payments for drugs.

Findings – We find relatively modest differences among payers in terms of total prices (e.g., insurer plus OOP). The main difference is in terms of how prices were shared between insurers and patients. Medicaid paid significantly more than other payers for each drug class, while Medicaid beneficiaries paid significantly less.

Research implications – Our results shed light on how drug prices vary by different payers and how drug prices are shared by third party payers and patients. The relatively modest differences in total drug prices across payer type suggest that these payers do not differ greatly in terms of their ability to negotiate price concessions from their suppliers. Instead, larger differences emerge in terms of how total costs are shared among the payer and their patients. Understanding the reasons for these variations, and their implications for health outcomes, are important directions for further research.