Improving Business-to-Business Customer Satisfaction Programs: Assessment of Asymmetry, Heterogeneity, and Financial Impact

Abstract

Business-to-business (B2B) companies devote significant resources to measure customer satisfaction but lack guidance on critical aspects of implementing satisfaction programs. Accordingly, executives ask: (1) What are the key strategic attributes driving B2B customer satisfaction? (2) Are the strategic attributes satisfaction balancing, satisfaction maintaining, or satisfaction enhancing based on the pattern of asymmetry? (3) Do the sign and magnitude of asymmetry vary across industry and customer subgroups? and (4) Is there a generalizable link between satisfaction and financial performance for B2B firms? Study 1 uses qualitative and secondary research to identify and validate eight strategic attributes pertinent to B2B companies—quality of product/service, pricing, safety, sales process, project management, corporate social responsibility, communication, and ongoing service and support. Study 2 examines industry-subgroup heterogeneity in the nature of asymmetry across industries, then links satisfaction with performance (i.e., sales). Study 3 finds customer-subgroup heterogeneity in the nature of asymmetry within the customer base of a B2B service provider, then links satisfaction with performance (i.e., dollar value of purchase).

Consumer responses to the failure of self-service banking technology: moderating role of failure stability

“…However, switching to a competitor presents a decision for the customer that requires much thought and consideration and hence is independent of the type of failure (Chuang and Tai, 2016; Biraglia et al , 2021). This is possible because such an important decision is based on the feeling of dissatisfaction that is associated with reflecting on what has happened and deliberately judging how to act rather than on a more situational anger emotion (Chebat and Slusarczyk, 2005; Mittal et al. , 2021).…”

“…Based on the theory of emotion assessment, some studies argue that these emotions have direct and indirect effects on customer post-purchase responses (Averill, 1983;Roseman, 1991;Bougie et al, 2003;Chebat and Slusarczyk, 2005). The evoked emotions are associated with the cognitive assessment of the importance of an event and its impact on a consumer's well-being (Antonetti, 2016;Antonetti et al, 2020;Taylor and Baker, 1994;Mittal et al, 2021). Events, congruent with consumer objectives, evoke positive emotions, while incongruous events lead to negative emotions (Averill, 1983).…”

“…Following a dissatisfactory experience of service failure, the consumer may discuss the failure in person or online with his/her acquaintances, such as family and friends (Anderson, 1998;Mittal et al, 2021). Such negative word-of-mouth is one of the behavioural responses to dissatisfactory experiences (Schoefer and Diamantopoulos, 2008).…”

“…The evoked emotions are associated with the cognitive assessment of the importance of an event and its impact on a consumer's well-being (Antonetti, 2016; Antonetti et al. , 2020; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Mittal et al. , 2021).…”

Expectations of manufacturing companies regarding future priorities of improvement actions taken by their suppliers

“…Much research has already been conducted to analyse the B2B market relationships between suppliers and customers. The analysis covered, among other things, critical success factors in supply chains (Eid et al 2002 ; Kian Chong et al 2011 ), ways to develop cooperation (Maestrini et al 2018 ), factors affecting buying companies satisfaction (Mittal et al 2021 ), the impact of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the supplier on the actions taken by the buyer (André Mendes Primo et al 2007 ; Suh and Kim 2018 ) as well as expectations of buying and selling companies (Kaski et al 2017 ). However, in these studies, very little attention was paid to identifying the improvement actions that manufacturing companies expect their suppliers should undertake.…”