Industrial brand value and relationship performance in business markets — A general structural equation model

Han, Sang Lin; Sung, Hyung Suk

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.03.003

Cited by 92 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…7; and brand loyalty are affected by both functional and intangible elements (Baumgarth & Binckebanck, 2011;Doney & Cannon, 1997;Morgan & Hunt, 1994;Singh & Sirdeshmukh, 2000). In this research, the functional driver is represented by responsiveness, a construct that describes the ability of industrial suppliers to quickly and incisively respond to industrial buyers' needs (Han & Sung, 2008;Nyadzayo et al, 2011;Van Durme et al, 2003). The intangible driver is ingredient brand strength, which can be considered the result of investments that companies undertake to support their brands in terms of awareness (Van Riel et al, 2005), reputation (Kuhn, Alpert, & Pope, 2008), and image (Jensen & Klastrup, 2008).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…mutual bond between brand and buyer. Han and Sung (2008) showed how the relationship industrial buyers establish with industrial suppliers' brands contributes to the quality of inter-firm relationships, cooperation, and mutual exchange, and highlighted the role played by brand trust and brand loyalty. Nyadzayo et al (2011) illustrated the role of brand trust and brand loyalty in enhancing the quality of relationships between franchisors and franchisees and thus the franchisor's brand equity.…”

Section: Brand Relationship Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the role of brand commitment, defined as "an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship" (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p.316), has not been studied as a relational asset of industrial brands, because it is considered "similar to brand loyalty" (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001, p. 83) in most of the industrial marketing research (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Alemán, 2005;Van Durme et al, 2003;Han & Sung, 2008;Nyadzayo et al, 2011;Van Durme et al, 2003;Veloutsou & Taylor , 2012).…”

Section: Relational Assets Of Industrial Brandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current research adopts a brand relationship perspective (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001;Fournier, 1994;Han & Sung, 2008, Van Durme et al, 2003 marked by brand trust and brand loyalty being the core concepts. Hence, in this research, brand trust and loyalty are studied as the main relational assets of the ingredient brand able to create value from a resource-based perspective.…”

Section: Theoretical Framework and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such benefits might include reduced marketing expenditure, rebates, reliable revenues, and/or, a competitive advantage in terms of brand image attributed to the spillover effect that stronger brands have on weaker ones. However, the ingredient co-branding studies available to date have underestimated the relationship that industrial actors (particularly buyers) establish with brands, which is the focus of the brand relationship perspective (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Alemán, 2005;Han & Sung, 2008;Nyadzayo, Matanda, & Ewing, 2011;Van Durme, Brodie, & Redmore, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Industrial Ingredient Co-branding: A Brand Relationship Approach

Andreini¹,

Bergamaschi²,

Pedeliento³

et al. 2016

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing research on industrial ingredient co-branding alliances has largely focused on the functional and transactional value that ingredient brands provide to ingredient buyers and sellers. The current research draws on the brand relationship perspective to investigate how the relational assets of ingredient brands generate value for both ingredient buyers and for the ingredient supplier itself. For the former, such value manifests in ingredient co-branding value, and for the latter, the value lies in brand equity. The results are derived from a survey of 107 ingredient buyers from a multinational ingredient manufacturer aiming to initiate ingredient co-branding agreements in the energy component industry. The results of the structural equation model reveal that ingredient brand trust directly affects both ingredient brand loyalty and ingredient co-branding value, but indicate no significant effect between brand loyalty and ingredient co-branding value. Moreover, ingredient co-branding value proved to be a driver of ingredient supplier brand equity.Keywords: industrial markets, ingredient brand equity, ingredient brand loyalty, ingredient brand trust, ingredient co-branding value, inter-firm relationship value

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Framework and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Brand Relationship Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relational Assets Of Industrial Brandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Framework and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Industrial Ingredient Co-branding: A Brand Relationship Approach

Andreini¹,

Bergamaschi²,

Pedeliento³

et al. 2016

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Business‐to‐Business Branding: A Review and Assessment of the Impact of Non‐Attribute‐Based Brand Beliefs on Buyer's Attitudinal Loyalty

Cassia

Magno

2012

Can J Adm Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Business‐to‐business branding has received increasing attention from researchers in the last few years. Nonetheless, there is no agreement on the relative contribution of a brand versus an offering's functional attributes to the industrial buyer's preferences. Drawing on models from the business‐to‐consumer context, this paper demonstrates that non‐attribute‒based brand beliefs are predictors of hedonic outcomes as measured by industrial buyers' attitudinal loyalty, while attribute‐based brand beliefs are not. Moreover, the moderating role of the buyer's level of knowledge for the value‐generating process is identified, suggesting that the impact of non‐attribute‒based brand beliefs on attitudinal loyalty is greater for buyers with a low level of knowledge. Copyright © 2012 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract