Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Rational and emotional factors of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a business-to-business setting
Marc Elser Bernd W. Wirtz
Article information:
To cite this document:
Marc Elser Bernd W. Wirtz , (2017),"Rational and emotional factors of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a business-
to-business setting ", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 1 pp. 138 - 152
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2015-0101
Downloaded on: 02 March 2017, At: 08:24 (PT)
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 86 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 295 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Exploring behavioural branding, brand love and brand co-creation", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.
25 Iss 6 pp. 516-526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0919
(2016),"Service quality and brand loyalty: The mediation effect of brand passion, brand affection and self-brand connection",
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 Iss 12 pp. 2771-2794 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-09-2015-0466

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:296033 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Rational and emotional factors of customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty
in a business-to-business setting
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
Information and Communication Management, German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Speyer, Germany

Abstract
Purpose Reaching customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a business-to-business setting is still an area of rising interest to both researchers
and practitioners. Compared to consumer branding, there is notably very little known about the success factors of industrial branding and how to
convince buyers rationally and emotionally in business-to-business markets. Therefore, this paper aims to examine the success factors of branding
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

in a business-to-business setting and analyze their performance impact on customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach In total, 258 buyers of mechanical and plant engineering companies participated in an online survey. Data
analysis was performed by using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling.
Findings The results reveal that rational brand quality consists of the three dimensions, product quality, service quality and distribution quality,
whereas consistent advertising style, brand image, country-of-manufacture image and salespersons personality are dimensions of emotional brand
associations. All dimensions positively influence customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
Originality/value This study offers a certain value compared to the relevant literature mentioned in literature review. Compared to a large
majority of the papers, the integration of rational and emotional factors in an integrative and complex model implies novelty. For example, Davis
et al. (2008) and Baumgarth and Binckebanck (2011) focus on specific exogenous factors in their studies, namely, brand awareness and brand image,
respectively, sales force impact combined with product quality and non-personal communication. In contrast, Van Riel, Pahud de Mortanges and
Streukens (2005), Chen et al. (2011) and Chen and Su (2012) conceptualized a more complex model but did not separate rational and emotional
factors. Jensen and Klastrup (2008) were the only authors who made this separation, but they did not include well-known emotional success factors
such as brand image or country-of-manufacture image in their research model. Furthermore, an endogenous causal chain representing an observable
consumer behavior is missing. This paper fills this gap.
Keywords Structural equation modeling, Success factors, Industrial branding, Brand equity, Brand loyalty
Paper type Research paper

1.Introduction substantial reason for the importance of branding industrial

In a business-to-business setting, manufacturers of industrial
goods have to build an understanding of industrial buying
decisions and cannot longer ignore the circumstances in which
buying centers or single buyers find themselves[1]. In this
context, a strong and unique industrial brand can be helpful to
generate competitive advantages and increase financial
performance (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1998; Persson, 2010).
Brand management and its success factors have a long
scientific tradition in the marketing of consumer products and
services. In a business-to-business context, branding has been
ignored for a long time. In their literature review article, Leek
and Christodoulides (2011, p. 830) drew the conclusion:
Branding in business-to-business markets has received
comparatively little attention in the academic literature. With
an increasing globalization, the conditions of selling and
buying industrial goods have changed completely. Another
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
goods is an ongoing commoditization of products being
marketed to companies and industries (Alexander et al., 2009;
Cassia and Magno, 2012). In this context, the term industrial
goods summarizes all goods which are exclusively sold from
companies to other companies for use in producing other
goods (Kumar and Sharma, 1998).
For a long period of time, scientific scholars focused on
tangible product features or the product performance only
when examining buying decision behavior in a
business-to-business setting (Rosenbrijer, 2001). Intangible
and nonfunctional features such as company image and
reputation were neglected in the main body of literature for a
long time until the appearance of some studies which stated
that single industrial buyers and buying groups base their
purchase decisions also on subjective attributes (Shaw et al.,
1989; Bendixen et al., 2004). For this reason, emotional brand
attributes such as trust, image, reassurance, reputation and
responsiveness have also been taken into the focus of

Received 26 May 2015

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing Revised 30 September 2015
32/1 (2017) 138 152 18 July 2016
Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 7 October 2016
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-05-2015-0101] Accepted 7 October 2016

138
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
consideration when branding industrial goods (Lynch and de
Chernatony, 2004; Wind, 2006; Jensen and Klastrup, 2008).
In the specific case of a business-to-business setting, some
research does appear in the branding literature concentrating
solely on functional features as product or service
performance. Some research also focuses unilaterally on
intangible brand assets such as the image of a brand or brand
reputation. Only very little effort has been made by researchers
to combine both assets (Jensen and Klastrup, 2008; Kuhn
et al., 2008; Candi and Kahn, 2016).
Up to now, a more comprehensive and integrative model
containing both rational and emotional factors of customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty does not exist. This paper
addresses this issue.
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
In the context of empirical business-to-business branding
research, Aakers brand equity framework is increasingly
gaining importance (Ohnemus, 2009; Leek and
Christodoulides, 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). According to
Aaker (1991, p. 15), brand equity:
[. . .] is a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or
service to a firm and/or to that firms customers.
In general, brand equity is a key factor for long-term
relationships between sellers and buyers and therefore often
the main objective to be targeted by industrial companies.
Brand equity research is characterized by two general
perspectives. On the one hand, brand value is judged by
customers who evaluate a product brand (customer-based
brand equity); on the other hand, stakeholders perform a
financial evaluation of a corporate brand (firm-based brand
equity). Although there are efforts made to integrate both
concepts (Shamma and Hassan, 2011), the scientific
community still separates both concepts and
disproportionately higher prefers the customer perspective,
as for marketers it is more important to understand the
drivers of brand equity in different markets (Leek and
Christodoulides, 2011, p. 833).
Customer-based brand equity can be divided into rational
and emotional evaluations of the relevant brand (Jensen and
Klastrup, 2008; Leek and Christodoulides, 2011). Up to date,
many studies examining the success factors of branding in a
business-to-business setting focus on the customer-based
brand equity framework which originated in a consumer
branding context (van Riel et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2007). As
customer-based brand equity has a long tradition in academic
research, it is obvious that it offers extensiveness and depth
(Martensen and Gronholdt, 2004; Biedenbach and Marell,
2010; Juntunen et al., 2011; Chen and Su, 2012). In
particular, two of its altogether five dimensions, namely,
perceived quality and brand associations, offer researchers
options to theoretically derive success factors which promise
to have a positive impact on brand equity outcomes such as
customer satisfaction or loyalty intention.
Given the academic and practical relevance of the object of
examination and the lack of previous research, the overarching
purpose of our paper is to contribute to the examination of
rational and emotional factors of customer satisfaction and
brand loyalty in a business-to-business setting by using
Aakers customer-based brand equity framework in general,
and in particular its dimensions of perceived quality (to
139
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
conceptualize rational factors) and brand associations (to
conceptualize emotional factors). More specifically, the
dimensionality of the rational and emotional factors is of
overriding importance in this context and another specific
intention of this paper.
To depict the status quo of research located in this field, the
next section contains a literature review focusing on papers
being relevant to the purpose of this study.
The subsequent section focuses on the derivation of our
examination model and hypothesis generation. Further, an
empirical test of the developed hypotheses is conducted. The
final section of our paper discusses the findings and gives
implications.
2. Literature review
For the conceptualization of our examination model,
especially one body of literature is of high relevance: brand
equity research in a business-to-business context, which is
basically built on customer-based brand equity. Although a
large majority of brand equity research can be located in the
field of consumer branding, the concept is also applicable to as
business-to-business setting (Bennett et al., 2005) As a result,
business-to-business studies are usually based on the
conceptual structures used in customer-based brand equity
models. These studies also indicate the existence and the
importance of business-to business brand equity. According to
the development in consumer branding, where studies
primarily focus on the branding of goods, brand equity of
business-to-business services is not widespread by academic
scholars, although in recent years, it attracted more and more
interest. Biedenbach (2012, p. 689) noticed: [. . .] the
branding studies focusing on B2B services have a
disproportionally marginal share compared with the studies of
B2B goods. Therefore, in the following, we are in line with
the majority of researchers in the field of business-to-business
branding who focus on the examination of several studies in
the area of tangible business-to-business goods branding
which are based on Aakers brand equity framework.
Early studies investigated the relationship between brand
loyalty as a success factor and endogenous variables. For
example, Bendixen et al. (2004) examined the willingness of
buyers to pay a price premium for strong industrial brands.
They also found that the buyers willingness to recommend
the brand to peers and to give special consideration to other
products from the same brand are benefits from brand-loyal
buyers in a business-to-business setting. This studys findings
are in line with Taylor et al.s (2007) findings, who adopted
Netemeyers et al.s (2004) model and confirmed inter alia the
positive relation between brand loyalty and willingness to pay
a price premium.
Other studies regarded the brand loyalty construct as an
endogenous variable. For example, van Riel et al. (2005) used
product brand equity, corporate brand equity and loyalty
intention as success constructs and confirmed the positive
influence of product distribution, product value, service
personnel and information services. In contrast to other
researchers (Yoo and Donthu, 2001; Pappu et al., 2005), they
did not conceptualize loyalty as an influencing dimension of
brand equity but modeled it as an outcome of product brand
equity and corporate brand equity. Using this approach, they
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
are in line with more recent studies hypothesizing loyalty as a
success construct and not as a success factor of brand equity in
a business-to-business setting (Cretu and Brodie, 2007;
Juntunen et al., 2011). Other representatives of this view are
those of Davis et al. (2008), who focused on the impact of
brand image and brand awareness on industrial purchasers
brand loyalty intention. They also hypothesized that the effect
of brand image on brand equity will be greater compared to
the effect of brand awareness on brand equity for customers of
business-to-business services. Additionally, Al-Kwifi and
McNaughton (2013) examined the importance of factors
(product features, research collaboration, product service,
price and bundling) which lead to brand switching, which is
the opposite of brand loyalty.
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
A first examination of rational and emotional elements in
the evaluation of industrial goods by industrial buyers was
performed by Jensen and Klastrup (2008). They transferred a
general customer-based brand equity model, which was
developed by Martensen and Gronholdt (2004), to a
business-to-business context. Thus, the relationship between
industrial buyers and a specific brand is determined by
rational brand evaluations (product quality, service quality
and price) and emotional brand evaluations (differentiation,
promise, trust and credibility). The authors findings
confirmed the presence of emotional factors of industrial
brand equity. Kuhn et al. (2008) adapted Kellers (2003)
customer-based brand equity pyramid and proved the
existence of emotional feelings of industrial purchasers toward
a brand. In this line, Cassia and Magno (2012) analyzed the
relative contribution of emotional hedonic antecedents versus
rational functional antecedents of industrial buyers
preferences.
Other studies located in the area of tangible
business-to-business goods branding mainly concentrated on
the examination of a small number or even a single specific
success factor and its influence on several different
endogenous constructs. For example, Biedenbach and Marell
(2010) tested the influence of customer experience on brand
awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand
loyalty, whereas a hierarchical effect between the four
endogenous success constructs is supposed and in parts
confirmed. Baumgarth and Binckebanck (2011) examined the
influence of sales force (salesmans personality and salesmans
behavior) alongside classic marketing instruments (product
quality and non-personal communication) on brand
perception, brand strength and brand loyalty. Juntunen et al.
(2011) extended the traditional brand equity discussion when
focusing on corporate brand equity while examining corporate
brand loyalty as a result of corporate brand image.
Since 2011, authors focused on more comprehensive
research models which include a greater number of exogenous
constructs. For example, Chen et al. (2011) proposed a
research model which tested the influence of perceived
product quality, perceived service quality, brand awareness,
brand loyalty and country-of-origin on brand equity. The
findings reveal an insignificance of perceived service quality
and country-of-origin. Leischnig and Enke (2011) examined
the relationship between exogenous brand perception
constructs (brand stability and risk reduction) and
endogenous customer response constructs (purchase loyalty,
140
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
attitudinal loyalty and price premium) in a
business-to-business setting. Extending the model examined
by Chen et al. (2011); Chen and Su (2012) additionally tested
the impact of country-of-manufacture, product value,
information services and service personnel on brand equity
and brand loyalty.
Finally, valuable insight can be gained from studies using a
qualitative theoretic approach. For example, Webster and
Keller (2004) analyzed branding strategies and defined
guidelines for successful industrial brands. Alexander et al.
(2009) identified the importance of attributes such as
durability, lead time, technical support and price in a
business-to-business setting.
In general, the research overview analyzed a total of 16
articles located in the field of brand equity research in a
business-to-business setting. A more comprehensive review
of the literature lies beyond the scope of this paper.
Summarizing the research overview, the existence of mostly
small research models concentrating on only a few
exogenous constructs cannot be neglected. Another finding
from the overview reveals that a separation between rational
and emotional brand evaluation is only performed by Jensen
and Klastrup (2008); Kuhn et al. (2008) and Cassia and
Magno (2012). As a consequence, this paper addresses the
issue of a more comprehensive and integrative model
containing both rational and emotional factors of brand
equity outcomes such as customer satisfaction and brand
loyalty. We hereby comply the call for a more
comprehensive research by Leek and Christodoulides
(2011, p. 835) who stated:
Research is required to [. . .] identify how B2B buyers perceive branding
and the relative importance of the functional and emotional attributes that
will enable marketers to convey a more appropriate message.
Their statement is also supported by the meta-analysis on
business-to-business branding performed by Kernen et al.
(2012).
3. Research model and hypotheses
Brand equity research in a business-to-business context with
its relation to customer-based brand equity builds a solid
foundation for our proposed examination model. Aaker
(1991, p. 16) mentions five interrelated categories of liabilities
and assets which underlie brand equity: brand loyalty, brand
awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other
proprietary brand assets. Factors of brand equity outcomes
such as customer satisfaction and brand loyalty are usually
chosen from both dimensions: perceived quality and brand
associations. Against this background, Section 3.1
conceptualizes the rational exogenous constructs and their
effect on customer satisfaction, whereas Section 3.2
concentrates on the relationship between emotional
exogenous constructs and customer satisfaction. Finally,
Section 3.3 conceptualizes the relationship between customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty.
3.1 Rational brand quality and customer satisfaction
According to Aaker (1991), the general quality of a brand is
perceived in different forms by customers for different
industries. However, it is a brand characteristic of high
importance which is always measurable. As a result, perceived
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
quality influences customers purchase decisions and brand
loyalty intention. Thus, our first three exogenous constructs
are derived from this dimension.
The impact of product quality on customer-based brand
equity in a business-to business context is due to the fact that
purchasers who are satisfied with product performance usually
prefer this specific brand compared to other brands with poor
product performance and tend to be more loyal (Taylor et al.,
2007; Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011). The positive effect
of product quality on brand equity outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty has been hypothesized and
confirmed by a large number of empirical business-to-business
studies (van Riel et al., 2005; Cretu and Brodie, 2007). In this
context, product-related quality dimensions such as reliability,
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
durability and different features, as well as fit and finish, serve
as evaluation criteria (Aaker, 1991) and underlie a rational
evaluation by customers because of the fact that these
dimensions are tangible and thus measurable (Jensen and
Klastrup, 2008). Transferred to our study, capital goods
producers product quality plays a major role in positively
influencing brand equity outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty of buyers of capital goods.
As industrial products often are very complex and
maintenance-intensive, the service quality aspect also seems to
be very important in business-to-business settings (van Riel
et al., 2005; Persson, 2010). Especially, after-sales
performance in terms of technical service support is of high
importance, as long downtime of machines can result in
excessive costs. Therefore, service quality attributes such as
reliability, responsiveness and competence (Aaker, 1991) can
be a decisive influencer of industrial buyers satisfaction and
brand loyalty in the specific case of capital goods producers
branding efforts. The general positive effect of service quality
on brand equity outcomes has been confirmed by various
studies (van Riel et al., 2005). Analogous to product quality,
service quality tends to be more rationally than emotionally
evaluated by customers (Jensen and Klastrup, 2008); for
example, the quality or the duration of repair work are
measurable.
Finally, distribution quality has a positive impact on
industrial buyers brand perceptions (Mudambi et al., 1997).
Distribution quality unites aspects such as ordering, delivery
and availability (van Riel et al., 2005). Thus, in the context of
our study, capital goods producers are able to increase brand
equity outcomes as customer satisfaction and brand loyalty by
offering an adequate distribution quality of their goods. It is
assumed that customers in a business-to-business setting
rationally evaluate distribution quality (Mudambi et al.,
1997); for example, it is clearly to be evaluated if goods are
delivered in time or at the place where they are needed.
All of the three above-mentioned exogenous constructs,
namely, product quality, service quality and distribution
quality, are derived from the very complex dimension of
perceived quality of Aakers brand equity framework and have
a positive influence on the evaluation of a specific industrial
brand. In addition, they are rationally evaluated by customers
in general and buyers of capital goods producers in the specific
context of our study, as tangible assets generally tend to be
rationally evaluated (Kazmi, 2008) Therefore, we introduce a
141
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
latent, reflective construct of second order, rational brand
quality.
After the conceptualization of rational brand quality is
completed, the following will take a closer look at the
endogenous construct customer satisfaction. Customer
satisfaction is seen as a result of brand equity, its dimensions
and the exogenous constructs derived from them (Aaker,
1991). Vice versa, rational brand quality and its dimensions
positively influence customer satisfaction. Customer
satisfaction has a long tradition as an endogenous construct in
industrial branding research. For example, the positive effect
of product-related attributes on customer satisfaction has
already been hypothesized and confirmed (Da Silva and Alwi,
2006). Additionally, service quality was hypothesized to be
positively correlated with customer satisfaction (Bei and
Chiao, 2001). Thus, this widespread causal chain allows us to
predict a positive influence of all exogenous constructs
captured by rational brand quality on customer satisfaction.
This leads us to the following study hypothesis:
H1. Rational brand quality, which is a reflective, latent
construct of second order, captures the following three
factors, product quality, service quality and distribution
quality, and has a significant positive effect on customer
satisfaction.
3.2 Emotional brand associations and customer
satisfaction
The purpose of our study is not just to investigate the
influence of rational factors on brand equity outcomes such as
customer satisfaction and brand loyalty; we also examine
success factors which are assumed to be emotionally evaluated
by customers as they show a more intangible nature.
According to Aaker (1991, p. 20), brand associations in
general are able to create a positive feeling or attitude being
closely linked to a brand in customers minds. Brand
associations are also a solid foundation of competitive
advantages, as key attributes, which are associated with a
specific brand in a product class, are very hard to be attacked.
Therefore, all of the following four emotional factors are
derived from Aakers fourth dimension of brand equity
framework. An important success factor of this category which
has not been examined in an industrial branding context up to
now is consistent advertising style. It is clearly assumed that
advertising in general underlies an emotional evaluation by
customers (Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Rossiter and Bellman,
2012). So far, advertising research in a branding context
focused primarily on customers perception of advertising
spending, which was hypothesized and confirmed to have a
positive impact on building brand equity (Villarejo-Ramos
and Snchez-Franco, 2005; Alex, 2012). The term advertising
style describes the continuous companies behavior of
advertising clearly, distinctively and concisely compared to
other companies advertising behaviors (Cathelat and Ebguy,
1988). The term consistency focuses on the coherence and
unity of the advertising style over a longer period of time.
Aaker (1991, p. 173) suggested: If the advertising is working,
stick with it. [. . .] the value of consistency through time
cannot be overestimated. In the specific context of our study,
buyers of capital goods are assumed to be positively influenced
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
by a consistent advertising style having a positive effect on
their satisfaction and brand loyalty intention.
Another influencer of brand equity is brand image.
According to Keller (1993, p. 3), brand image is the
perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumers memory. Further, brand
image is assumed to be emotionally approached by customers
(Dobni and Zinkhan, 1990; Malr et al., 2011) and to be able
to influence brand equity outcomes (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993). Transferred to our study, capital goods producers
brand image plays a very important role in positively
influencing brand equity outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty of buyers of capital goods.
Another factor of brand equity in a business-to-business
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
setting is the country-of-manufacture image of a brand and its
products (Chen and Su, 2012). In contrast to the more-often
examined country-of-origin image factor, which focuses on
the image of the country in which the brand was founded or
the brand has its initial origin, country-of-manufacture image
concentrates on the country in which a brands products are
crafted. As a result of the increase in bi-national or hybrid
products of brands related to the globalization,
country-of-manufacture image gains more and more
importance in branding research (Chao, 1998; Insch and
McBride, 2004; Chen and Su, 2012). As a specific country
tends to produce specific stereotypes (positive ones and
negative ones), brands being closely linked to a country either
benefit or suffer from those stereotypes (Essoussi and
Merunka, 2007; Chen and Su, 2012). According to Aaker
(1991, p. 128), a country can be a strong symbol, as it has
close connections with products, materials, and capabilities.
Therefore, a country arouses specific emotions which are
closely linked to the emotions the respective brand arouses by
potential customers. On this basis, we propose a positive effect
of country-of-manufacture image on capital goods buyers
satisfaction and brand loyalty in the setting of our study.
Finally, we include salesmans personality as a factor in our
examination model. Salesmans personality is assigned to the
emotional factors of brand equity outcomes (Lynch and de
Chernatony, 2007), as the relationship with a salesman
underlies a personal judgement by each customer or each
member of an industrial buying center in terms of trust, safety
and sympathy. These relationships are usually based on
positive emotions and create positive feelings and attitudes
such as satisfaction by customers (Baxter and Matear, 2004;
Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011). As it is important to
build and perpetuate a relationship with profitable customers,
personal selling gains more and more importance especially in
the context of branding (Ahearne et al., 2007; Choi et al.,
2015; Guesalaga and Kapelianis, 2015; Singh and Venugopal,
2015). The influence of salesmans personality on customers
brand evaluation and brand equity outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty is well established in industrial
branding literature (Lynch and de Chernatony, 2004; van Riel
et al., 2005; Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011). Transferred
to our study, capital goods producers salesmans personality
positively influences brand equity outcomes such as customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty of buyers of capital goods.
All of the four above-mentioned exogenous constructs,
consistent advertising style, brand image, country-
142
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
of-manufacture image and salesmans personality, are derived
from the very complex dimension of brand associations of
Aakers brand equity framework. In addition, they are
emotionally evaluated by customers in general and buyers of
capital goods producers in the specific context of our study, as
intangible assets generally tend to be emotionally evaluated
(Kazmi, 2008). Therefore, we introduce a latent, reflective
construct of second order named emotional brand
associations.
Analogous to our first proposed hypothesis, we use
customer satisfaction as an endogenous construct again and
predict a positive influence of all exogenous constructs
captured by emotional brand associations, as customer
satisfaction is conceptualized as an outcome of brand equity
efforts (Aaker, 1991). This leads to our second study
hypothesis:
H2. Emotional brand associations, which is a reflective,
latent construct of second order, captures the following
four factors, consistent advertising style, brand image,
country-of-manufacture image and salesmans
personality, and has a significant positive effect on
customer satisfaction.
3.3 Customer satisfaction and brand loyalty
After the conceptualization of rational brand quality and
emotional brand associations and the proposition of their
positive effects on customer satisfaction are completed, the
following will take a closer look at our second endogenous
construct, brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is one of the most often
used brand equity outcomes in industrial branding literature,
either as the final construct in an endogenous causal chain
(van Riel et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2007; Baumgarth and
Binckebanck, 2011) or as a single endogenous construct
(Davis et al., 2008; Ramaseshan et al., 2013). A large majority
of researchers conceptualize brand loyalty as an outcome of
the other four dimensions of Aakers brand equity framework,
although Aaker (1991) modeled it as the fifth dimension and
therefore as an influencer of brand equity outcomes. The
causal relationship between customer satisfaction and brand
loyalty has also been subject of general consumer branding
research (Brakus et al., 2009) and industrial branding research
(Da Silva and Alwi, 2006; Biedenbach et al., 2015). Within
the specific setting of our study, we propose that satisfied
buyers of capital goods tend to be loyal to the capital goods
producer in terms of future purchase decisions. Thus, this
leads us to the following study hypothesis:
H3. Customer satisfaction has a significant positive effect on
brand loyalty.
It follows that rational brand quality and emotional brand
associations positively influence customer satisfaction,
whereas, in turn, customer satisfaction also has a positive
influence on customers brand loyalty. The hypotheses and
their effect relationships can be combined in an overall model.
Figure 1 shows an overview of our proposed research model.
4. Methodology and results
Our study uses data from a survey which was accessible online
from November 2013 until February 2014. A total of 2,522
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
Figure 1 Proposed research model
Product
quality
Service Rational
quality brand quality
Distribution
quality
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
Consistent
advertising
style
Brand image
Emotional brand
associations
Country-of -
manuf acture
image
Salesmans
personality
buyers of companies which are members of the German
Mechanical and Plant Engineering Association were
questioned via e-mail and telephone to take part in the survey.
Participants were demanded to refer to a specific purchase of
a capital good from a specific capital goods producer when
answering the questionnaire, as the capital goods sector is
extremely dominated by commoditization processes (Baines
and Lightfoot, 2013), which results in a high importance of
branding efforts (Alexander et al., 2009; Cassia and Magno,
2012). When the survey was completed, a total of 258
(response rate 10.23 per cent) completed and usable
questionnaires remained, which we used for the further
analysis of the measuring models and effect relationships.
A total of 180 responses (69.8 per cent) could be assigned to
mechanical engineering companies buyers, whereas 78
responses (30.2 per cent) came from plant engineering
companies buyers. The participants of the survey were split as
follows: 165 participants (64.0 per cent) hold an executive
position in the purchase department, 87 (33.7 per cent) were
coworkers in the purchase department and six respondents
(2.3 per cent) were assigned themselves as others. Also, 12
participants (4.7 per cent) said they made the purchase
decision by themselves, whereas 218 buyers (84,5 per cent)
were members of a buying center sized between two and four
persons. In addition, 28 respondents (10.9 per cent) said that
their buying center consisted of five or more persons. In terms
of the company size, 60 participants (23.3 per cent) worked in
a company with less than 100 employees, 62 participants
(24.0 per cent) were employed in a company with a size
between 100 and 249 employees, 73 participants (28.3 per
cent) worked in a company with a size between 250 and 499
employees and 46 respondents (17.8 per cent) were employed
143
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
H1
Customer
H3 Brand loyalty
satisf action
H2
in a company with a size between 500 and 4,999 employees.
Only 17 participants of the study (6.6 per cent) worked for a
company with more than 5,000 employees. When asked how
well the subjects could answer the questions in total, the vast
majority of 93.0 per cent were able to answer the questions
medium (13.2 per cent), fairly good (29.1 per cent), good
(36.8 per cent) or very good (13.9 per cent). The remaining
7.0 per cent were able to answer questions rather poorly (6.2
per cent) or poorly (0.8 per cent). Thus, a good-to-very-good
answering competence of the subjects can be assumed. Table I
summarizes the database characteristics.
We conducted diverse tests to ensure the reliability and
validity of the database. First, we checked for non-response
bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1977) and did not identify any
bias between early and late respondents. Second, we checked
the presence of common method bias by testing the data with
Harmans one-factor test (Harman, 1967). Table II shows the
results of the Harmans one-factor test.
Exploratory factor analysis (rotation method: Oblimin with
Kaiser normalization) showed that no factor explains the
majority of variance of all indicators. As another component
when checking for common method bias but also key
informant bias, we realized triangulation of our data set
(Homburg et al., 2012). Each participant of our study who
agreed to forward a shortened questionnaire to another
member of his or her buying center, was sent the respective
questionnaire and asked to forward it to his or her colleague.
As a result, 31 shortened questionnaires filled out by second
key informants from the same company in each case were
received. For checking the consistency of the primary data
collected and the data collected from the second key
informants, we used bivariate correlation and the intra-class
 Customer satisfaction Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152

Table I Database characteristics measurement scales for our questionnaire from previous
Number (%) research and modified the scales according to the specific
setting of our study:
Companies area of operation product quality (van Riel et al., 2005; Baumgarth and
Mechanical engineering 180 (69.8%)
Binckebanck, 2011);
Plant engineering 78 (30.2%) service quality (van Riel et al., 2005; Davis-Sramek et al.,
Survey participants position 2009; He and Li, 2011);
Executive position in the purchase department 165 (64.0%) distribution quality (van Riel et al., 2005; Chen and Su,
Coworker position in the purchase department 87 (33.7%) 2012);
Other position 6 (2.3%)
brand image (Villarejo-Ramos and Snchez-Franco, 2005;
Davis et al., 2008; Juntunen et al., 2011);
Buying center size country-of-manufacture image (Darling and Arnold,
Independent decision 12 (4,7%) 1988; Klein et al., 1998);
2-4 persons 218 (84.5%) salesmans personality (Baumgarth and Binckebanck,
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

5 or more persons 28 (10.9%) 2011; Chen and Su, 2012);

customer satisfaction (Cronin et al., 2000; Davis-Sramek
Company size
et al., 2009; Roper and Davies, 2010); and
Less than 100 employees 60 (23.3%)
brand loyalty (van Riel et al., 2005; Baumgarth and
100-249 employees 62 (24.0%)
Binckebanck, 2011; Juntunen et al., 2011).
250-499 employees 73 (28.3%)
400-4.999 employees 46 (17.8%) The measurement items of the construct consistent
More than 5.000 employees 17 (6.6%) advertising style were developed on the basis of expert
interviews (practitioners and scholars in the field of
Self-evaluation of the response behavior business-to-business branding/brand management). All
Poorly 2 (0.8%) measurement scales were translated to and developed in
Rather poorly 16 (6.2%) German language. Subsequent to that, we analyzed and
Medium 34 (13.2%) modified the measurement instrument using a cognitive
Fairly good 75 (29.1%) psychological test named think-aloud technique (Someren
Good 95 (36.8%) et al., 1994). In the following, we performed an Anderson
Very good 36 (13.9%) Gerbing item sorting test (Anderson and Gerbing, 1991)
before we finalized the survey instrument with the help of an
Table II Harmans one-factor test results empirical pretest (Bagozzi, 1994). The pretests sample
Factor (%) of variance Cumulative (%) consisted of 31 buyers from mechanical and plant engineering
companies. Table III depicts the whole survey and illustrates
1 36.457 36.457 the scale reliability of the dimensions of rational brand quality,
2 7.313 43.771 as well as emotional brand associations and brand equity
3 5.555 49.326 outcomes, namely, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty.
4 5.415 54.741 In the following, FornellLarcker criterion was identified
5 4.091 58.832 to check for discriminant validity of the exogenous variables
6 3.544 62.376 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, we carried out a
7 3.118 65.493 comparison of the average collected variances with the
8 2.987 68.480 respective squared correlations of the factors. Results reveal
9 2.700 71.180 that none of the squared correlations exceed the average
10 2.158 73.338 collected variance, which means that discriminant validity is
achieved. Table IV shows the results of the FornellLarcker
criterion over all independent variables.
correlation ICC 1 and ICC 2 (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979; As our proposed examination model shows a complex
Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). The results revealed that values structure, we used structural equation modeling to test the fit of
for all tests were consistently significant till highly significant our measurement models and structural models. For the specific
(1 or 5 per cent level). Therefore, common method bias setting of our study, which is basically confirmative and
absence can be assumed. hypothesis testing, covariance-based structural equation
In the second step, we calculated the squared Mahalanobis modeling seems to be most suitable (Fornell, 1987; Byrne,
distances to test the collected data for systematic distortions 2010). As analysis software, to estimate the measurement model
(Hair et al., 2009; Kline, 2011). We did not discover any and the structural model, we used AMOS 20.0. As we specified
abnormalities in terms of inappropriately completed all factors in our proposed examination model, we used a
questionnaires or systematic outliers. number of specific key figures to test validity and reliability and
When developing our questionnaire, we executed a illustrate measurement quality. Testing and confirming the
multistage process. We started with a literature research overall model, we report standardized 2 value, goodness-of-fit
checking for adequate measurement scales. Except for the index (GFI^), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI^),
scale of consistent advertising style, we deduced the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), comparative-fit index (CFI), and

144
 Customer satisfaction Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152

Table III Scale reliability

Factor Item-to-total Average variance
Research item loading correlation Cronbachs Alpha extracted

Product quality
The products of the capital goods producer are absolutely
reliable 0.765 0.674
The products of the capital goods producer show a long 0.690 0.618
durability
The products of the capital goods producer are highly
geared to our needs 0.710 0.631
The products of the capital goods producer are functional
at any time 0.785 0.688 0.827 0.549
Service quality
The service of the capital goods producer is of high
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

quality 0.664 0.609

The technical support of capital goods producer always
considers our individual situation 0.686 0.630
The capital goods producer delivers an excellent overall
service 0.802 0.739
The technical support of the capital good is of high
quality at any time 0.780 0.715
Compared to competitors, the capital goods producer
delivers superior service in every way 0.629 0.581
The product support of the capital goods producer is very
good 0.831 0.768 0.868 0.530
Distribution quality
The distribution performance of the capital goods
producer is of high quality 0.713 0.640
Products of the capital goods producer are always
available when we need them 0.637 0.592
The capital goods producer always supplies its products
in a reliable way 0.752 0.689
Ordering products from the capital goods producer is very
convenient 0.637 0.586
The capital goods producer offers an excellent
distribution performance 0.968 0.846 0.850 0.534
Consistent advertising style
The advertising style of the capital goods producer shows
a high level of stability 0.698 0.661
The advertising of the capital goods producer is very
consistent in its content 0.915 0.836
Over the years, the advertising content of the capital
goods producer is very consistent 0.861 0.797
Over the years, the advertising campaigns essentially
contain the same statements 0.816 0.755 0.891 0.675
Brand image
The capital goods producer has a very good image 0.667 0.608
Compared to other capital goods producers, our capital
goods producer is highly respected 0.670 0.610
The capital goods producers brand has a very long
tradition 0.712 0.646
Some characteristics of the capital goods producer come
to my mind quickly 0.659 0.608
I can quickly recall the symbol or the logo of the capital
goods producer 0.662 0.608
The capital goods producers brand has a very strong
personality 0.872 0.791 0.931 0.518
(continued)

145
 Customer satisfaction Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152

Table III
Factor Item-to-total Average variance
Research item loading correlation Cronbachs Alpha extracted

Country-of-manufacture image
Products made in the country of the capital goods
producer are carefully produced and have fine
workmanship 0.807 0.739
Products made in the country of the capital goods
producer are generally of a higher quality than products
available from other countries 0.714 0.668
Products made in the country of the capital goods
producer are usually quite reliable and seem to last the
desired length of time 0.910 0.811
Products made in the country of the capital goods
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

producer are usually a good value for money 0.774 0.709 0.870 0.627
Salespersons personality
The capital goods producers salespersons have a great
deal of product knowledge 0.881 0.843
The capital goods producers salespersons have a great
deal of market knowledge 0.867 0.829
The capital goods producers salespersons know and
understand their customers very well 0.909 0.867
The capital goods producer has highly skilled employees
as salespersons 0.787 0.757 0.931 0.658
Customer satisfaction
Overall, I am very satisfied with this capital goods
producer 0.937 0.906
Overall, I am very happy with my decision to purchase
from this capital goods producer 0.958 0.922
I think that I did the right thing when I purchased from
this capital goods producer 0.899 0.874
My choice to purchase from this capital goods producer
was a very wise one 0.866 0.846 0.953 0.530
Brand loyalty
I firmly intend to stay loyal to this capital goods producer
as long as possible 0.794 0.693
I expect to continue the business relationship to the
capital goods producer for a long time 0.714 0.636
I consider myself to be always loyal to the capital goods
producer 0.762 0.674
Our business relationship to this capital goods producer is
characterized by a very high loyalty 0.688 0.616 0.826 0.838

root-mean-square-error-of-approximation (RMSEA) (Hair
et al., 2009; Kline, 2011).
The standardized 2 value of the overall model (1.856) is
below the required critical limit, which is, according to
standard literature, 3. With the exception of the TLI (0.900),
which reaches the required minimum limit at the point, GFI
(0.948), AGFI (0,942) and CFI (0.906) clearly exceed the
required minimum limit. This is the evidence of the quality of
our proposed examination model. The very positive overall
impression is rounded off by the RMSEA (0.058), which is
also clearly below the required critical limit.
Taking a look at the path coefficients, all path relationships
are of high significant at a 0.001 per cent significance level.
According to Chin (1998, p. 13), paths should be at least
0.20 and ideally above 0.30 in order to be considered
meaningful. For both constructs of higher order, namely,
rational brand quality and emotional brand associations, their
dimensions show heterogeneous importance. For rational
brand quality, service quality (0.864) seems to be the most
important dimension compared to product quality (0.773)
and distribution quality (0.793). For emotional brand
associations, our newly introduced dimension consistent
advertising style shows the lowest importance, although it was
measured with a quite high total of 0.567. In a descending
order, country-of-manufacture image (0.810), brand image
(0.785), and salesmans personality (0.702) are also of high
significance. In general, factor loadings, which are consistently
high, reflect a very good quality of our proposed
multidimensional constructs. The same can be summarized
for customer satisfaction, which offers a value of 0.384 for

146
 Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)

Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz

Table IV FornellLarcker criterion over all independent variables

Product Service Distribution Consistent advertising Brand Salesmans
Construct quality quality quality style image Country-of-manufacture qaimage personality
Product quality 0.549
Service quality 0.428 0.530
Distribution quality 0.310 0.518 0.534

147
Consistent advertising style 0.120 0.130 0.198 0.675
Brand image 0.263 0.241 0.233 0.365 0.518
Country-of-manufacture image 0.446 0.298 0.215 0.185 0.434 0.627
Salesmans personality 0.214 0.328 0.297 0.094 0.255 0.285 0.658
Note: Significance level of data in italics: 0.01
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
rational brand quality and a value of 0.423 for emotional
brand associations. The verified influence of customer
satisfaction on brand loyalty is, with a value of 0.578, also very
meaningful. It can be stated that the signs of the path
coefficients are in line with our postulated effect directions in
the hypotheses. Additionally, the resulting coefficients of
determination confirm the high explanatory content of the
structural model, with the values of 59.8 per cent for customer
satisfaction and 33.4 per cent for brand loyalty. Interpreting
the results, H1, H2 and H3 are accepted. Figure 2 summarizes
the effect relationships of the confirmed examination model.
5. Discussion and conclusion
The initial starting point of our paper was to derive and verify
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
a comprehensive and integrative model containing both
rational and emotional factors of customer satisfaction and
brand loyalty in the context of a business-to-business setting.
As we outlined in our literature review section, such a complex
model does not exist so far. With this assessment, we are in
line with other academic scholars (Jensen and Klastrup,
2008).
In this connection, following the brand equity framework
(Aaker, 1991), we identified and conceptualized two
fundamental dimensions, namely, rational brand quality and
emotional brand associations, both containing three and four
dimensions and factors of customer satisfaction and brand
loyalty, respectively. In this context, we derived a total of three
hypotheses. Both constructs of higher order, rational brand
quality and emotional brand associations, were confirmed as
such by our empirical analysis. Our postulated effects were
confirmed by the data, and effect relationships were verified in
the overall model.
We could observe that emotional factors are of at least the
same importance, as they show a higher importance as rational
factors do within a decision-making process of industrial
Figure 2 Effect relationships and key figures
Product
quality
0.773***
Service 0.864***
Rational
quality brand quality
0.793***
Distribution
quality
Consistent
advertising
style
0.567***
Brand image 0.785***
Emotional brand
associations
Country-of - 0.810***
manuf acture
image
0.702***
Salesmans
personality
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
buyers of capital goods, if they are satisfied and should
therefore be loyal to their manufacturers in the future or
change. Looking for reasons for the importance of emotional
factors, we think that an ongoing and increasing
commoditization process, especially in the manufacturing of
capital goods sector (Baines and Lightfoot, 2013), tends to
make companies like the respective producers very
exchangeable in the customers eyes. Commoditization
usually occurs when business competitors tend to offer quite
homogenous products to customers, which are price-sensitive
and incur low costs when changing their manufacturers
suppliers (Reimann et al., 2010).
When analyzing the companies hard facts such as
product quality, service quality or distribution quality, current
potential customers cannot really find remarkable differences.
As a result, soft facts such as brand image or the relation to
a companys salesman with his or her personality is taken into
consideration.
Within the rational factors, service quality is the
highest-rated dimension by buyers of capital goods. A
reasoned justification can be the fact that capital goods
deadlock often implies considerable financial expenses for
mechanical and plant engineering companies. Appropriate
service performance of the capital goods manufacturers (and
in-time-delivery) is an important purchase criterion, as it
promises to minimize expensive downtime of machines.
Within the emotional factors, country-of-manufacture image
and brand image are the most important dimensions for
mechanical and plant engineering companies buyers of
capital goods. Both factors serve as emotional anchors, as they
promise security within purchase decisions: if it should happen
that there are problems occurring with a purchased capital
good, the country-of-manufacture image and the specific
brand image can be used as justification toward both oneself
and others, especially superiors. The high importance of the
0.384***
Customer 0.578*** Brand loyalty
satisf action
R 2 = 0.598 R 2 = 0.334
0.423***
= 1425.077 df = 768 /df = 1.856 TLI = 0.900
CFI = 0.906 GFI^ = 0.948 AGFI^ = 0.942 RMSEA = 0.058
Signicance level: * 0.10; ** 0.05; *** 0.01
148
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
country-of-manufacture image can be explained by the fact
that a specific country tends to produce specific stereotypes
(positive ones and negative ones), and especially in an
industrial context where brands are subject of global
competition, brands being closely linked to a As our study is the first one which clearly and
positive-recognized country can benefit.
All in all, our study confirms the importance of emotional
factors when it comes to purchase decisions in a
business-to-business setting, more precisely in the
manufacturing of capital goods sector. Drawing a more
general conclusion, especially the combination between both
rational and emotional factors, leads to customer satisfaction
and indirectly to brand loyalty of purchasers of capital goods.
Thus, our study offers a certain value compared to the
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
relevant literature mentioned in our literature review.
Compared to a large majority of the papers, the integration of
rational and emotional factors in an integrative and complex
model implies novelty. For example, Davis et al. (2008) and
Baumgarth and Binckebanck (2011) focus on specific
exogenous factors in their studies, namely, brand awareness
and brand image respectively sales force impact combined
with product quality and non-personal communication. In
contrast, van Riel et al. (2005) as well as Chen et al. (2011)
and Chen and Su (2012) conceptualized a more complex
model but did not separate between rational and emotional
factors. Jensen and Klastrup (2008) were, alongside Kuhn
et al. (2008) and Cassia and Magno (2012), the only authors
who made this separation, but they did not include
well-known emotional success factors such as brand image or
country-of-manufacture image in their research model.
Furthermore, an endogenous causal chain representing an
observable consumer behavior is missing. Our paper fills this
gap.
From a managerial point of view, industrial companies
manufacturing products and goods to be sold to business
clients, specifically in the manufacturing of capital goods
sector, should take both aspects into consideration when
designing, implementing or changing their brand management
and their branding efforts. Because of the ongoing
commoditization, the products manufactured by companies
and even their service and distribution efforts are subject to an
increasing uniformity within global competition. Therefore, it
becomes more and more difficult for industrial companies to
build up unique selling propositions. The dimensions of the
construct of higher order emotional brand associations,
namely, consistent advertising style, brand image,
country-of-manufacture image and salesmans personality,
offer these companies the possibility to differentiate
themselves from the competition. Ergo, except the
country-of-manufacture image which can only marginally be
influenced by single industrial companies, the other emotional
success factors are adjusting screws which offer possibilities of
gaining competitive advantages in highly competitive markets.
In this line, if customers do not reject capital goods
manufactured in a specific country because of the countrys
image, the other three emotional success factors are able to
push the overall branding success if the rational success factors
are unsuitable to recognize differences between suppliers.
Nevertheless, although our study results in a slightly higher
evaluation of emotional brand associations compared to
149
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
rational brand quality, the importance of product quality,
service quality and distribution quality should not be
underestimated by capital goods manufacturers brand
managers, as they form the basis for competition success.
comprehensively separates between rational brand quality and
emotional brand associations, our conceptualization could
serve as a starting point for further empirical research in this
specific area. Although we extensively considered and
conceptualized the dimensions of rational brand quality and
emotional brand associations, our results are subject to some
limitations. Because of the complexity of our proposed
examination model, we were not able to include other success
factors such as price perception, habits or brand attitude.
Thinking especially of emotional brand associations, future
research should take other dimensions into account. As our
study is also the first one which examines the influence of the
exogenous success factor of consistent advertising style, we
recommend replication studies in other contexts to test its
applicability in other industries.
Additionally, we conceptualized the endogenous constructs
of our examination model according to established research.
For example, it would be interesting to analyze what effects
the tested success factors might have on customer trust and
the intention to buy. Finally, as we surveyed only German
customers of capital goods producers, we strongly recommend
replications studies for other branches, industries and
countries for the generalization of our results.
Note
1 The following text is based on the dissertation by Elser
(2016).
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, Free Press, San
Francisco, CA.
Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R. and Jones, E. (2007), Examining
the effect of salesperson service behavior in a competitive
context, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 603-616.
Alex, N.J. (2012), An enquiry into selected marketing mix
elements and their impact on brand equity, The IUP
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 29-43.
Alexander, N.S., Bick, G., Abratt, R. and Bendixen, M.
(2009), Impact of branding and product augmentation on
decision making in the B2B market, South African Journal
of Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Al-Kwifi, S.O. and McNaughton, R.B. (2013), The
influence of product features on brand switching: the case of
magnetic resonance imaging equipment, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 421-431.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1991), Predicting the
performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis
with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 732-740.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), Measurement in marketing research:
basic principles of questionnaire design, in Bagozzi, R.P.
(Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell Business,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-49.
Baines, T. and Lightfoot, H. (2013), Made to Serve: How
Manufacturers Can Compute Through Servitization and
Product Service Systems, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Baumgarth, C. and Binckebanck, L. (2011), Sales force
impact on B-to-B brand equity: conceptual framework and
empirical test, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 487-498.
Baxter, R. and Matear, S. (2004), Measuring intangible
value in business to business buyer-seller relationships: an
intellectual capital perspective, Industrial Marketing
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 491-500.
Bei, L.-T. and Chiao, Y.-C. (2001), An integrated model for
the effects of perceived product, perceived service quality,
and perceived price fairness on consumer satisfaction and
loyalty, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 125-140.
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K.A. and Abratt, R. (2004), Brand
equity in the business-to-business market, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 33, pp. 371-380.
Bennett, R., Hrtel, C.E.J. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R.
(2005), Experience as a moderator of involvement and
satisfaction on brand loyalty in a business-to-business
setting, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 97-107.
Biedenbach, G. (2012), Brand equity in the
business-to-business context: examining the structural
composition, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19,
pp. 688-701.
Biedenbach, G. and Marell, A. (2010), The impact of
customer experience on brand equity in
business-to-business services setting, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 446-458.
Biedenbach, G., Bengtsson, M. and Marell, A. (2015),
Brand equity, satisfaction, and switching costs, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 164-178.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
Brand experience: what is it?, How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, pp. 52-68.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS.
Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Routledge,
New York, NY.
Candi, M. and Kahn, K.B. (2016), Functional, emotional,
and social benefits of new B2B services, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 57, pp. 177-184.
Cassia, F. and Magno, F. (2012), Business-to-business
branding: a review and assessment of the impact of
non-attribute-based brand beliefs on Bueyers attitudinal
loyalty, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 242-254.
Cathelat, B. and Ebguy, R. (1988), Styles de Pub, Led Editions
dOrganisations, Paris.
Chao, P. (1998), Impact of country-of-origin dimensions on
product quality and design quality perceptions, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 42, pp. 1-6.
Chen, Y-M. and Su, Y-F. (2012), Do country-of-manufacture
and country-of-design matter to industrial brand equity?,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27,
pp. 57-68.
Chen, Y.-M., Su, Y.-F. and Lin, F.-J. (2011),
Country-of-origin effects and antecedents of industrial
brand equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 11,
pp. 1234-1238.
Chin, W.W. (1998), Commentary: issue and opinion on
structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Choi, Y., Ying, H. and Sternquist, B. (2015), The effect of
salespersons characteristics on buyer-seller relationships,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 30,
pp. 616-625.
Cretu, A.E. and Brodie, R.J. (2007), The influence of brand
image and company reputation where manufacturers
market to small firms: a customer value perspective,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36, pp. 230-240.
Cronin, J.C., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000),
Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service
environments, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 193-218.
Da Silva, R.V. and Alwi, S.F.S. (2006), Cognitive affective
attributes and conative, behavioural responses in retail
corporate branding, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 293-305.
Darling, J.R. and Arnold, D.R. (1988), The competitive
position abroad of products and marketing practices of The
United States, Japan, and selected European Countries,
The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 61-68.
Davis, D.F., Golicic, S.L. and Marquardt, A.J. (2008),
Branding a B2B service: does a brand differentiate a
logistics service provider?, Industrial Marketing
a Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 218-227.
Davis-Sramek, B., Droge, C., Mentzer, J.T. and Myers, M.B.
(2009), Creating commitment and loyalty behaviour
among retailers: what are the roles of service quality and
satisfaction?, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 37, pp. 440-454.
Dobni, D. and Zinkhan, G.M. (1990), In search of brand
image: a foundation analysis, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, pp. 110-119.
Elser, M. (2016), Rationale und emotionale Erfolgsfaktoren im
B2B-Branding. Eine empirische Analyse, Josef Eul Verlag,
Lohmar.
Essoussi, L.H. and Merunka, D. (2007), Consumers
product evaluations in emerging markets: does country of
design, country of manufacture, or brand image matter?,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 406-426.
Fornell, C. (1987), A second generation of multivariate
analysis: classifications of methods and implications for
marketing research, in Houston, M.J. (Ed.), Review of
Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 407-450.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
models with unobservable variables and measurement
error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Guesalaga, R. and Kapelianis, D. (2015), When did people
pursue and win deals? A two-stage model of sales
150
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
opportunity outcomes, Journals of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 30, pp. 817-829.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2009), Multivariate Data Analysis A Global Perspective,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harman, H.H. (1967), Modern Factor Analysis, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
He, H. and Li, Y. (2011), CSR and service brand: the
mediating effect of brand identification and moderating
effect of service quality, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100
No. 4, pp. 673-688.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), Assessing the role of
emotions as mediators of consumer responses to
advertising, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
pp. 404-420.
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M., Reimann, M. and Schilke, O.
(2012), What drives key informant accuracy?, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 49, pp. 594-608.
Insch, G.S. and McBride, J.B. (2004), The impact of
country-of-origin cues on consumer perceptions of product
quality: a binational test of the decomposed
country-of-origin construct, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 57, pp. 256-265.
Jensen, M.B. and Klastrup, K. (2008), Towards a B2B
customer-based brand equity model, Journal of Targeting,
Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 122-128.
Juntunen, M., Juntunen, J. and Juga, J. (2011), Corporate
brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: a study among
logistics service purchasers, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 300-311.
Kazmi, S.H.H. (2008), Marketing Management Text and
Cases, Excel Books, New-Delhi.
Keller K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, managing
customer-based brand equity, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 57, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall, NJ.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, 2nd ed., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Kernen, J., Piirainen, K.A. and Salminen, R.T. (2012),
Systematic review on B2B branding: research issues and
avenues for future research, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 404-417.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998), The
animosity model of foreign product purchase: an empirical
test in the Peoples Republic of China, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 89-100.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural
Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Kuhn, K-A.L., Alpert, F. and Pope, N.K.L. (2008), An
application of Kellers brand equity model in a B2B
context, Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 40-58.
Kumar, A. and Sharma, R. (1998), Marketing Management,
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi.
Leek, S. and Christodoulides, G. (2011), A literature review
and future agenda for B2B branding: challenges of branding
151
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
in a B2B context, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 830-837.
Leischnig, A. and Enke, M. (2011), Brand stability as a
signaling phenomenon an empirical investigation in
industrial markets, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1116-1122.
Lynch, J. and de Chernatony, L. (2004), The power of
emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business
markets, Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 403-419.
Lynch, J. and de Chernatony, L. (2007), Winning Hearts
and Minds: Business-to-Business branding and the role of
the salesperson, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23
Nos 1/2, pp. 123-135.
Malr, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W.D. and Nyffenegger, B.
(2011), Emotional brand attachment and brand
personality: the relative importance of the actual and ideal
self, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 35-52.
Martensen, A. and Gronholdt, L. (2004), Building brand
equity: a customer-based modelling approach, Journal of
Management Systems, Vol. 16, pp. 37-51.
Mudambi, S., Doyle, P. and Wong, V. (1997), An
exploration of branding in industrial markets, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp. 433-446.
Netemeyer, R.D., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci,
M., Dean, D., Ricks, J. and Wirth, F. (2004), Developing
and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand
equity, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 209-224.
Ohnemus, L. (2009), B2b branding. A financial burden for
shareholders?, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 159-166.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
Consumer-based brand equity: improving the
measurement empirical evidence, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
Persson, N. (2010), An exploratory investigation of the
elements of B2B brand image and its relationship to price
premium, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 1269-1277.
Podsakoff, O.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), Self-reports in
organizational research: problems and prospects, Journal of
Management, Vol. 12, pp. 531-544.
Ramaseshan, B., Rabbanee, F.K. and Hui, L.T.H. (2013),
Effects of customer equity drivers on customer loyalty in
B2B context, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 335-356.
Reimann, M., Schilke, O. and Thomas, J.S. (2010), Toward
an understanding of industry commoditizations: its nature
and role in evolving marketing competition, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 27, pp. 188-197.
Roper, S. and Davies, G. (2010), Business to business
branding: external and internal satisfiers and the role of
training quality, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44
No. 5, pp. 567-590.
Rosenbrijer C.J. (2001), Industrial brand management. A
distributors perspective in the UK fine-paper industry,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 7-24.
Rossiter, J. and Bellman, S. (2012), Emotional branding pays
off how brands meet share of requirements through
 Customer satisfaction
Marc Elser and Bernd W. Wirtz
bonding, companionship, and love, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 291-296.
Shamma, H.M. and Hassan, S.S. (2011), Integrating
product and corporate brand equity into total brand equity
measurement, International Journal of Marketing Studies,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
Shaw, J., Giglierano, J. and Kallis, J. (1989), Marketing
complex technical products: the importance of intangible
attributes, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Shrout, P.E. and Fleiss, J.L. (1979), Intraclass correlations:
uses in assessing rater reliability, Psychologival Bulletin,
Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 420-428.
Singh, R. and Venugopal, P. (2015), The impact of
Downloaded by ATHENS UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS & BUSINESS At 08:24 02 March 2017 (PT)
salesperson customer orientation on sales performance via
mediating mechanism, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 594-607.
Someren, M.W.V., Barnard, Y.F. and Sandberg, J.A.C.
(1994), The Think Aloud Method- A Practical Guide to
Modelling Cognitive Processes, Academic Press, London.
Taylor, S.A., Hunter, G.L. and Lindberg, D.L. (2007),
Understanding (customer-based) brand equity in financial
services, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 241-252.
Van Riel, A.C.R., de Mortanges, C.P. and Streukens, S.
(2005), Marketing antecedents of industrial brand equity:
an empirical investigation in specialty chemicals, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 841-847.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
152
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 32 Number 1 2017 138 152
Villarejo-Ramos, A.F. and Snchez-Franco, M.J. (2005),
The impact of marketing communication and price
promotion on brand equity, Brand Management, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 431-444.
Webster, F.E. and Keller, K.L. (2004), A roadmap for
branding in industrial markets, Brand Management,
Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 388-402.
Wind, Y. (2006), Blurring the lines: is there a need to rethink
industrial marketing?, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 474-481.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), Developing and validating
a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Shabbir, R. and Zhu, M. (2016), How
brand orientation impacts B2B service brand equity? An
empirical study among Chinese firms, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Further reading
Mudambi, S. (2002), Branding importance in business-to-
business markets three buyer clusters, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 525-533.
Corresponding author
Marc Elser can be contacted at: marc.elsaesser@gmx.de