The authors develop a theory of how management can develop and promote the learning capabilities of targeted customer–supplier relationships. The theory suggests that a supplier and a customer can improve their joint learning activities by facilitating information exchange, developing common learning arenas, and updating their behavior accordingly. The authors suggest that learning within a customer–supplier relationship cannot be mandated by either organization, but rather learning depends on both parties’ willingness to cooperate in joint learning activities. Management can promote relationship learning by cultivating a collaborative culture, formulating specific objectives for joint learning activities, and developing relational trust. However, as relational trust develops, the effectiveness of learning is reduced as a result of “hidden costs” of trust. The authors use data from 315 dyads to test the theory empirically, and they find that the learning capability of a relationship has a strong, positive effect on performance. Their results also provide insight into how to address the hidden costs of trust.

The perspective of marketing has changed from regarding marketing as a series of independent transactions to a dynamic process of establishing, maintaining and enhancing relationships. In an emerging theory of relationship marketing, both trust and satisfaction are core concepts in understanding the dynamics of how relationships evolve. Although the literature has thoroughly examined both trust and satisfaction, the interrelationship between them, including their consequences and antecedents, has not yet been addressed properly. We propose that the development of buyer‐seller relationships can be understood as a sequence of decisions buyers make regarding whether they should enter a relationship, continue a relationship, or enhance the scope of a relationship. These are different kinds of decisions where satisfaction and trust are likely to play different roles in risk reductions depending on the nature of the decision to be made. In a study of institutional buyers of a food producer we find that satisfaction and trust are complementary in the sense that trust is a key variable when decisions are related to enhancement in scope of the relationship, whereas satisfaction is a key variable when the issue is relationship continuity.

Customer loyalty is a major strategic objective and focus in marketing. It has been suggested that brand reputation is a major driver of customer loyalty, and hence companies seek to increase the equity of their brands. Quality affects not only customer satisfaction, but also the reputation of the brand. Thus, both brand reputation and customer satisfaction are important determinants of customer loyalty. The interaction between these two drivers of customer loyalty has, however, been neglected in the literature. Presents a theoretical model which integrates quality, brand reputation, customer satisfaction and loyalty. The model is tested in four industries, covering both business‐to‐business markets and private customer markets. The findings suggest that companies should monitor and improve both customers satisfaction and brand reputation. In situations where the intrinsic cues of the product or service are ambiguous, brand reputation is the strongest driver of customer loyalty compared with customer satisfaction. In fact, when the intrinsic cues are ambiguous, it is found that customer satisfaction is not driving customer loyalty.

Management of an entire portfolio of customers who are at different relationship stages requires a dynamic theory of exchange relationships that captures the trade-offs between scale economies and lifetime customer value. This article contributes to the understanding of relationship management by developing a typology of exchange relationship mechanisms and a model of relationship dynamics and by simulating the model to provide guidelines for customer portfolio management. An important insight from the research is that a key to the creation of value through closer relationships lies in bringing weaker relationships into a portfolio in the first place. Another insight is that firms that position themselves toward offerings with low economies of scale, such as personal services, must build closer relationships to create value.

No abstract