occasional paper 2004/3
Amjad Hadjikhani & Anna Bengtson
An Interaction Model
for Consumer-Retailer Relationships
Department of Business Studies Uppsala University
2004
Amjad Hadjikhani & Anna Bengtson
An Interaction Model
for Consumer-Retailer Relationships
Department of Business Studies Uppsala University
June 2004
An Interaction Model
for Consumer-Retailer Relationships
Abstract:
Repurchasing is one of the crucial marketing areas that has recently occupied the attention of both researchers and marketing managers of retailers. While most consumer-retailer relationship studies concern the behaviour of either retailer or consumer, this article develops a notion of the relationship as an interactive phenomenon that needs an integrative approach in which the characteristics and behaviour of both parties are taken into consideration. By using the relationship theory to expose the repurchasing behaviour of consumers, the attempt is to further enlarge the understanding of relationship interdependencies between retailers and consumers. The discussion put forward in this article is based on a research proposal and application that formed the starting ground for a larger research project at the Department of Business Studies at Uppsala University. The research project involves four senior staff and three doctoral candidates and was started in 2003. The purpose of this article is to develop an interaction model for relationships between consumers and retailers based on earlier research in the area, thereby opening up a new research field. This model will in future years be used for empirical studies of both a qualitative and a quantitative nature, which may further revise and / or confirm the statements made here.
KEY WORDS: Repurchasing; Interaction model; Retailer-Consumer Marketing;
Relationship Interdependencies; Commitment and Trust
Introduction
A recent study on three large retailers located in a large Swedish city with a total sale value of 134 M.Skr. (about 17 M.US Dollars), and with about 12 thousand products, discloses an interesting fact on consumer-retailer interaction. The study indicates that more than 90% of the firms´ total purchases value was accounted for by less than 30% of the consumers. In this group, 50% of the total sales were conducted to only 10% of the consumers. Such evidence reveals the importance of a small percentage of the consumers, and also acknowledges the importance of more personalised marketing activities directed towards this vital consumer group.
The relationship approach introduced in this study is based on an interaction view of marketing in which the activities of both parties are taken into consideration. It relies on the basis that partners have a mutual interest in the continuance of the relationship (Mittal
& Lassar, 1996). While the majority of consumer marketing research relies on economic theories and focuses either on consumers’ or on firms´ marketing activities, this study is inspired by relationship marketing and interaction theories grounded in the social science theory. Repurchasing is expressed by the view that the partners have a relationship that could have been avoided. This study extends the relationship proposal of researchers like Dwyer et al. (1987) and Fournier (1988) regarding the buyer-seller relationship, to also address the consumers´ interaction with retailer firms. While industrial marketing studies (e.g.
Håkansson, 1982) often emphasize the integration of both supplier and customers´
characteristics, consumer relationship marketing disregards this crucial aspect. An integration of these characteristics into a relationship-based model can increase our understanding of the consumer market.
There are conceptual views, such as relationship interdependence, commitment and trust, that are extensively explored in industrial marketing, but which have seldom attracted researchers in the consumer-marketing field. (Among the few, see Smith, et al., 2003). Relationship interdependencies between the two parties are, in industrial marketing, explained as being composed of complex exchanges containing both economic and social dimensions (See e.g. Håkansson & Snehota, 1995). An application of these concepts in the consumer market may facilitate an understanding of why, for example, we as consumers mostly buy our products from the same shop, or why we change our purchasing behaviour.
This article follows studies like Sheth & Parvatiyar (1993, 1995) and Bagozzi (1995) that suggest relationship marketing, and also Eriksson & Hadjikhani (2000) that claim a perceptual
relationship between consumers and firms or products, and attempts to develop a theory on the subject of consumer-retailer relationships.
Research Problem
As noted previously, researchers have seldom elaborated on any analytical tools to investigate interaction of both retailer firms and consumers, and have, thus, not developed notions that uncover the interaction of both parties. This knowledge gap indicated a need for research- based studies generating knowledge pertinent to an understanding of the interaction between the two. The purpose of this study is to develop such an approach, i.e. an interaction model of the relationships between consumers and retailers. This will, hopefully, help to better understand the interdependencies between the parties, and thus why some relationships are long-term and others transactional (short term). It will also increase our understanding of how firms and consumers interact and what factors make either party avoid or leave a relationship of this type. The interdependencies that are created in the relationship are fundamental and can be explained as the glue that binds the two parties to each other.
Questions about consumer-retailer interaction can be approached with different types of conceptual tools. Among these analytical disciplines, one is constructed on behaviour theory (Villanueva, 2002; Rook, 1985; Mowen & Weiner, 1987) and another relies on marketing mix theory (Kotler, 1996). Both these disciplines, however, restrict the relationship view as they hold a one-dimensional perspective on marketing. They are mainly concerned with an analysis of the behaviour of consumers or of firms, but not with both simultaneously.
One important proposal of Sheth & Parvatiyar (1995), Gruen (1995) and Hadjikhani & Seyed- Mohammed (1997) is the introduction of the concept of relationships in consumer marketing.
Unlike service or industrial marketing relationships, the consumer relationship is based on an indirect construction. Consumers initially encounter the product or gain a visual image of the product. They do not necessarily have a direct interaction with the seller. Regardless of whether the interaction is direct or indirect, any action of the retailer or of the consumer will, however, affect the other party (Ericsson & Hadjikhani, 2000).
To summarise the research problem; this article follows a trend in consumer marketing as it introduces the concept of relationship interdependencies between the consumers and retailers in order to better understand acceptance/avoidance of a retailer firm, and the marketing actions of the retailers. The model that will be developed can add to our understanding of consumers´ behaviour (Sharma & Krishnan, 2002). The research project in
which it will be used will also generate new knowledge on how and why consumers behave in specific ways, and how retails may act in order to retain consumers.
Previous Studies
The consumer is one of the most widely studied and embraced constructs in marketing. Over the last two decades, more than 20,000 academic articles have been published on this topic.
Models and views presented in these articles are concerned with subjects like consumer behaviour and perception (Kotler, 1996; Biswas & Burton, 1993; Spreng & Olshavsky, 1993).
Other articles develop marketing views on subjects like consumer satisfaction, repurchasing, and increasing sales (Channon, 1985 and 1987; Andreason, 1977; Westbrook, 1980).
Avoiding views like relationship interdependency, they introduce conceptual tools for investigating market success by emphasizing management strategies such as brand image strategies (Roth, 1995; Park et al., 1986); and a differentiation of brand image strategies (DiMingo, 1988; Reynolds & Gutman, 1984). Strategy studies allot an active role to the vendor, and the media is presented as a marketing tool for a variety of promotions for positive change in consumer perception in general (East, 1990). In this field, except for a few studies, the researchers do not uncover the importance of the consumers’ actions.
Focusing on the market activities of the firms, the studies above hold a positive view towards the impact of retailer firms on consumers (Kotler, 1996; Biswas & Burton, 1993;
Spreng & Olshavsky, 1993). These views, which still have an extensive influence on researchers, fall into the traditional marketing paradigm - marketing mix theories. In this plethora of views, since the early years of the 1960s, there has been a domination of the 4Ps (Kotler, 1996), which are far from the views on relationship or interdependency. Employing economic theories, consumer marketing is explained by the marketing efforts of the producers or retailers. In this paradigm, as Stewart & Pavlou (2002) state, there is a large number of studies on aspects like advertising and communication (Stewart et al., 1983; Stewart et al., 1985). The focus of the researchers is on the bilateral actions of the producers and retailers.
This paradigm is mainly based on a one-way view, the marketer acts and the consumer responds.
Against this research background, marketing studies initiated a new research arena concentrating attention on relationship marketing. In the context of the buyer-seller relationship channel, sales management (Swan & Nolan, 1985), and service marketing (Berry, 1983; Grönroos, 1990; Woodside et al., 1992), researchers have contributed a significant
amount of knowledge to the consumer marketing research field. Broad ranges of concepts have been suggested. At one end of the spectrum is the concept of strategic marketing actions seen in studies such as McKenna’s (1991) on strategic success, Sarath et al., (1996) on personal selling and Sarath et al. (1996) on marketing by the sellers’ influential activity. At the other end are the behavioural concepts found in such studies as Barrett-Lennard’s (1962) and Churchill et al. (1990) on empathy and consumer perceptions.
In this field of studies however, researchers avoid dividing consumers on the basis of importance for the retailers, and a pure relationship view is suppressed. For example, despite proclaiming to use a relationship approach, they have selected a one-dimensional approach.
They study the relationship by considering firms’ marketing activities. Some researchers are more explicit when they explore the relationship concept. They suggest that studies on relationship need to devote more attention towards concepts like company features, brand name, and trust (Shimp et al., 1993; Turley & Moore, 1995) or consumers’ attachments (East, 1993). These studies treat the subject of relationship implicitly, and despite the researchers’
emphasis on dyadic relationships, chose either the consumers’ or the firm’s perspective. In addition, empirical studies in the field are conducted with facts from only one side of the relationship. When conceptualizing, the dominating elements are economic factors, and the relationship perspective is explored by the market actions of the producers and retailers.
In the search for an integrative and common conceptual ground, Dwyer et al. (1987) or Sheth & Parvatiyar (1995) justify using a relationship model and related concepts for studying consumer marketing. In further developing this line of research, researchers like Duncan &
Moriarty (1998) and Ahluwalia et al. (2001) introduce theoretical models based on communications, trust and commitment to integrate variables like price, loyalty, consumer service, relationship-transaction and brand name. One essential aspect in the relationship approach is an understanding of the characteristics and behaviour of both consumers and firms. Relationship marketing studies have provoked controversy over their lack of an integrative approach. The postulate is that marketing researchers, instead of developing a common conceptual ground for both retailers and consumers, place their emphasis on either the consumer or the firm.
An interesting contribution of some of these studies to this research is the use of the behavioural elements, like trust and social interactions, that are components of an interaction view. The subject has explicitly come under the attention of researchers in different areas of marketing research (see for example, Mittal & Lassar, 1996; Yen & Kong, 2002; Yang et al., 2003; Rowley & Slack, 2001). The efforts of researchers like Campenhausen & Lübben
(2002) are among the few that deal with the subject of personalization in consumer marketing.
With regard to studying the consumer market, these researchers state the need for new analytical tools for the notion of relationship interdependency that integrates both parties’
activities into one single approach.
An Integrative Approach
As defined, market activity for generating relationships is the glue that constructs the interdependency between two parties. It rests on understanding the activities and behaviour of both the involved parties (Campenhausen & Lübben, 2002.) While industrial marketing studies (see for example the study of Håkansson, 1982) extensively emphasize actors´
characteristics, consumer relationship marketing disregards this crucial aspect. A direct application of the characteristic dimensions of industrial actors on consumers is however difficult. A crucial benefit of the traditional marketing mix theory (see for example Kotler, 1996) to this study is, therefore, its emphasis on the characteristics of the firm and, especially, of the consumers. Topics like consumer age, income, need, and retailers’ and producers´
investment in advertising and service, are just a few dimensions used to thoroughly analyse the characteristics of consumers and retailers. It is true that, in these studies, they treat the characteristics of these actors in isolation from the other party, but they elevate the importance of characteristics that consumer relationship marketing disregards. Infusion of the characteristics of the actors (consumers and retailers) into a relationship model can deepen our understanding of relationship interdependency. This demands knowledge of the two interacting parties, of their resources and strategies, and of the investments that they commit to keep the relationship alive.
The interaction model for the consumer-retailer relationship also incorporates the two fundamental aspects of commitment and trust. These two constructs are tools to open up the relationship content. The degree of commitment and trust in the relationship determines the degree of interdependency between the retailer and the consumer. While a high degree of commitment and trust generate strong/high interdependence (long-term exchange relationship), a low degree of commitment and trust is inherent with weak/low interdependency (transactional short-term exchange). Commitment and trust are tools to measure the retailers’ and consumers´ input and outcomes in the relationship. They disclose the degree to which each actor is willing to sacrifice resources and generate trust, which is necessary for consumers´ repurchasing. These concepts are extensively explored in industrial marketing (see for example Anderson & Weitz, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Hadjikhani &
Ghauri, 2001), but have only attracted researchers in consumer marketing in recent years (see for example Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; Ahluwalia et al., 2001). Following the constructs discussed above, the model presented in this article is based on the characteristics of the actors and the behavioural elements of commitment and trust in the relationship. Relationship interdependency, besides the essential component of product exchange, is explained as being composed of complex exchanges containing both economic and social dimensions.
Relationship interdependency simply defines why, for example, we as consumers buy our products mostly from the same shop.
The interaction model of consumer-retailer relationship is illustrated graphically in figure 1 below. The model is constructed of the four components of (1) product attributes, (2&3) partners´ (retailers´ and consumers´) characteristics, and (4) the exchange relationship, which will all be further discussed in the following section.
Transactional: Purchasing/Avoidance Relational: Commitment and Trust/Distrust
Figure 1: An Interaction Model for Consumer-Retailer Relationships
(1) Product Attributes in the Exchange: The relationship interdependency is constructed, first of all, on the content of the exchange between retailers and consumers. While the other three components (mentioned above) reflect the activities and behaviour of the actors and their relationship, this aspect is instrumental and considers the content of the product cues.
Product attributes encompass factors like physical/service, high/low quality, unique/ standard, complex/simple, high/low price, long/short lived. The attribute of the products offered for an exchange affects the selection of the retailer. Consumers may prefer to make an exchange with one specific shop for the service quality that they gain, as they avoid other shops offering
Characteristics -Strategy -Resources -Capabilities
Characteristics -Preferences -Resources -Capabilities
Retailer Consumer
Product Attributes
Relationship Interdependency
products with low price and low quality (See for example, Villanueva, 2002). In cases where consumers buy a complex and unique product with a long life and invest a great deal of resources, their attention is directed towards shops in which they can obtain guarantees and information through social interaction.
Product attribute as a contextual factor also affects other aspects such as the commitment of the actors. Some researchers even claim that a special feature in consumer markets is that the consumers encounter the products rather than the sellers (Rice et al., 1996). Some product attributes, like the brand name of the shop or products, are intangible (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997; Swaminathan et al., 1996). Reputations for products with high quality, brand name or country of origin are intangible resources; no matter which shop is involved. A retailer firm with a connection to producers with strong product cues (high quality, with a brand name) can generate trust in its relationship with consumers to strengthen its interdependent relationship (Pettijohn et al., 1995; Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). A consumer can easily turn to the retailer firm that offers the product about which he knows the quality and brand, but which has a lower price. Retailer firms that are close to each other from the consumers’ perspective, like purchasing by post or via the internet, reflect the aspect of partners’ characteristics, for example, lower prices on the internet can persuade consumers to learn how to manage internet shopping (Foucault & Scheufele, 2002).
The consumers’ choice of a retailer depends to some extent on a combination of several product attributes that are offered by different retailer firms. The preference of consumers towards product cues, like service by social interaction, is widely discussed in consumer marketing (Sharma & Krishnan, 2002). The researchers opposing, for example, the internet as a retailer channel, cite the lack of social interaction in this retailer type. However, product attributes also reflect other areas like service dimensions that become included in the offered products.
(2) Characteristics of the Retailer Firms: The next crucial aspect in the integrative approach is the characteristics of the retailers. The factors of strategy (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995; Kotler, 1996), resources and capability of the firms to use resources (Biswas & Burton, 1993;
Sharma & Krishnan, 2002) explain the characteristics of retailers. Strategy reflects the aim of the firms to reach consumers. One retailer can aim to compete with price and short-term transactions –transactional-, and another may have the goal of building an image and loyalty needed for a long-term exchange – relational- with consumers (repurchasing). Jackson Bund
(1985) was among the first writers to suggest that the transaction-relationship approach can be applied to consumer marketing.
The aspect of resources covers a number of areas. Some, like available technological and manpower systems and physical resources (such as the disposable product groups in shops, or the physical location of the shops), are tangible resources (Ruth & Simonin, 1995). Retailers’
trade name or the images that consumers perceive are among the intangible resources.
Whatever the type, with these resources the firms commit themselves towards consumers.
Low resource input for the generation of image affects the degree of commitment towards consumers and also the degree of interdependency reached.
In this model, market knowledge is another element of the firms’ resources. Knowledge is constructed on the retailer firms’ market information and experience in interaction with consumers and connected firms (Menon & Varadarajan, 1992). Formation and adaptation of shops’ physical condition or product group, for example, requires knowledge of the consumers’ preferences and capabilities. Knowledge can simply be divided into general and specific knowledge. The general knowledge concerns the needs of the consumers as a larger collection and the ability of the retailers to satisfy these needs. This knowledge can easily be perceived by all retailers. Specific knowledge reflects particular aspects of the market and is germane to the creation of a unique position for the firm. The more specific the market knowledge is, the more individual will be the firms’ commitment to certain customers.
Adaptation of the retailers’ allocated resources towards each important consumer group or even towards individual consumers strengthens the relationship between the retailers and that specific group of consumers or that consumer.
There are differences in allocated resources between the retailer firms. While personnel, physical atmosphere and geographic location are vital resource areas for some shops, the product price, lower personnel service, etc, are important for other shops. These differences affect the organizations of these retailer firms, as they require different manpower, organization structures and product stocks. Consequently, differences in the extrinsic cues of the product exchanged are raised. Price and services supplied by these two types of suppliers can become different (Osmonbekov et al., 2002). Those in favour of the internet, for example, stress the adaptation capability of the technological resource towards consumers´ preferences (Parasuraman & Zinkhan, 2002), and those in favour of physical shops immediately respond by pointing out its shortcomings with regard to personal interaction (Sharma & Krishnan, 2002).
One crucial aspect worth mentioning is the retailers’ connection to other actors. Retailers’
relationships with firms like producers and distributors, possessing brand name or high quality products, are another dimension in their resources. Retailers have relationships to these actors in their environment and are thus embedded into a context that affects what they can and cannot accomplish (their capabilities) in the focal consumer relationship.
(3) Consumers’ Characteristics: Understanding the characteristics of the consumer is another crucial aspect in the relationship interdependency. This aspect is well elaborated in the text of consumer marketing literature (see for example, Stewart et al., 1983; Stewart & Pavlou, 2002).
The main track in the traditional consumer marketing studies deals with each characteristic separately. The consumers’ characteristic in this model is explained as consumer preferences, available resources (like income) and their capability. Consumers’ preferences as well as their resource possessions and capabilities are affected by their connections or relationships to others surrounding them, such as family, neighbours and work mates. These connected actors have been marked as circles above the consumer in Figure 1, and form the context into which the consumer is embedded.
Preference encompasses aspects like the consumers’ needs or wishes (see for example Bolton and Drew, 1991; Zeithaml, 1988). Consumers may wish to buy luxury products, but the available financial resources (for example level of income) and capability in using resources can hinder the attainment of such a preference. Consumers gratify their preferences on the basis of; a) product cost (price), b) product quality and c) prestige that they can gain (Grewal et al., 1998; Bolton & Drew, 1991). Resource factors like, a) low/high income, and/or b) knowledge (for example, degree of education or knowledge and experience, and age), affects the consumers’ purchasing commitment.
There are a number of studies that connect the consumers’ behavioural difference to levels of knowledge and income. Lack of product knowledge can simply generate distrust and avoidance of one retailer (Villanueva, 2002). While some consumers have their preference only towards the product cues of price and quality, others can have a preference towards product attributes like quality; service incorporated with social interaction. Consumers may also see the products as a means of generating prestige and manifesting their social class (Grewal et al., 1998). Hence, in their preferences, consumers can evaluate the exchange products not only for the functional values, but also for the side values.
The capability of consumers is the ability to use available resources to attain preferences.
Consumers can become committed to a relationship and, despite distrust, not be capable of
changing retailers. Consumers’ resistance to changing behaviour can be based on a) the perception of interdependency in the existing relationship, b) the problems that they perceive inhibit the alternative relationship. Bank customers, for example, despite their knowledge about the disadvantages in their existing interaction with their banks, can have difficulty in changing to other banks. Similarly, in cases like insurance companies, the firms interlock consumers into a type of interdependent relationship which is difficult for consumers to break.
Hence, consumers may perceive changing behaviour as burdensome and uncertain.
(4) Relationship Interdependency: This last aspect of the model is constructed on both actors’ activity and behaviour. Interdependency, besides the characteristics of the actors, is also constructed on how the consumers and retailers interact, i.e. whether the relationship is strong or based on a simple transaction. In the context of this model, the level of interdependency is explored by the actors’ commitment and trust. The degree of physical and social input of the actors affects interdependency, and, thus, determines if the consumers will return for repurchasing or not. As mentioned above, the research model demonstrates that parties can refuse interaction with one retailer or that the interaction can have a transactional nature -a short-term exchange of product and financial resources. The interaction can also have a relational nature - long-term and repetitive exchange (Dwyer et al., 1987), a case where the interdependency is high. While the first type of exchange refers to an isolated episode in preference and strategy, the second type implies a strong interdependent relationship where the parties are committed to adapting their behaviour (Garbarino &
Johnson, 1999; Duncan & Moriarty, 1998). Imbalance in the adaptation of one party generates distrust and will often lead to dissolution of the relationship. However, mutual high or low adaptation reflects the continuum of transaction in the relationship. Adaptation is related to the degree of commitment and trust of the consumers and retailers, and that generates interdependency (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999).
Commitment is the construct of investment and activities bonding the interacting parties to each other (see, for example, Salancik, 1977), and relationship trust is the willingness of the actors to stay in a relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Commitment of the stores involves, for example, investments in the service to customers, the training of salespeople to satisfy the consumers, store investment, the type of products in the shop, etc. A high commitment of the consumers towards a retailer is an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship. This reflects, beside the instrumental investment in purchasing products, also their loyalty (Smith et al., 2003; Chandrashekaran & Grewal, 2003; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Accordingly,
aspects like consumer loyalty are tied into commitment, a wider notion which permits the analysis of several interrelated aspects.
Commitment and trust generate interdependency, and the state of these sacrifices by the involved parties engineers the degree to which the links can be short or long-lived (Lincoln, 1982). Retailer firms, with their means of communication, become committed to their customers to provide and deliver products with specific attributes (give and known price, quality, service etc.). This also means that retailer firms and producers are committed to each other, as producers are to deliver products with the extrinsic and intrinsic cues that consumers are expecting (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001). Thus, producers are directly or indirectly committed towards consumers. Producers and retailer firms commit themselves to delivering products and satisfying the consumers. Interdependency depends on how the parties sacrifice specific resources for each other. The proposition extends the price and advertisement assimilation and involves aspects like involvement of parties in the exchange (Chandrashekaran & Grewal, 2003). Their commitments are to generate trust, establishing repurchase and stability in the relationship. Virtual shops, for example, with connections to producers of brand name products, lower prices, and more effective communication, can more easily compete with physical shops. This also implies a high interdependency of virtual shops to such firms.
Time and knowledge devoted to learning about a retailer and their individual service are among the investments that consumers commit into a relationship with a retailer. Consumers, when abandoning a relationship (changing their retailers), lose their commitments to the former relationships and have to conduct new resource input into the new retailer relationship.
In addition to the financial input, consumer commitment is to learn and adapt themselves to the formal or informal relationship rules. When changing to another retailer firm, consumers may need to adapt their behaviour. By turning to Internet shopping, for example, consumers need to adapt themselves towards computer technologies, programs, web sites and seeking knowledge. Adaptation embraces not only the available resources in terms of computer and programs investment, but also the knowledge required to operate the system and deal with the technological problems. A program that, for example, requires a high level of operative knowledge from the consumers can generate distrust, which makes the consumers stay in or return to their old relationships.
Relationship commitment can have different dimensions. While research in marketing presents firms’ investment in technology and production facilities as the determinant factor in the relationship (see Parasuraman & Grewal, 2000), studies like Scheer & Stern (1992)
introduce other aspects like calculative commitment (see also Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Calculative commitment reflects aspects like having an exchange with one retailer for economic reasons. It can also highlight the fact that consumers may stay with one retailer and have a long-term relationship with one shop because of the product attributes, such as price, and not because they trust that retailer. To challenge transactional behaviour of consumers, marketing actions of retailers need to bind consumers by means other than price. The presumption is that the needs of consumers are not only based on economic gains but also on their need for social interaction or an assortment of products with well established names and images. They make a commitment by recruiting personnel and having a relationship with producers of well-known products. Such commitments will generate trust, which is the glue for a long-term relationship.
Instead of actions for building an interdependent relationship, firms can undertake actions to build transactional interactions. In competition, some retailers advertise and put the emphasis on the economic gains of consumers, competing with others on the basis of price.
The practice of marketing effort, for some firms (both retailers and producers), with advertisements is to inform consumers of their prices. A crucial question is whether such a commitment can generate relationship continuity (see the new efforts of authors like Garbarino & Johnson, (1999) or Duncan & Moriarty, (1998) and Chaudhuri & Holbrook, (2001). Any relationship based solidly on price bears a clear risk of being short-lived, as commitments to generate trust and interdependency are missing and the appearance of a
“better deal” will lead to a change of retailer.
Final Comments
As discussed in the first pages, researchers or firms’ managers seldom touch on the subject that looks at the consumer market with an integrative approach. Adaptation of relationship theory implies views that integrate both consumers and retailers. A simple illustration exhibited that more than 90% of some retailers’ sales were made to less than 30% of their consumers, which manifested the importance of this vital aspect in mass marketing. In other words, the consumer market, similar to industrial and service markets, can benefit from marketing tools that take repurchasing and interactive aspects of marketing into consideration.
Against the view of market homogeneity and mass consumer marketing activity, relationship interdependency is based on a view of market heterogeneity. It implies actions on the basis of the degree of importance of the consumers. This postulation guides us as researchers and managers to divert the views and marketing activities from the total mass of consumers
towards the important consumers. The relationship interdependency view opens a new research arena and provides new marketing tools for researchers and managers.
In this model, relationship encompasses commitment and trust, attaching partners for a long-term exchange interaction. As an effort to contribute some knowledge to this field, this article aimed to provide a theoretical view on consumer-retailer relationships. Avoiding a one- dimensional approach, the integrative nature of the model incorporates both consumers and retailers. The prevailing relationship studies in the consumer market suffer from being mass consumer oriented, and do not differentiate consumers on the basis of their importance. When marketing is by advertisement, for example, consumers do not recognize it as being done for
‘me’. While consumers are searching for retailers that treat them specially, the benefit of general marketing becomes limited. Applying heterogeneity to diversify marketing actions increases researchers’ ability to deepen their understanding of the consumer market and extends the range of effectiveness in the marketing actions.
The relationship model introduced in this article contains the four constructs of a) product attributes, b and c) retailer and consumer characteristics, and d) relationship content.
These four analytical constructs have been integrated in order to develop a research arena for relationship marketing studies. While the first three constructs envelop the actors’
characteristics and products’ nature, the fourth construct, with its commitment and trust elements, elevates the retailers’ and consumers’ market activities and outcomes. Commitment rests on the parties’ input into the relationship and trust/price-buyer explains how these parties are bound to each other. In order to measure the strength in the relationship, the conceptual tool of interdependency, which has its basis in the commitment and trust, manifests whether the consumers stay in the relationship and repurchase the products or leave the relationship.
The subject of relationship interdependency concerns a very crucial area in consumer marketing research. It is passing its first stage of development, and needs serious attention and further research. An infusion of actors’ characteristics and behavioural elements like trust, which also enrich the relationship perspective in consumer marketing, can open new doors to deepen our understanding of mass consumer markets.
References
Ahluwalia, R., Unnava, H.R., Burnkrant, R.E. (2001), “The Moderating Role of Commitment on the Spillover Effect of Marketing Communications”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 458-470.
Anderson, E., and Weitz, B. (1992), “The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment in Distribution Channels”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 18-34.
Andreason, A.R. (1977), “A Taxonomy of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Measures”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 11, pp. 11-24.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1995), “Reflections on Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 272-277.
Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1962), “Dimensions of Therapist Response as Casual Factors in Therapeutic Change”, Psychological Monographs, Vol. 73, No. 43, pp. 1-36.
Berry, L.L. (1983), “Relationship Marketing” in Berry L.L., Shostack G.L. and Upah, G.D.
(eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Service Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 25-38.
Biswas, A. and Burton, S. (1993), “Consumer Perceptions of Tensile Price Claims in Advertisements: An Assessment of Claim Types”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 217-229.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), “A Multistage Model of Customers' Assessments of Service Quality and Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 375- 384.
Campenhausen, C. and Lübben, H. (2002), “Increasing Margins by Joining Your Customers“, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 514-523.
Chandrashekaran, R. and Grewal, D., (2003), “Assimilation of Advertised Reference Prices:
The moderating role of Involvement”, Journal of Retailing, 79, pp. 53-62.
Channon, C. (1985), Advertising Works 3, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, London.
Channon, C. (1987), Advertising Works 4, Cassell, London.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Churchill, G.A., Ford, N.M. and Walker, O.C. (1990), Sales Force Management: Planning, Implementation and Control, Irwin, Homewood.
DiMingo, E. (1988), “The Fine Art of Positioning”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp. 34-38.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S.E. (1997), “Front-End Alignment”, Marketing Tools, Vol. 4, No.
8, pp. 64-67.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S.E. (1998), “A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 11-27.
East, R. (1990), Changing Consumer Behaviour, Cassell, London.
East, R. (1993). Changing Consumer Behaviour, Cassell, London.
Eriksson, K. and Hadjikhani, A. (2000), “Perceptual Product Connection in an International Context”, International Business Review, Vol. 9, pp. 301-320.
Foucault, B.E. and Scheufele, D.A. (2002), “Web vs Campus Store? Why Students Buy Textbooks Online”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 409-423.
Fournier, S. (1988), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 343-373.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), “The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 70- 87.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker J. and Borin N. (1998), “The Effect of Store Name, Brand Name and Price Discounts on Consumers’ Evaluations and Purchase Intentions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 331-352.
Gruen, T.W. (1995), “The Outcome Set of Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets”, International Business Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 447-469.
Grönroos, C. (1990), “Service Management: A Management Focus for Service Competition”, Service Management, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Hadjikhani, A. and Ghauri, P. (2001), “The Behaviour of International Firms in Socio- Political Environments in the European Union”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 263-275.
Hadjikhani, A. and Seyed-Mohammad, N. (1997), “The Media and Consumer Perception in a Loosely Coupled International Market System: The Case of Mad Cow Disease”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 69-96.
Håkansson, H., (ed.), (1982), Industrial Marketing and Purchasing of Industrial Goods: An Interaction Approach, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Håkansson, H. and Snehota, I. (eds.) (1995) Developing Relationships in Business Networks, Routledge, London
Jackson Bund, B. (1985), “Build Customer Relationships That Last“, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 120-129.
Kotler, P. (1996), Principles of Marketing, Prentice-Hall International Editions, London.
Lincoln, J.R. (1982), “Intra (and Inter-) Organizational Networks, Research in Sociology of Organizations”, JAI Press, Vol. 1, pp. 1-38.
McKenna, R. (1991), Relationship Marketing, Successful Strategies for the Age of Customer, Addison-Wesley, New York.
Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P. (1992), “A Model of Marketing Knowledge Use within Firms”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 53-71.
Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1996), “The Role of Personalization in Service Encounters”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 95-109.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Mowen, J.C. and Weiner, J.L. (1987), “An Information Integration Analysis of How Trust and Expertise Combine to Influence Source Credibility and Persuasion”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 564-565.
Osmonbekov, T., Bello, D.C. and Gilliland, D.I. (2002), “Adoption of Electronic Commerce Tools in Business Procurement: Enhanced Buying Center Structure and Processes”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2/3, pp. 151-166.
Parasuraman, A. and Grewal, D. (2000), “Serving Customers and Consumers Effectively in the Twenty-First Century: A Conceptual Framework and Overview”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Parasuraman, A. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2002), “Marketing to and Serving Customers through the Internet: An Overview and Research Agenda”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 286-295.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept - Image Management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 135-145.
Pettijohn, C.E., Pettijohn, L.S. and Taylor, A.J. (1995), “The Relationship between Effective Counselling and Effective Selling Behaviours”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 5-15.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1984), “Advertising as Image Management”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 27-38.
Rice, G., Wongtada, N. and Leelakulthanit, O. (1996), “An Investigation of Self-Efficiency and Environmentally Concerned Behaviour of Thai Consumers”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Rook, D.W. (1985), “The Ritual Dimension of Consumer Behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 251-265.
Roth, M. S. (1995), “The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image Strategies”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.
163-175.
Rowley, J. and Slack, F. (2001), “Leveraging Customer Knowledge – Profiling and Personalisation in E-Business”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29, No. 9, pp. 409-415.
Ruth, J.A. and Simonin, B.L. (1995), “Bundling as a Strategy for New Product Introduction:
Effects on Consumers’ Reservation Prices for the Bundle, the New Product, and Its Tie- In”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 219-230.
Salancik, G. (1977), “Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behaviour and Belief”, in Staw, B.M. and Salancik, G. (eds.), New Directions in Organizational Behaviour, St.
Clair, Chicago, pp. 1-54.
Sarath, A.N., Sager, J.K. and Kumar, K. (1996), “Salespeople’s Use of Upward Influence Tactics in Coping with Role Stress”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
24, No. 1, pp. 44-56.
Scheer, L.K. and Stern, L.W. (1992), “The Effect of Influence Type and Performance Outcomes on Attitude Towards the Influencer”, Journal of Marketing Science, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 128-142.
Sharma, A. and Krishnan, R. (2002), “Clicks Only, Clicks and Bricks, and Bricks Only: Are Retail Salespeople an Important Factor in Choice?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, No. 3/4, pp. 317-336.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1993), “The Evolution of Relationship Marketing”, paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Historical Thoughts in Marketing, May, Atlanta.
Sheth, J.N. and Parvatiyar, A. (1995), “Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets:
Antecedents and Consequences”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
23, No. 4, pp. 255-271.
Shimp, T.A., Samiee, S. and Madden, T.J. (1993), “Countries and Their Products: A Cognitive Perception Structure Perceptive”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 323-330.
Smith, A., Sparks, L., Hart, S., Tzokas, N., (2003), “Retail Loyalty Schemes: Results From a Consumer Diary Study”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, pp. 109-119.
Spreng, R.A. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1993), “A Desires Congruency Model of Consumer Satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 169- 178.
Stewart, D.W., Furse, D.H. and Kozak, R. (1983), “A Descriptive Analysis of Commercial Copytesting Services”, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 6, pp. 1-44.
Stewart, D.W. and Pavlou, P.A. (2002), “From Consumer Response to Active Consumer:
Measuring the Effectiveness of Interactive Media”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 376-396.
Stewart, D.W., Pechmann, C., Ratneshwar, S., Stroud, J. and Byrant, B. (1985),
“Methological and Theoretical Foundations of Advertising Copytesting: A Review”, Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1-73.
Swaminathan, V., Zinkhan, G.M. and Reddy, S.K. (1996), “The Evolution and Antecedents of Transformational Advertising: A Conceptual Model”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 49-55.
Swan, J.E. and Nolan, J.J. (1985), “Gaining Customer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for the Salesperson”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 39- 48.
Turley, L.W. and Moore, P.A. (1995), “Brand Name Strategies in the Service Sector”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.12, No. 4, pp. 42-50.
Villanueva, M., (2002), “The Satisfaction of Consumer Needs and the Market Exchange: An Empirical” Application, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9 pp. 13-30.
Westbrook, R.A. (1980), “A Rating Scale for Measuring Product/Service Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44, pp. 68-72.
Woodside, A.G., Wilson, E.G. and Milner, P. (1992), “Buying and Marketing CPA Services”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 21, pp. 265-272.
Yang, X., Ahmed, Z.U., Ghingold, M., Boon, G.S., Mei, T.S. and Hwa, L.L. (2003),
“Consumer Preferences for Commercial Web Site Design: An Asia-Pacific Perspective”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 10-27.
Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 2-22.
