Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dilara Fulya Egesoy
Oğuzhan Bilgili
Building Brand Equity in B2B
Service Industry
Examination of the Servbrand Framework in Logistics Industry
Business Administration
Master’s Thesis 30 ECTS
Term: Spring 2021
Supervisor: Bo Rundh
3
Preface
We would like to begin with greeting respectfully our parents who have put all
their efforts into supporting us in every moment of our lives. Following this, we
would like to thank every participant who made this achievement possible
through their contribution with their time and knowledge.
Also, we present our deep gratitude to our supervisor Bo Rundh for his
guidance throughout the research process and everyone who contributed by
giving feedback during the research seminars.
This study was conducted with the equal contribution of the authors throughout
the entire research period.
Karlstad, June 2021
____________________ ____________________
Dilara Fulya Egesoy Oğuzhan Bilgili
4
Abstract
This study investigates a debatable subject of branding; building brand equity in
industrial service markets, particularly within the logistics service industry. The
extant literature provided many brand equity models, the brand resonance
pyramid being the most predominant one. However, the literature suggests the
model should be amended for the B2B service markets as the industry has
numerous different characteristics to consider. Servbrand Framework is one of
the undergoing efforts to provide a brand equity framework applicable within
the B2B service industry as an amended version of the brand resonance
pyramid. Nevertheless, the model is based on a single empirical context. This
research assesses the transferability of the model to the logistics service industry
and therefore provides a guideline to build a strong brand in the logistics service
industry.
The research took an interpretivist approach with an exploratory qualitative
research design to apply the Servbrand Framework within the logistics industry.
Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with the decision-makers in
purchasing logistics services within the automotive industry in Germany, who
were subject to the non-probability sampling process.
The results indicated that the Servbrand Framework is transferable to the
logistics service industry with minor changes. Two new subdimensions are
proposed as ‘service experience’ and ‘consideration’ to be part of the client-
brand opinions block within the framework. Also, the ‘servicescape’ and
‘personableness’ subdimensions were not relevant for the context of the study.
Logistics service providers can build strong brands by initially creating salience
among the customers by using corporate naming strategies attached to core
competencies. Service providers also need to develop good performance and
people attributes connected to their brand, which will create positive brand
opinions and, therefore, long-term relationships and partnerships. The people
aspect was a key element to build strong brands and facilitate the brand's
meaning to the customers.
Keywords: brand equity, logistics branding, industrial branding, service branding
5
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 9
1.1. Background .................................................................................................. 9
1.2. Problem Statement ................................................................................... 10
1.3. Aim and Research Questions .................................................................. 11
2. Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 12
2.1. Branding ..................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1. Industrial Branding ........................................................................... 12
2.1.2. Brand Architecture in Industrial Markets ...................................... 15
2.1.3. Service Branding ................................................................................ 16
2.2. Brand Equity ............................................................................................. 16
2.2.1. Brand Equity in Industrial Markets ................................................ 19
2.3. Logistics Services Branding ..................................................................... 23
3. Research Method .............................................................................. 25
3.1. Research Design ........................................................................................ 25
3.2. Data Collection ......................................................................................... 26
3.2.1. Conducting the Interviews ............................................................... 27
3.2.2. Sampling ............................................................................................. 28
3.2.3. Interview Guide ................................................................................. 29
3.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 30
3.4. Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 31
3.4.1. Credibility ........................................................................................... 31
3.4.2. Transferability .................................................................................... 32
3.4.3. Dependability ..................................................................................... 32
3.4.4. Confirmability .................................................................................... 32
3.5. Ethical Issues ............................................................................................. 32
4. Findings & Analysis ......................................................................... 34
4.1. Participant Profile ..................................................................................... 34
4.2. Company Classification............................................................................ 34
4.3. Transferability of the Servbrand Framework ........................................ 35
4.4. Feedback on Interviews ........................................................................... 41
5. Discussion ........................................................................................ 42
5.1. Brand Salience ........................................................................................... 43
5.2. Brand Performance .................................................................................. 44
6
5.3. Brand Personification............................................................................... 46
5.4. Brand Opinions ........................................................................................ 46
5.5. Brand Relationships ................................................................................. 48
6. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 50
6.1. Managerial Implications ........................................................................... 50
6.2. Limitations and Further Research .......................................................... 51
References ............................................................................................... 52
Appendix ................................................................................................. 57
Appendix 1: Further Branding Models ............................................................. 57
1.1. Service Branding Model ....................................................................... 57
1.2. Aaker’s Brand Equity Model ............................................................... 57
Appendix 2: Interview Guide ............................................................................. 58
Appendix 3: Interview Questions Linked to Servbrand Framework ........... 68
Appendix 4: Brand Considerations ................................................................... 69
4.1. Logistics Service Providers Portfolio ................................................. 69
4.2. Unaided Brand Recall of Participants ................................................ 70
4.3. Aided Brand Recognition of Participants .......................................... 71
4.4. Associations Towards the Brands ...................................................... 72
4.5. Performance Criteria in Purchasing Process ..................................... 80
Appendix 5: Consent Form ................................................................................ 81
Appendix 6: Information Letter ........................................................................ 82
7
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Brand Resonance Pyramid (Customer-Based Brand Equity Model) 17
Figure 2: Servbrand Framework ............................................................................ 21
Figure 3: Amended Servbrand Framework for Logistics Services .................... 43
List of Tables
Table 1: Benefits of Branding for Industrial Buyers and Suppliers ................... 14
Table 2: The Clusters of the Decision-makers in Industrial Purchasing .......... 15
Table 3: Participant Profile of the Study ............................................................... 29
8
9
1. Introduction
This chapter introduces the subject through the background of the study and problematization
discussion and proceeds with the study's aim and the research questions.
1.1. Background
Branding is a powerful tool to differentiate and influence customers' buying
behaviors as strong brands positively change the customers' perceptions and
lead to higher buying decisions (Kuhn et al., 2008). Stronger brands are
beneficial to have higher financial results (Keller, 2001), and building brand
equity is the foundation for competitiveness (Seyedghorban et al., 2016;
Steenkamp et al., 2020).
The concept of branding is mainly developed within the consumer markets
(Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and primarily was conceptualized with the
physical preferences of the offerings (Steenkamp et al., 2020). According to
Berry (2000), branding for services is crucial just as for products because the
intangible nature of the service makes customers harder to trust. Branding
reduces the uncertainty for customers in their purchasing considerations for
services (Berry, 2000). However, branding was perceived as emotional in
industrial markets, providing little benefits to the rational business-to-business
(B2B) processes (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Still,
branding increasingly becomes relevant for the B2B market (Seyedghorban et
al., 2016) as brands affect the purchasing choice of industrial buyers (Kuhn et
al., 2008). The increasing similarity of the quality within B2B markets further
enhances the importance of branding (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011).
As branding becomes significant for the B2B and service industry, brand equity
is also a growing concept, which is the extracted value from branding activities
for the company and its customers (Aaker, 1991; Kotler, 1991). Brand equity
within the customer perspective results from positioning the brand in
customers' minds and creating value for the company and its customers (Aaker,
1991; Davis et al., 2008; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2013). According to Keller
(1993), brand knowledge of the customers is the primary tool for developing
strong brands and differentiating the products or services.
The logistics industry is a competitive market in which the service providers
must differentiate their offerings besides pricing and quality efforts (Davis et al.,
2008, 2009). Building strong brands is a way for logistics companies to
10
differentiate themselves, but many companies had not prioritized branding
compared to their operational and pricing efforts (Davis et al., 2008, 2009). The
studies have shown that brand equity exists in the logistics market (Davis et al.,
2008), and creating brand awareness and the image is crucial to build brand
equity for logistics companies (Davis et al., 2008, 2009; Juntunen et al., 2011;
Marquardt et al., 2011).
1.2. Problem Statement
Although the industrial markets are price and quality-oriented, the experience
the customers have with the company and the perceptions developed towards
the brand is essential to build long-term business relationships and to
differentiate in the market (Bendixen et al., 2004; Jensen & Klastrup, 2008;
Sarin, 2014). Nevertheless, the B2B service industry lacks a confirmed brand
equity framework that can consistently evaluate the added value.
The B2B brand equity concept has been a turbulent subject whether Keller’s
(1993) Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) framework, primarily built for
the consumer market, is applicable within the B2B setting (Seyedghorban et al.,
2016). The framework is often used to investigate B2B industries and adapted
in different empirical contexts to enhance the framework's applicability
(Seyedghorban et al., 2016). This made B2B brand equity literature based on the
knowledge derived from the business-to-consumer (B2C) markets
(Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the extant literature remarks its
doubts whether the framework should be applicable for the B2B and service
markets, as noted by Kuhn et al. (2008), O’Cass and Grace (2004), and
Steenkamp et al. (2020). Despite Keller (2001) stating that the framework can
be amended in different needs, to what extent the amended model would fit the
overall B2B service industry is not evident (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Therefore,
Steenkamp et al. (2020) had examined the subdimensions of Keller’s CBBE
framework for the B2B service industry and determined which ones are
transferable for the B2B service industry and which are not. The study also built
new blocks and sub-dimensions valid for the B2B service industry (Steenkamp
et al., 2020). Therefore, the Servbrand Framework was developed to contribute
to the lowly researched body of the B2B service branding. However, the study
is based on a specific empirical context and needs investigation in other
countries or markets.
The logistics professionals acknowledge the importance of branding, but the
existing branding studies within the logistics service context are fragmented,
11
often contradictory, and consist of overlooked aspects of branding. Although
Davis et al. (2008, 2009) partially supported the extendibility of Keller’s CBBE
framework, the researchers noted that there are excluded aspects of the brand
equity within the studies, and there is a need for further explorations of the
antecedents of brand awareness and the image. The study of Świtała et al. (2018)
found weak correlations between the dimensions of Keller’s framework within
the logistics service providers setting. Similarly, Juntunen et al. (2011) stated that
brand equity for the industrial logistics service providers needs further
investigation. None of the studies had provided a complete picture of brand
equity within the logistics service industry. Therefore, there is a gap in the extant
literature for a comprehensive brand equity framework to guide logistics service
providers on building strong brands and brand equity. As previously stated,
Servbrand Framework is proposed to be applicable for the B2B service setting
(Steenkamp et al., 2020). However, the framework's applicability is questioned
for other contexts considering the study's limitations and has not yet been
applied within the logistics service industry context.
1.3. Aim and Research Questions
The present study undertakes a disunited body of the B2B service branding
literature and the gap of a validated brand equity framework for B2B service
companies, particularly for logistics service providers. Therefore, the aim of the
research is to explore how logistics service providers can build their brand equity
by adopting the newly developed Servbrand Framework. Also, the study aims
to identify which blocks and dimensions of the Servbrand Framework are
relevant for the logistics service providers and explore which further blocks or
dimensions can be added. To that end, the research develops the following
research questions:
• How can logistics service providers manage their branding activities to build their
brand equity?
• How transferable is the Servbrand Framework for building brand equity in the
logistics service industry?
12
2. Theoretical Framework
This chapter provides the theoretical framework, introducing the branding concept, its benefits,
and its characteristics in B2B and the service context. This is followed by the concept of brand
architecture. Consequently, the brand equity concept is defined and discussed, including an in-
depth screening of industrial brand equity and the Servbrand Framework. Lastly, the chapter
addresses the logistics services branding from the literature.
2.1. Branding
A brand is defined as “a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies
one seller’s goods or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing
Association, n.d., Branding section), which is the definition commonly used. A
brand represents the promise of practical and sentimental benefits when chosen
(Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Lynch & de Chernatony, 2007). Brands provide
tangible and intangible differentiation points, either with performance
attributions or more symbolic perceptions towards the product (Keller, 2013).
Branding activities from the firm perspective observe the cash generated from
the brand, whereas customer-based branding consists of exercises to build
awareness, perceptions, and bonds with the customers (Kapferer, 2008).
However, financial value is derived from customer value (Kapferer, 2008)
because the value for customers in return leads to enhanced financial
performance through the ability to charge higher prices and benefit from loyalty
(Keller, 2013).
2.1.1. Industrial Branding
The concept of branding was considered unsuitable for rational B2B relations
(Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Rosenbröijer, 2001).
Purchasing considerations are more of the performance indications of a product
or service, yet this belief was insufficient to explain the purchasing decisions
within industrial markets (Bendixen et al., 2004; Mudambi, 2002). Many
industrial companies do not focus on branding due to the high number of
products that cannot be branded individually (Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek &
Christodoulides, 2011). Branding is also considered as a long-term investment
with an uncertain return (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Therefore, industrial
markets find branding complex and confusing (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011),
highlighting the need for an extensive branding understanding within this
context (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Branding in industrial markets differs in many
13
aspects, such as the brand architecture, decision-making processes, and involved
actors.
The majority of the B2B marketing literature recognizes the importance of
brands in industrial markets and provides implications (Leek & Christodoulides,
2011). From the sellers’ perspective, building a solid brand is a way for
companies to expand into other markets, retain talents in the company, and deal
with influential customers (Wise & Zednickova, 2009). Branding can ease the
decision-making process by helping to reach a consensus (Leek &
Christodoulides, 2011; Wise & Zednickova, 2009), eliminating communication
barriers between the firm and the customers (Ohnemus, 2009). Branding also
provides a higher probability of being on the bidding list of buyers, the
possibility to charge a premium price (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Michell et
al., 2001; Ohnemus, 2009), and having higher referrals from the buyers
(Bendixen et al., 2004; Hutton, 1997; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Cretu and
Brodie (2007) found that brand image in business markets affects customer
perceptions, and company reputation widely affects customers’ evaluation of
value and loyalty. Branding extends the positive associations of a product or
service to the company's other products (Hutton, 1997; Leek & Christodoulides,
2011). Ohnemus (2009) urged B2B companies to focus on branding as it derives
more return of the investment to the shareholders. Companies can also enjoy
having higher bargaining power within the supply chain through branding (Leek
& Christodoulides, 2011; Ohnemus, 2009) and entry barriers for the external
actors (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Michell et al., 2001).
From industrial buyers’ perspective, there are numerous intangible benefits,
such as higher confidence in the buying process (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011;
Michell et al., 2001), a more heightened sense of satisfaction from the
transaction (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Low & Blois, 2002), comfort, and
good feeling (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002). Lowering risks is
an essential benefit of branding for buyers (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011;
Mudambi, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009; Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Besides, being
associated with a prestigious brand can make buyers’ products more accepted
in the market (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Overall, Leek and
Christodoulides (2011, p. 831) summarized the benefits of branding for
industrial sellers and buyers as in Table 1.
14
Table 1: Benefits of Branding for Industrial Buyers and Suppliers (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011, p. 831)
Benefits for Buyers Benefits for Suppliers Higher confidence Quality Risk/uncertainty reduction Differentiation Increased satisfaction Higher demand Greater comfort Premium price Identification with a strong brand Brand extensions Distribution power
Barrier to entry Goodwill Loyal customers Customer satisfaction Referrals
The organizational buying process has many tangible and intangible factors, as
noted in the pinwheel of Mudambi et al. (1997). The study found the price and
quality very important, but also many intangible elements are considered
substantial for the customers, such as the risks, personal preferences,
communication, reputation, and reliability (Mudambi et al., 1997). Bendixen et
al. (2004) also emphasized price and delivery as critical factors of the decisions,
especially delivery is the most important attribute. The brand name follows this
as an important factor in industrial buying decisions (Bendixen et al., 2004). The
findings of Zablah et al. (2010) confirm that brand affects the decision-making
process, yet the effect is limited and assistant to the primary impact from price,
service, and logistics.
Each criterion discussed has different importance for each actor within the
industrial purchasing process (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Actors who need
specific product knowledge are the most sensible decision-making units to
brand differences (Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011).
Mudambi (2002) proposed three clusters of customers as “highly tangible,”
“branding receptive,” and “low interest” (p. 531), who had different perceptions
of the importance of branding. The cluster of highly tangible customers was
described as traditional and objective, being more tangible information-oriented
with a structured way of decision-making (Mudambi, 2002). The cluster of
branding receptive customers was identified as open-minded but complicated,
an essential group for the brands as highly brand-sensitive (Mudambi, 2002).
Finally, the low-interest cluster consists of low brand sensitive and risk avoidant
customers (Mudambi, 2002). The groups are summarized in Table 2.
Strong B2B
Brand
15
Table 2: The Clusters of the Decision-makers in Industrial Purchasing (Mudambi, 2002, p. 531)
No. % of
sample
Cluster
descriptor
Buyer
descriptor
Purchase
descriptor
Process
descriptor
1 49% Highly tangible Traditional,
moderate,
objective
Typical,
product-
oriented
Textbook,
structured
2 37% Branding
receptive
Large
volume,
sophisticated
Highly
important,
risky
Open-
minded,
thorough
3 14% Low interest Low
relevancy,
indifferent
Routine,
low risk
Convenience,
low
involvement
To facilitate all efforts to gain customers from each cluster, salespeople are
crucial (Mudambi, 2002). The effective use of salespeople connected to the
brand touches the buyers' rational and sentimental minds (Lynch & de
Chernatony, 2007). Thereby, a customer relationship may be managed
successfully by building trust and dedication (Mudambi, 2002).
2.1.2. Brand Architecture in Industrial Markets
The understanding of branding has shifted from a brand as a product to a brand
as a corporate (Bendixen et al., 2004; Mottram, 1998). The corporate brand
represents the company in industrial markets (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek &
Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002). It carries particular importance in
industrial markets and is a significant differentiation factor for the
competitiveness of companies (Balmer, 1995; Bendixen et al., 2004). The
corporate brand provides the overall direction for managers to administer the
value creation (Ackerman, 1998; Bendixen et al., 2004). Besides, the corporate
brand represents many seller attributes for trade relations (Kuhn et al., 2008;
Mudambi, 2002).
Sinclair and Seward (1988) found the brand naming strategies helpful to
differentiate, be recognizable, and have more protection against the
competitors. Shipley and Howard (1993) also highlighted the brand name
representing a promise of quality and communicating the advantages to the
customers. Gordon et al. (1993) referred to the company name as the main
differentiator that brings loyalty to the whole products or services of the
company. Good attributes connected to the corporate brand differentiates the
firm from competitors (Davis et al., 2009). Therefore, the corporate brand is
16
the most prominent branding architecture within B2B markets (Davis et al.,
2008; Kuhn et al., 2008; Steenkamp et al., 2020).
2.1.3. Service Branding
Branding is vital for services, just as for products. The value creation shifts from
product to service as the experiences through delivering the service are the
primary source of value (Berry, 2000). This perspective aligns with the growing
view of the service-dominant logic in which services are the core offerings of
companies and the source of value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2017). The
service offerings are more sophisticated and involving multi-processes (O’Cass
& Grace, 2004). For this, brands let service companies differentiate and lower
the complexity of deciding which service to choose for customers (Berry, 2000;
Davis et al., 2008). The brand is also the corporate name for services (Berry,
2000; O’Cass & Grace, 2004).
A service can be branded within the relationship of different components;
through the “company’s presented brand, external brand communications, customer
experience with company, brand awareness, brand meaning, and brand equity” (Berry, 2000,
p. 130) (Berry’s Service-Branding Model: Appendix 1.1). Service branding
should also have further vital considerations such as the place of rendering the
service, people who deliver the service, an efficient process, and the experiences
of the customers with the service (O’Cass & Grace, 2004).
2.2. Brand Equity
Brand equity is a significant term widely used throughout the literature. Aaker
(1991) defines brand equity as the “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 firm’s customers” (p. 15). The strategic perspective of brand
equity is from the customer perspective, mainly through positioning the brand
with the awareness and image perceptions of customers to create a long-term
return from marketing efforts (Aaker, 1991; Davis et al., 2008; Kapferer, 2008;
Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as “the
differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p.
2).
The brand equity concept was initially undertaken thoroughly by Aaker (1991)
and Keller (1993), who had provided the predominant branding models to the
literature (Steenkamp et al., 2020; O'Cass & Grace, 2004). According to Aaker’s
(1991) brand equity model, the value from brand equity is based on five different
17
categories. These are “brand loyalty,” “name awareness,” “perceived quality,”
“brand associations in addition to perceived quality,” and “other proprietary
brand assets – patents, trademarks, channel relationships, etc.” (Aaker, 1991, p.
15) (Aaker’s Brand Equity Model: Appendix 1.2). These dimensions build the
brand equity that provides value to customers and the firm, such as satisfaction,
confidence, and information processing for the buyers (Aaker, 1991). The value
for the firms consists of more significant marketing results, loyalty, higher profit,
extended brands, and eventually competitive advantage (Aaker, 1991).
Keller (1993) underlined the brand knowledge of the customers developed
through marketing efforts as the main asset to improve the efficiency of
marketing. Based on the brand knowledge, Keller’s (1993) customer-based
brand equity (CBBE) concept, later called as brand resonance model (Keller,
2013), proposed how to build a strong brand by taking consequential stages that
are dependent on the success of each other (Figure 1).
Salience Category Identification
Needs Satisfied
Imagery User Profiles
Purchase and Usage Situations
Personality and Values History, Heritage, and
Experiences
Performance Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features
Product Reliability, Durability, Serviceability
Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Empathy
Style and Design Price
Feelings Warmth
Fun Excitement
Security Social Approval
Self-Respect
Resonance Loyalty
Attachment Community Engagement
Judgments Quality
Credibility Consideration
Superiority
Figure 1: Brand Resonance Pyramid (Customer-Based Brand Equity Model) (Keller, 2013, p. 108)
18
“Brand salience” is the easiness of brand recall and recognition, being aware of
the product or service category of the brand and which needs it would satisfy
(Keller, 2013, p. 108).
“Brand performance” is the indication of the performance features of the brand,
to what extent the brand would meet the customers' operational needs (Keller,
2013, p. 112).
• “Primary ingredients and supplementary features” are the customers’
notions of the characteristics that give functionality to the product and
individualize the use (Keller, 2013, p. 113). In terms of “product reliability,
durability, and serviceability,” reliability is the consistency of performance,
durability is the lifetime of the product, and serviceability is the ease of fixing
in need (Keller, 2013, p. 113). “Service effectiveness, efficiency, and
empathy” indicate consequently the level of satisfaction the brand provides
to customers, the service speed and responsiveness, and the level of care and
customer orientation (Keller, 2013, p. 113). “Style and design” is the
product's appearance, form, used items, and color (Keller, 2013, p. 113).
“Price” is evaluating the brand whether it is expensive or not (Keller, 2013, p.
113).
“Brand image” is an abstract thought of a brand considering the psychological
and social demands fulfilled (Keller, 2013, p. 113).
• “User profiles” remark the associations of the type of people or organizations
that use the brand based on their demographic or psychiatric information
(Keller, 2013, p. 113-114). “Purchase and usage imagery” explains the
circumstances in which the brand is used, such as the channel used, location,
or the activity performed (Keller, 2013, p. 114-115). “Brand personality and
values” consist of personal characteristics and values involving “sincerity,”
“excitement,” “competence,” “sophistication,” and “ruggedness” (Keller,
2013, p. 115). “History, heritage, and experiences” are the perceptions of
the brand regarding its history and the notions of past experiences with the
brand (Keller, 2013, p. 116).
“Brand judgments” are the overall evaluations of the brand as a cumulation of
performance and image perceptions (Keller, 2013, p. 117).
• “Brand quality” indicates the quality perceptions of customers as an essential
element of brand equity (Keller, 2013, p. 117). “Brand credibility” indicates
the sense of “expertise,” “trustworthiness,” and “likability” of the brand
(Keller, 2013, p. 117). “Brand consideration” highlights the suitability of the
offering to the customers' needs so that the brand can be part of the purchasing
19
considerations (Keller, 2013, p. 118). “Brand superiority” is the perceptions
towards the brand being different compared to others (Keller, 2013, p. 118).
“Brand Feelings” are the sentimental inferences of the customers towards the
brand (Keller, 2013, p. 118).
• “Warmth” indicates the level of “calm” and “peacefulness” (Keller, 2013, p.
119). “Fun” means the customers being “amused,” “joyous,” and “cheerful”
(Keller, 2013, p. 119). “Excitement” expresses the feelings of exclusiveness,
hype, and dynamism (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Security” includes the feelings of
“safety” and “comfort” (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Social approval” is the feeling
of being more convenient among the people associated with a brand (Keller,
2013, p. 120). “Self-respect” is the sense of “pride,” “accomplishment,” and
“fulfillment” (Keller, 2013, p. 120).
“Brand Resonance” is the final phase of building a solid brand, portraying the
relationship between the customer and the brand and how they fit each other
(Keller, 2013, p. 120).
• “Loyalty” indicates the customers’ purchasing density and amount from the
brand (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Attachment” is about a greater willingness to
buy from the brand and view the brand as special (Keller, 2013, p. 120).
“Community” is customers’ feeling of being alike and in connection with
other people who are in touch with the brand (Keller, 2013, p. 121).
“Engagement” is the customers’ alacrity to “invest time, energy, money, or
other resources” to learn more about the brand (Keller, 2013, p. 121).
According to the model, building brand equity needs each block and
subdimensions to be carefully examined and realized (Keller, 2013).
2.2.1. Brand Equity in Industrial Markets
Brand equity is a growing subject within the B2B context, with shreds of
evidence that strong and valuable brands can be created. Authors such as
Bendixen et al. (2004) and Gordon et al. (1993) provided empirical evidence that
brand equity exists in industrial markets.
Keller’s CBBE model was primarily used within the industrial setting, yet it was
criticized by Kuhn et al. (2008) regarding the applicability within the B2B
context. According to Kuhn et al. (2008), industrial markets differ by many
aspects, such as their decision-making processes, involved actors in purchasing,
and the brand architecture. Therefore, Kuhn et al. (2008) revised Keller’s (1993)
CBBE model and proposed that salience, performance, imagery, and judgments
20
blocks of the CBBE model apply for the B2B markets, but there was no
evidence for feelings. According to the study, performance dimensions are more
relevant for industrial buyers than the outlook (Kuhn et al., 2008). In addition,
technology was a significant performance consideration (Kuhn et al., 2008).
Credibility as part of the brand judgment block also had considerable
importance (Kuhn et al., 2008). In regards to resonance, dimensions of loyalty,
attachment, community, and engagement were not considered relevant; instead,
partnerships were highlighted (Kuhn et al., 2008). The study counted reputation
as a significant consideration of the buyers, and the use of salespeople is
essential to build brand equity (Kuhn et al., 2008).
Steenkamp et al. (2020) aimed to provide a B2B service brand equity framework,
an amended version of Keller’s CBBE model. The study considered brand
salience, performance, and judgment blocks relevant for the B2B service
industry (Steenkamp et al., 2020). However, minor changes were present in the
performance block, feelings were not considered relevant, and the image block
was replaced with people aspects (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Judgments block was
renamed as opinions, including a particular emphasis on trustworthiness and
overall satisfaction (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Lastly, brand resonance was
changed to brand relationships consisting of personal and partnership aspects
as the critical element of value creation (Steenkamp et al., 2020) (Figure 2). The
majority of these changes were also discussed by the study of Kuhn et al. (2008)
in the B2B context.
21
In addition to the remained sub-dimensions of the CBBE model (as previously
elaborated), the study added new subdimensions as described (Steenkamp et al.,
2020):
• As part of the service brand performance block, “processes” are critical alone
with the supporting factors that shape the way of delivering the service
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Distribution” describes the place, specifying
the channel of delivery (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Servicescape” is the
atmosphere in which the service is provided (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).
• Regarding the service brand personification block, “attitudes” are the
thoughts and feelings of the service provider shaping the way of dealing with
the customers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Demeanor” is the actual
behavior of the service provider with the customers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p.
65). “Personality” describes the character traits of the service provider,
whereas “values” are the doctrines that shape the behavior (Steenkamp et al.,
2020, p. 65). “Personableness” indicates the “appearance” and “manner”
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Product knowledge” relates to the
Salience Category Identification
Needs Satisfied
Service Brand Personification
Attitude and Demeanour
Personality and Values Personableness
Product Knowledge Client Knowledge
Service Brand Performance
Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features
Service Reliability, Service Effectiveness,
Efficiency, and Empathy Processes
Price Distribution and
Servicescape
Client-Brand Relationships Interpersonal Partnerships
Client-Brand Opinions Service Quality
Credibility and Trust Satisfaction
Figure 2: Servbrand Framework (Steenkamp, et al., 2020, p. 66)
22
conception of the proposition of the service, whereas “client knowledge” is
the understanding of the customers’ business and its requirements (Steenkamp
et al., 2020, p. 65).
• Client-brand opinions block consists of “credibility and trust” that indicate
to what extent customers find the service provider reliable and trustful
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Satisfaction” is the judgment of the service
whether it is effective and derives appreciation (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).
• As for the client-brand relationships, “interpersonal” implies the relationship
and interaction between the customer and the brand’s representatives, whereas
“partnerships” are the collaborative efforts to reach a common target
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).
However, the Servbrand Framework has not yet been applied in different
locations or industries. Steenkamp et al. (2020) also stated that the framework's
applicability should be extended to other sectors to show the model's usefulness
within different B2B service contexts.
Many other authors also contributed to the B2B brand equity concept by
providing various implications. According to Biedenbach and Marell (2010),
customer experience positively affects brand equity dimensions of awareness,
associations, quality perceptions, and loyalty. Bendixen et al. (2004) argued that
quality is the leading brand equity dimension, and it is a must to build a perceived
quality among customers. Sarin (2014) proposed the pillars of building brand
equity within two dimensions, namely, “performance” and “behavior” (p. 99).
The pillar of performance includes “quality,” “delivery,” “price,” and “service”
aspects, whereas the behavior pillar includes “attitude,” “relationship,”
“integrity,” “abiding by promises,” and “responsiveness” (Sarin, 2014, p. 99).
The study of Jensen and Klastrup (2008) suggested that B2B branding is mainly
rational, but emotional aspects such as credibility and trust are crucial for brand
equity. Biong and Silkoset (2014) highlighted that the customers’ sensitiveness
to quality affects the ability to charge a premium price of sellers. Kim and Hyun
(2011) provided evidence that brand equity is affected by “channel
performance,” “price,” “promotion,” and “after-sales services” (p. 435). The
research found that brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty derive brand
equity, and personal selling was considered the critical promotion channel for
brand equity (Kim & Hyun, 2011). Ryan and Silvanto (2013) emphasized the
importance of long-term relationships that value technical information,
innovation, quality, and customer support in building B2B brand equity.
Intangible attributes such as the attitude, knowledge, and specialty of
23
salespeople were also considered necessary, bringing professionalism and trust
(Ryan & Silvanto, 2013).
2.3. Logistics Services Branding
The executives in the logistics market acknowledged branding as important but
mainly used pricing efforts to differentiate in the market (Davis et al., 2008).
Davis et al. (2008; 2009) used Keller’s CBBE model and proposed that the brand
is an essential factor for logistics service providers, and the brand equity appears
within the industry. Two brand equity dimensions, “brand awareness” and
“brand image,” were considered relevant for the logistics industry (Davis et al.,
2008, p. 224). Also, the brand's name represents the corporate name in the
market (Davis et al., 2008). Customers found brand image more important than
brand awareness in creating brand equity; therefore, the study advised
companies to invest in employee training to provide a positive brand image
(Davis et al., 2008). On the contrary, the study of Świtała et al. (2018) stated that
there is an indication for a positive influence of brand awareness and brand
image on brand equity, but it is too weak to support these implications.
Juntunen et al. (2011) investigated the corporate brand equity for logistics
service providers and tested a conceptual model (brand awareness and brand
image resulting in brand equity and consequently loyalty) created from the brand
equity literature (based on Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The findings asserted that
brand awareness and image impact brand equity, but corporate brand loyalty did
not relate to corporate brand equity (Juntunen et al., 2011). On the other hand,
Grant et al. (2014) provided evidence that service quality, satisfaction, and
loyalty in tandem build corporate brand equity for third-party logistics service
providers.
Marquardt et al. (2011) asserted that to build brand equity (composed of
awareness and image) in the logistics industry, companies need to provide a
unique value proposition, communicate the brand with the customers, and
provide positive experiences. To provide a unique value proposition, companies
must exceed the quality expectations, be reliable, responsive, customer-oriented,
have outstanding technology, equipment, and delivery (Marquardt et al., 2011).
As for the brand's communication, reputation plays a vital role as customers
share their opinions (Marquardt et al., 2011). Besides, employee training is
crucial to communicate the values and the brand to customers (Marquardt et al.,
2011). Customer experience also takes a central role in brand meaning for the
service providers (Berry, 2000; Marquardt et al., 2011). Several ways of assuring
24
a positive experience are “customer service, service quality, service reliability,
service predictability, trustworthiness, honesty, dependability, loyalty toward the
customer, effective communications, good employees, technology, and ethics”
(Marquardt et al., 2011, p. 53).
Abdul Rahman et al. (2014) took a different perspective by investigating the
relationship between the logistics partnerships within the supply chain and
industrial branding, focusing on dyadic relationships to create thriving brands.
The results indicated that partnerships provide benefits for parties to make their
branding, enhance loyalty to each other, and build long-term relationships
(Abdul Rahman et al., 2014). If logistics companies provide good delivery
performance, manufacturers can benefit from a better brand image through
increased reputation and prestige (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014). At the same time,
the logistics companies can enjoy long-term relationships, trust, and loyalty
(Abdul Rahman et al., 2014).
The importance of brand awareness and meaning are highlighted by the majority
(Davis et al., 2008, 2009; Juntunen et al., 2011), yet with the exception that the
connection is weak (Świtała et al., 2018). There is a contradiction with the
findings that loyalty is an antecedent (Grant et al., 2014), an outcome (Ryan &
Silvanto, 2013), or no relevance (Juntunen et al., 2011) to brand equity.
Servbrand Framework, which is a guideline to build brand equity within the B2B
service industry (Steenkamp et al., 2020), has provided several implications that
were also discussed within the logistics brand equity literature. These include;
quality (Grant et al., 2014; Marquardt et al., 2011), reliability, responsiveness,
customer orientation, effective delivery (Marquardt et al., 2011), trust, and
credibility (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014; Marquardt et al., 2011), satisfaction
(Grant et al., 2014), the importance of people (Davis et al., 2008, 2009;
Marquardt et al., 2011; Ryan & Silvanto, 2013), attitude, business knowledge,
innovation (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013), and partnerships (Abdul Rahman et al.,
2014). However, Servbrand Framework consists of tangible and intangible
aspects of building brand equity that are not yet discussed within the logistics
industry setting. As also Davis et al. (2008) stated, the implications within the
industry could be augmented by the further investigation of “functional,
experiential, and attitudinal dimensions” (p. 225). Touching upon these aspects
can contribute to the overall picture for the logistics industry and enhance the
transferability of Servbrand Framework to another B2B service context.
25
3. Research Method
This chapter provides the methodological discussion of the paper by explaining the research
strategy, the data collection methods, the way of sampling for the participants, the process of the
data analysis, the trustworthiness, and ethical aspects.
3.1. Research Design
Brands are highly dependent on awareness and the meaning customers develop
for a brand. Such attempts to investigate the brand and its value must be in-
depth and experience-oriented. Therefore, the current research takes the
interpretivist approach to explore the brand equity model based on customer-
based implications. This perspective is placed within the spectrum of two
considerations of reality, whether the existence is independent of the observer
or subjective and based on perceptions (Bell et al., 2019). Within this spectrum,
the interpretivist approach includes understanding the social world of
participants by the researcher (King et al., 2019). The researcher's interpretation
is needed to explore which brand equity dimensions are relevant for logistics
service providers and explore further aspects.
Brand equity has a considerable amount of research in the literature yet is limited
within the context of this study. The so far provided implications on brand
equity, especially the Servbrand Framework proposed to be applicable within
the B2B service industry, needs investigation within the logistics context. The
study is informed by the model yet also explores further aspects of building
brand equity within the industry, which can be utilized by working
synchronously with the arisen data and theory (Bell et al., 2019). For this
purpose, the research takes an abductive approach in which both the data and
the theory is considered together in the analysis process (Bell et al., 2019).
Abductive is an “approach to theory development involving the collection of
data to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and explain patterns, to generate
a new – or modify an existing – theory which is subsequently tested” (Saunders
et al., 2019, p. 796). This approach involves inductive and deductive
characteristics, yet it suppresses their limitations as there is limited data to
develop a theory or provide accurate results by strictly following a theory (Bell
et al., 2019). As also mentioned by Saunders (2019), both inductive and
deductive approaches result in being abductive.
This study was considered exploratory by aiming at exploring how logistics
service providers can build their brand equity. Exploratory analyses intend to
26
discover an uncovered subject and gain deep insights to understand an issue
(Gray, 2017; Saunders et al., 2019). These efforts are mainly linked to answering
the questions of “what” and “how” to clarify the unclear phenomenon
(Saunders et al., 2019, p. 187). The current research was derived from a need for
a comprehensive brand equity model that can guide logistics service providers
to build strong brands based on empirical data. Hence, the study was positioned
as applied research, which is the investigation of a practical business issue and
the efforts of providing a solution that can be applied by the practitioners
(Easterby-Smith et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2019).
As another consideration of the research design, the timeframe of this research
was set as cross-sectional due to the specific given time and aiming the data
would not be affected by the time it had been collected. This timeframe reflects
the collection of data at a certain point in time (Gray, 2017; Saunders et al., 2019)
on multiple units of analysis and therefore building relevant themes from the
data (Ghauri et al., 2020).
This study considered the qualitative approach appropriate, as it is taken to
gain in-depth insights and build a comprehensive picture of the subject within
the contextual setting (Gray, 2017). This choice was also reflected in brand
equity being a sophisticated multidimensional concept (Steenkamp et al., 2020).
The present research not only aims to see which brand equity building
dimensions exist but also to understand the importance of them in the market.
Such qualitative investigations were also made by Kuhn et al. (2008) and
Steenkamp et al. (2020) with a similar purpose. This study adopted a general
qualitative methodology.
3.2. Data Collection
The study used semi-structured interviews as the primary data source to
explore how logistics service providers can build their brand equity. Semi-
structured interviews had a particular sequence of questions and provided the
ability to probe further information with open-ended questions, which fit the
exploratory nature of the research and allowed participants to describe the
subject or situation as implied by Saunders et al. (2019). The abductive reasoning
of the study also led to choosing semi-structured interviews as the questions
were connected to a theoretical framework but allowed further discussions that
can emerge further implications (Saunders et al., 2019). Since the study aimed
to gather customer-based substances on building brand equity, direct
information from the customers was needed regarding their brand knowledge.
27
Interviews served this purpose by providing qualified information from the
customers through their recognition of the logistics brands and their thoughts
and associations.
The interview questions were priorly discussed with the research supervisor and
tested initially with an expert from the logistics market to observe the interview's
sequence, wording, and duration. Pilot tests are helpful to observe how the
interviews are compelling, how the questions are understood by the participants
(Ghauri et al., 2020), and what to be improved or changed (Bell et al., 2019).
After the interview trial, the researchers made the necessary changes to enhance
the understandability and flow of the interviews, such as changing some
wordings and the structure of the sentences. Also, the interviewees were able to
give feedback and recommendations regarding the interview structure and
content.
3.2.1. Conducting the Interviews
Online interviews (with MS Teams) were considered appropriate due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, avoiding personal contact, and the ease of use. As also Bell
et al. (2019) and Saunders et al. (2019) asserted, online tools also allowed the
researchers to use integrated solutions, scheduling meetings in a more flexible
manner (place and time), conducting interactive interviews, and recording them
at once. Such tools also allow both parties to stay in their preferred comfortable
location (Saunders et al., 2019). All participants were comfortable using MS
Teams, which enhanced the research processes. As King et al. (2019) stated, the
participant's familiarity with the online solutions is vital in the research process
and can otherwise cause the participants to cancel participation. The use of the
tools also helped the researchers facilitate and organize the data.
The interviews were conducted within March-April 2021 and took in English, a
commonly practiced language across the companies and the researchers.
Interviews took place after the participants were informed about the aim, the
data processing and confidentiality regulations of the study, and the interview
duration. This initial process of informing the participants is an important step
that affects the course of the interviews as the interviewees need to be satisfied
with the confidentiality concerns and the aim of the study (Ghauri et al., 2020).
Both researchers held the interviews, having the same person as the speaker and
the same notetaker to take records during the interviews. The interviews were
also video/audio recorded after the taken consent to check the interview notes'
accuracy. The interview duration was set to 30-40 minutes, yet a few took
28
around 40-60 minutes, depending on the depth of the answers. The duration
was ideal as it was not exhaustive, which was also argued by Ghauri et al. (2020)
that a one-hour interview duration is appropriate.
3.2.2. Sampling
Non-probability sampling is commonly used for qualitative studies, as was
the case with this study. Particularly, purposive sampling allows finding the
specific point that can provide rich information and be subject to a
comprehensive investigation (Gray, 2017). The study has a predetermined
research focus that implies a particular participant profile and therefore needs
purposive sampling to reach the correct target (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).
Such a specific case for this study was gathering information from the decision-
makers in purchasing, renewing, or changing logistics services selected from the
automotive suppliers in Germany. Therefore, judgmental sampling was used
based on the considerations followingly stated.
The study chose Germany initially because of the accessibility, but also due to
being an important logistics hub of Europe, offering high logistics technology
and infrastructure, having advanced manufacturing, and being a leader in the
service sector within Europe (FAZIT Communication, 2018; GTAI, n.d.;
iXPOS, n.d.). The reasons for choosing automotive suppliers had the
considerations of the industry naturally representing the B2B industry, being
highly dependent on logistics operations, and having complex purchasing and
decision-making processes (Oliver Wyman, 2016).
The sampling of participants also had homogeneity concerns, choosing large
companies to have the consistency of characteristics. For this purpose, the top
100 automotive suppliers listed by Meyer Industry Research (2018) were used
to find the potential subject companies for the research. Only one company was
not chosen from the list but still considered fit for the aim of the study as the
company was a large automotive supplier.
Interviewees were determined based on their departments (operations, plants,
purchasing, procurement, supply chain, or logistics) and seniority (mid-to-senior
level) in the selected companies to ensure that they influenced the decision-
making process of logistics services purchasing. Participants were reached out
via emails and LinkedIn, and out of 350 requests, 16 interviews were conducted
(4.6% response rate) (listed in Table 3) from 14 different companies. Due to the
29
time and feasibility conditions of the research and consideration of theoretical
saturation, the number of interviews was considered satisfactory.
Table 3: Participant Profile of the Study
Role (as abstract) Seniority
PARTICIPANT01 Director Global Supply Chain Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT02 Director Operations Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT03 Director and Plant Manager Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT04 Director Global Purchasing Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT05 Vice President Logistics Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT06 Manager Logistics Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT07 Director Purchasing Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT08 Manager Supply Chain Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT09 Manager Corporate Supply Chain Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT10 Manager Logistics Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT11 Plant Manager Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT12 Manager Logistics Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT13 Specialist Purchasing Senior (10+ years)
PARTICIPANT14 Director Global Purchasing Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT15 Vice President Logistics Senior (20+ years)
PARTICIPANT16 Expert Logistics Senior (10+ years)
The participants provided their personal reflections throughout the interviews
and were the decision-makers or influenced the choice of the logistics service
providers for their companies. Although their influence on the purchasing
process varied and their perspective differed when putting importance to certain
aspects (logistics, purchasing, or division/plant), the answers provided rapport
to each other.
Lastly, to decide which logistics service brands to ask about within the
interviews, top large logistics brands were chosen based on their annual revenue
and whether they are in operation in Germany as listed by Marketline (2015).
Based on these criteria, 28 logistics service brands were mentioned within the
interviews while allowing the interviewees to name another logistics service
brand if not listed.
3.2.3. Interview Guide
The study adopted the interview questions from the study of Steenkamp et al.
(2020), which consisted of the potential brand equity measurements proposed
by Keller (2013), the implications discussed within the study of Kuhn et al.
(2008), and the literature (Steenkamp et al., 2020). The main author of the study
30
was contacted before using the questions within the purpose of this research.
The use of an existing interview guide contributes to the validity of the questions
as they were already evaluated by the other researchers (Bell et al., 2019). Using
existing questions also eased the assessment of transferability of the Servbrand
Framework, as the same questions were asked for the development of the model
by Steenkamp et al. (2020). The adopted questions of the interview were
structured within four categorizations (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 60) (detailed
in Steenkamp, 2016: Appendix 2):
• “Section A”: Four questions to evaluate the participants’ influence on the
company’s logistics service provider portfolio.
• “Section B”: Four questions to confirm the type of company, the market
position, number of employees, and years in operation.
• “Section C”: Twenty-eight questions to test the transferability of the
Servbrand Framework in the logistics service setting. The questions were
linked to the block and subdimensions of the framework (Appendix 3).
• “Section D”: Two questions to receive overall feedback from the interviewees
regarding their experience with the interview.
3.3. Data Analysis
Interviews were the primary source of data to be analyzed, which were initially
noted and transcribed. The transcriptions consisted of numerical labeling to
indicate the unit of analysis and participants to provide confidentiality, which is
necessary and suggested by Saunders et al. (2019). The transcription process
made the researchers familiar with the data and allowed them to have an abstract
view of the possible results. Becoming familiar with the data is an important
step that enables the researchers to find meaningful connections and themes
(Saunders et al., 2019). The transcribed interviews were subject to thematic
analysis, which seeks patterns for qualitative data (Gray, 2017). The thematic
analysis includes coding the data and building themes to be analyzed within the
research aim (Saunders et al., 2019). This process was supported by the
computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) called Atlas.ti9,
which allowed the researchers to organize the data, make coding, use notes and
categorize them. The use of CAQDAS helps the organization and the utilization
of the research process (Saunders et al., 2019) but leaves the analysis to the
researcher (Gray, 2017).
Initially, the transcription documents were grouped based on the participant
profile, representing either the purchasing, logistics, or the division perspective.
31
After that, the coding process began with open coding regarding the subject of
the answers and suggested coding derived from the predetermined connections
to the Servbrand Framework. As the researchers proceeded with the data
analysis, the codes were gathered under logical categories representing the
theme of the given answers. These categories were then connected to the
subdimensions of the Servbrand Framework if interrelated, otherwise
considered a new dimension. Lastly, the confirmed and emerged subdimensions
were linked to the relevant blocks of the Servbrand Framework. The process of
coding also consisted of rechecking and making amendments to codes if
necessary to keep consistency. This way of analysis complied with the abductive
reasoning and helped the coding be focused and related to the aim of the
research, which are the aspects typically referred to as the limitations of pure
inductive and deductive coding (Saunders et al., 2019).
3.4. Trustworthiness
The explanatory power of the study is typically discussed within the discussions
of validity and reliability, which are the common concerns of quantitative
researches (Bell et al., 2019). However, they may have limited relevance for
qualitative investigations (Bell et al., 2019), mainly due to the concerns of the
measurement and generalizability being not the central focus of qualitative
studies (Saunders et al., 2019). Therefore, new concepts are proposed to discuss
the rigor of qualitative studies within trustworthiness criteria (Bell et al., 2019).
Trustworthiness consists of four different criteria; “credibility,”
“transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability” (Bell et al., 2019, p.
363).
3.4.1. Credibility
The term credibility is used to describe the concern of the researcher
understanding the participants correctly (Bell et al., 2019). This concern of data
observation (Gray, 2017) can be dealt with the consistent use of data collection
methods and analysis. Within this context, the present study had a clear
guideline of conducting interviews, asking questions derived from a theoretical
background, having two researchers who reached a consensus on the
interpretation of data, and having interviews providing rapport to the findings.
Also, the interviewees were encouraged to express their true intentions and
opinions by assuring the confidentiality and protection of the data collected.
32
3.4.2. Transferability
Transferability is the degree to which the study's findings can be extended to
other contexts (Bell et al., 2019; Saunders et al., 2019). As previously stated,
qualitative studies investigate a particular subject in a small sample which makes
the findings of such study context-specific (Bell et al., 2019). Accordingly,
studies should carefully describe the research process (Saunders et al., 2019),
provide so-called “thick descriptions” (Bell et al., 2019, p. 365) to enable other
researchers to evaluate the transferability to different contexts. This research
sufficiently describes the research design, data collection and analysis procedure,
and the empirical context to ease research transferability. The findings are
encouraged to be investigated in different settings to enhance transferability.
3.4.3. Dependability
The dependability of qualitative research includes recording all steps taken
throughout the research (Bell et al., 2019) that others can observe (Saunders et
al., 2019). The present study documented all meetings and discussions with the
supervisor, tracked the research process, and recorded and transcribed the
interviews besides the notes taken throughout the interviews. The
documentation provided the adequate background to formulate the research
focus and analysis.
3.4.4. Confirmability
Confirmability is the efforts of objectiveness, having the results not affected by
the values and intentions of the researcher (Bell et al., 2019). Such concerns are
also related to the research documentation approving the researcher's
interpretation (Gray, 2017). Within this study, the interviewer effect was kept
minimal by having the same interviewer for all conducted interviews, following
the protocol developed, and providing neutrality when asking questions and
reacting to them. The research process was based on the documented procedure
of interviewing (interview guide), coding, and categorizing the interviews
(supported with a CAQDAS - Atlas.ti9). As previously stated, there were two
analyzers of the data interpreting the results in consensus.
3.5. Ethical Issues
Ethical issues are critical for any research, particularly for those done with
human participants (Saunders et al., 2019). The interview data were processed
following the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the
33
complementary Swedish regulations as a rule of Karlstad University. The
interviews were conducted after the participants were informed about the
study's aim, context, and data protection/processing. Written consent
(Appendix 5) to participate in the research was obtained (via email) after
providing the necessary information (Appendix 6) (via email). Audio/video
recording was taken after the oral consent at the beginning of each interview.
Also, the transcribed interview files were named in a coded way consisting of
no identification of company or participant and any other confidential
information. Therefore, participants were assured that the data is securely
processed. The researchers also had no history with the target companies or
participants of the research. All participants were subject to purposive sampling
based on their publicly available information such as their company and title,
which was found via platforms such as LinkedIn and Xing.
34
4. Findings & Analysis
This chapter describes the findings from the interviews conducted throughout the research,
starting with listing the participant and company characteristics, followed by the interpreted
answers to the questions regarding the blocks and dimensions of the Servbrand Framework for
the logistics industry.
4.1. Participant Profile
The interviewees were well aware of their companies' logistics service provider
portfolio (Appendix 4.1), although a few avoided naming them due to
confidentiality concerns (P1; P10; P14). Participants were able to categorize the
brand names based on their expertise or coverage (P2; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12;
P13; P14), their size and being global (P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P10; P15; P16),
and location of operation (P2; P4; P5; P6; P8; P10; P11; P12; P14; P15). The
logistics service providers were also separated based on their asset ownership,
whether they own their vehicles or outsource and manage their network,
typically referred to as integrators or forwarders (P2; P4; P5; P7; P8; P12; P13).
The use of brands was also referred to whether the purchase is complex, routine,
or for a specific business (P4; P6; P7). The answers provided a solid background
that the participants could identify, categorize and reflect the brands to their
needs.
All participants confirmed that they influence the decision-making. Some
participants mentioned that they have a strong influence over the decision (P4;
P5), or they have the last word either for a specific plant (P3) or the whole group
(P15). The influence, however, is referred to as limited as the purchasing was
systematized and executed through a request-for-quotation (RFQ) process
satisfying both selection criteria of the logistics and purchasing departments.
4.2. Company Classification
Most companies were publicly listed on the stock market (P1; P5-P9; P6; P7;
P8; P12; P13; P15). Two participants stated that their company is private, yet
the companies are also publicly listed (P10, P11). There were also three private
companies within the study (P3; P14; P16). Besides, one company was a
foundation (P2-P4) in which the company’s profit is retained within the
company and used for social and charity programs (P4).
The participants positioned their company at least among the top 20 in their
specific business within the tier 1, 2, or 3 automotive supplier business. The
35
companies were large, having employees around 5,000 to 150,000, and had a
good history, ranging from 20 to 150 years of operation. Therefore, the results
ensured that the sampling is appropriate for the aim of the study.
4.3. Transferability of the Servbrand Framework
This section presented the answers to the questions testing the subdimensions
of Servbrand Framework, which consists of different elements of building
brand equity (Appendix 3).
The answers revealed a complex but structured purchasing process that involves
various actors and consists of many criteria from different perspectives. These
perspectives consist of three parties: The purchasing department takes care of
the tendering process and deals with legal and pricing topics. The logistics or
supply chain department (corporate) determines criteria for the acceptable
service level and conditions. The divisions or plants approve whether the service
is adequate or fit to the needs considering past experiences. Ideally, all
participants think the influence over the decision should be equal from logistics
and purchasing perspectives. However, some stated that the plants approve or
give the last word (P3; P10), for some, the logistics department approve (P1; P8;
P11; P12; P15; P16), or purchasing has more influence in the decisions (P2; P4;
P5; P6; P9; P13). The purchasing department leads the tendering process and is
the initial point of contact, however, other actors are also involved in such a
committee that the service providers need to satisfy the expectations of all
parties.
Salience: The results regarding the ability to recall and recognize the brands
indicated that certain brands (named in Appendix 4.2-4.3) achieved a high level
of awareness. It was noted that the recalled brands were also mentioned as the
logistics service providers they worked with. Considering what the brands were
associated with, the participants drew the profile of companies around various
aspects (detailed in Appendix 4.4), such as;
• the expertise or coverage of companies (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9;
P10; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16),
• the size of companies (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P8; P9; P10; P12; P14; P16),
• being global/international or local (P2; P4; P5; P6; P7; P11; P13; P14; P15;
P16),
• the origin (P1; P5; P8; P10; P14; P16),
36
• company setup, whether it is centralized or fragmented, traditional or modern
(P4; P8; P9; P13; P14),
• asset ownership or subcontracting from the network (P1; P2; P3; P8),
• ownership and entity, whether they are owned by a particular name or private
entity, or were subject to any kind of merge & acquisition in the past (P1; P3;
P10; P15; P16).
The answers support both the subdimensions of identifying the operation
category and which needs would be satisfied within the salience block. Except
for two participants (P8; P9), the slogan was not known to the participants, thus
making it irrelevant to the context.
Performance: The participants pointed out several essential performance
indications within their brand associations (Appendix 4.5). The answers
highlighted the competitive price (derived from the cost pressure and the
industry's competitiveness) and effective service delivery are basic expectations
of the participants but not the differentiating factor as this is mainly given by
the market and is a common standard. Still, the price was given as the most
favorable aspect of their service provider by a few participants (P1; P3; P4; P7;
P13; P1). Incentives or rewards were under no circumstances appropriate for
the customers as it is controlled under strict compliance rules.
Being fast and responsive to situations was pointed out as one of the crucial
points in the automotive market; if not, this was the least favorable aspect for
the participants (P2; P3; P6; P7; P11; P13; P16). Most of the participants were
satisfied with the service, found their partner efficient, caring, and
understanding (P1; P2; P5; P6; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16).
Having a certain level of empathy towards the customers also affected the
perception that the service provider is reliable (P3; P11; P13; P14). The
participants mainly reflected the reliability of the service provider in the data
quality (P5; P6; P7; P9; P10; P11; P13; P15) and transparency (P1; P3; P8) as it
is vital to have accurate delivery tracking and real-time information of the
delivery process.
The participants stated various aspects that enhance the processes, such as
having enough and skilled people (P4; P8; P13), finance/legal people (P15),
specific terms and certifications (P3; P5; P13; P16), and data interchange
capabilities (P5; P12; P15). The participants expected many other qualifications
such as having enough network (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P12; P13; P14;
P15), the specialization in terms of the mode of transportation or the service
37
type (P2; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16), capacity (P5; P8; P9;
P15), and operational infrastructure (P5; P8; P15) which represented the
primary characteristics that need to be present by the service provider.
Numerous secondary features were also mentioned, mainly the ability to cope
with technology (P3; P5; P6; P9; P12; P15) and digitalization (P3; P5; P9; P15).
Participants also valued sustainability (P5; P7; P12; P14; P15) for their brand
considerations. The answers provided the necessary background that the
performance block is valid with almost all of its subdimensions (Appendix 4.5),
except for the servicescape. There was no indication of the atmosphere in which
the service is delivered.
Personification: The answers revealed that the people element is one of the
most important aspects as it affects the service processes, efficiency, level of
reliability, trust, and overall satisfaction. Relationships with people are the
driving force that shapes how the service is rendered and how the brand is
experienced. Participants highlighted people to differentiate the brand (P3; P5;
P6; P7; P10; P11; P13; P14), particularly, different locations having different
people meaning different experiences with the brand (P4; P5; P6; P7; P10; P12;
P13; P14; P15; P16).
Most of the participants highlighted the communication is done with the key
account managers of the service providers (P4; P5; P7; P14; P15; P16). The main
communication channels were with emails (P3; P6; P7; P9; P12; P13; P14; P16),
telephone (P3; P7; P9; P11; P13; P14; P15), and personal meetings (P2; P7; P11;
P12; P15; P16) although two participants stated that this was in case before the
Coronavirus (P7; P16). Moreover, the participants indicated conference calls
(P2; P7; P14; P15; P16), inquiries, and document exchange (P6; P14).
Key account management is an essential aspect for the participants (P1; P2; P3;
P4; P5; P7; P10; P13; P14; P15; P16), and the attitude and demeanor of the
people affect the perception towards the brand. Participants thought that the
size, market position, or the wide coverage of the service provider (P2; P5; P9;
P12; P14; P16) and categorizing the customers via their industry or revenue
(P12; P14; P15) affect their way of dealing with their customers. Participants
described the attitude and demeanor of their service provider in various ways;
• rigid (P9; P12; P14; P15; P16),
• in open communication (P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16),
• friendly (P8),
• professional (P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P13; P15),
38
• accessible (P9; P12; P13; P14; P15),
• open to learning (P1; P11; P12; P14; P16),
• detail-oriented (P9).
Most of the participants were able to describe the brand as a person either
thinking of the company origin (P3; P5; P13; P15; P16), its ownership (P4), or
thinking of past experiences with real people (P7; P8; P13; P15). Based on these
considerations, the participants addressed several personality traits and values;
• innovative (P1; P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P11; P12; P15) and techie (P9),
• dynamic (P2; P9; P14) and flexible (P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12),
• self-confident (P2), strong/solid (P3; P5; P14; P15), and equitable (P13),
• self-improving (P3; P9; P12; P14; P15), proactive (P7; P11; P12; P15),
• reputable (P3), superior (P5),
• confident (P2; P3; P5), competent (P15),
• conservative (P4),
• reliable (P6; P11), punctual (P16), trustful (P11; P13; P14),
• caring and understanding (P7; P14),
• cunning (translated from a local expression ‘bauernschlau’ )(P8; P14).
The answers also emphasized the knowledge of the people working in the
logistics service providers, that it is vital to know the industry (P4; P5; P7; P11;
P13; P14) and the specific need of the client (P1; P5; P7; P10; P11; P12; P13;
P14; P15; P16). Knowing the clients and their business enhances the processes
and the efficiency of the service for the clients.
It becomes evident that the personification block is valid and very important to
build a strong brand, and the involved subdimensions within the block are also
most favorable for the clients. Yet, the personableness aspect could not be
approved as there was no comment on the people's outlook.
Opinions: Service quality is a primary consideration in all of the customers’
minds regarding the brands. Participants mainly discussed the price is influenced
by the provider's service level (P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13), which is
sometimes referred to as more important than price (P4; P7; P11; P13). There
must be good quality as the industry is very competitive, and there is no place
for malfunctions. As all participants made clear, a competitive price without a
sufficient quality cannot be within the consideration of the participants.
Most of the participants considered their service providers having good service
quality (P5; P6; P8; P9; P11; P13; P15), however, not perfect by all means.
39
Participants expected a reliable, transparent, and trustful relationship (P1; P3;
P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15). In addition, participants valued a
credible partner who is innovative and with vision (P1; P2; P3; P5; P12; P15), is
a leader in the market (P1; P5; P15), and prestigious (P9).
The answers provided different levels of satisfaction by the participants. A few
participants stated that the service is good (P6; P8; P9; P14), and there is good
communication, reliable data, therefore, delivering results (P6). One participant
associated the good service with the price, having capacity under challenging
situations, and being flexible (P9). Two participants found their service provider
caring and willing to support (P14; P15). Another reflection in satisfaction was
that reasonable price and performance are always given. The service provider
must be reliable, open to discuss, learn and improve, and be reactive to
situations (P14). The answers revealed that service satisfaction is more than
effective delivery, so service providers must be responsive, flexible, open to
communication, and have the right attitude and demeanor.
The answers approve the opinions block and its subdimensions within the
logistics services context. Participants attached importance to the quality,
credibility, and trust influenced by both performance and people aspects of the
brand, designing the overall experience and leading to service satisfaction.
Relationships: Participants accentuated the business relationship as one of the
critical elements within the purchasing process. A few participants referred to
the relationship as more personal and integrated (P4; P8; P15). Participants also
reflected most of their judgments based on previous interactions with people
from the service providers and eventually differentiated the brands.
P5: They all have their strengths, so it's very... the… it's the small pieces, and then
it comes down, and that's ultimately, something that is valid since many years, it
comes down to the people. So, who do you trust most with good account
management
P6: You will always talk with the local market there, and there can be the... or will
be the person is different, and also the relationship will be different, and then,
yeah, it maybe doesn't work so smooth as here
P12: When you have experienced people, it's important in logistics
P13: All the companies are as good as the people that work there, and I believe
that good companies are created by very competent people in their field
40
The partnership was an expectation commonly addressed by the participants
(P1; P2; P3; P4; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16). Participants expected
long-term relationships (P1; P2, P4; P14), with history and past experiences (P2;
P4), is caring (P7), having capabilities to cope with the future technologies (P9;
P15), and is reputable (P2; P9). However, this did not mean that they would not
change their service provider if they are not satisfied with the service level; the
participants did not have a sense of attachment to their service providers. The
logistics service providers still need to prove that they are better than the others
to keep the business relationship ongoing. Participants can discard and switch
to another supplier (P2; P3; P5; P13; P16) if all conditions are not met. Still,
knowing each other increases the trust level (P5; P14), collaboration, and
partnership (P6; P9; P12; P13; P15), thus future benefits for both parties.
The answers supported the relationships block and its subdimensions within the
given context.
Further Inferences: The answers also indicated some other inferences that
need to be addressed. Some participants valued having a history and previous
experiences that eased the brand getting into the tendering process (P1; P2; P3;
P16). A few participants also confirmed that they progressed together with their
service provider by sharing experiences, managing crises together, and
developing a bond and understanding (P7; P8; P11; P13; P14; P15; P16). Having
good past experiences was an essential criterion for the participants in their
consideration (P2; P4: P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P12; P13; P16). Having past
experiences was reflected by one participant in that understanding each other
diminishes the hidden costs in purchasing; therefore, it is helpful to know each
other (P11). The answers, although not being a sole factor, supported the
importance of experiences. This aspect shows the need for a separate dimension
to express the importance of the subject.
The participants found feelings unimportant (P1; P2; P3; P5; P6; P7; P10; P11;
P12). However, trust and experiences were the most referred aspects (P1; P4;
P5; P6; P8; P13; P14; P15). Also, except for one participant (P15), the
participants did not attach importance to their competitors’ logistics service
provider portfolio. Also, as previously stated, the participants did not have any
level of attachment towards the brands. Therefore, there could be no reflection
towards feelings, user image, and attachment in the brand equity framework.
Another aspect was the participants' level of engagement, their willingness to
invest their time, energy, or resources to get to know the brand. Participants
41
found no motivation or need to engage with the brand as they already know
each other (P2; P3; P5; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11, P14; P15), highlighting the
importance of past experiences. Participants were open to being part of
events/conferences/fairs to discuss the industry topics or share individual
experiences (P1; P3; P9; P10; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16). Participants found
websites irrelevant for their considerations as websites do not show the service
quality or experiences with the brand; instead, it is only helpful to see the brand’s
way of dealing with future trends, technology, and digitalization. The main
interaction channel was the discussions with the key account managers in case
of a new event or situation, but otherwise, the relationship was considered
standard. The responses revealed that there is no need for engagement for the
brand consideration of participants. Besides, since the activities with other
businesses are on an industry level, not for a specific brand, there was no sense
of community or kinship between the customers towards a particular brand.
Instead, participants valued industry developments and future trends.
Participants also noted their likelihood to recommend their service provider
mainly as ‘most definitely’ (P6; P7; P14) or ‘definitely’ (P2; P4; P5; P9; P11; P12;
P13; P15; P16). The responses indicated that loyalty exists for the participants,
yet not as an antecedent of brand equity but as an outcome. This was because
participants can easily switch to competitors if the dimensions of brand equity
do not exist.
Participants also made inferences of the brands being in operation in specific
locations (P7; P10; P12; P1; P16), being used under some issues (P9; P15), or
for complex premium deliveries (P12). Service providers need to have specific
service portfolios (P2; P6; P8; P15) or be in particular locations (P6; P8; P15) to
be within the customers' consideration set. This aspect is simply because the
service provider needs to be fit to the needs to be considered, which is beyond
being aware of the brand but a severe factor in the consideration. Therefore,
consideration should be a particular subdimension within the framework.
4.4. Feedback on Interviews
The participants found the interview structured and easy to follow. One
participant noted the importance of reciprocal perspective towards each other
as both customers and service providers, how to be a customer of choice for
the service providers (P9). Another participant also repeated the importance of
people in brand consideration (P13).
42
5. Discussion
This chapter links the interpretation made throughout the findings chapter to the theoretical
framework and answers the paper's research questions; which subdimensions of the Servbrand
Framework are transferable to the logistics industry and which further implications could be
done for the industry. Thereby, the research question of how logistics companies can build their
brand equity is answered.
The results indicated a complex but structured purchasing process for the
logistics services in which different actors have different roles and expectations,
as also referred by the industrial branding literature (Bendixen et al., 2004; Kuhn
et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and for services (O’Cass & Grace,
2004). The logistics service purchasing process involves three parties;
purchasing department, the logistics department, and divisions/plants. The
findings pointed out that purchasing department orchestrates the tendering
process for the company and mainly takes care of legal and pricing issues and is
the initial point of contact for the service providers. The different roles and
expectations were fit for the clusters of decision-makers proposed by Mudambi
(2002). Purchasing people could be considered as “highly tangible” (Mudambi,
2002, p. 531) with their objective and structured way of thinking. On the other
hand, logistics people can be clustered as “brand receptive” (Mudambi, 2002,
p. 531) with their sophisticated criteria on service acceptability and openness to
future trends and innovation. In addition, plants’ considerations are more of
past experiences, making them less sensitive to brand and risk-avoidant,
expressed as “low interest” by Mudambi (2002, p. 531). The logistics service
providers need to tackle each actor within the process to get into their
consideration.
43
The results showed that Servbrand Framework is transferable to the logistics
market as all of the blocks within the framework were found relevant but with
a few sub-dimensional changes (Figure 3: greyed out subdimensions; not
applicable, red subdimensions; newly added).
5.1. Brand Salience
The “salience” block of the Servbrand Framework is considered applicable
together with the subdimensions of “category identification” and “needs
satisfied” for the logistics service providers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). It is
observed that the brand refers to the company name for the logistics companies,
supporting the literature that corporate brand represents the company in B2B
markets (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002).
Customers can categorize and reflect the brands to their needs widely and build
Salience Category Identification
Needs Satisfied
Service Brand Personification
Attitude and Demeanour
Personality and Values Personableness
Product Knowledge Client Knowledge
Service Brand Performance
Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features
Service Reliability, Service Effectiveness,
Efficiency, and Empathy Processes
Price Distribution and
Servicescape
Client-Brand Relationships Interpersonal Partnerships
Client-Brand Opinions Consideration Service Quality
Service Experience Credibility and Trust
Satisfaction
Figure 3: Amended Servbrand Framework for Logistics Services (Steenkamp et. al., 2020, p. 66; the present study’s authors)
44
different perceptions towards the brands. This state can highlight the
importance of the brand naming strategies to differentiate and build recognition
in the market (Davis et al., 2009; Gordon et al., 1993; Shipley & Howard, 1993;
Sinclair & Seward, 1988). The brand is also a decisive element for the industrial
buying process (Bendixen et al., 2004; Zablah et al., 2010), reducing the
complexity in decision-making (Berry, 2000; Davis et al., 2008). It is vital to
create awareness and to make customers be able to recall and recognize the
brand name in different circumstances to build brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Davis
et al., 2008; Juntunen et al., 2011; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 1993; Kim & Hyun,
2011; Świtała et al., 2018).
5.2. Brand Performance
The “service brand performance” block of the Servbrand Framework is
considered applicable with its subdimensions, except for “servicescape,” as
there was no reference to the ambiance or atmosphere in which the service is
provided (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). The purchasing process consists of
many performance indications as ‘facts and figures’ that need to be readily
present by the logistics service providers. Performance indications are some of
the critical elements of the purchasing process (Kim & Hyun, 2011; Kuhn et al.,
2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). Kuhn
et al. (2008) considered the CBBE model’s performance block suitable to the
industrial market.
Customers fundamentally differentiate the logistics service providers based on
their primary characteristics such as their expertise, coverage, network, and
presence and build perceptions around these characteristics. Having features
like good technology, infrastructure, coping with digitalization, and
sustainability are important considerations for the customers of logistics service
providers. The capability of data interchange was one of the most highlighted
specific capabilities by the customers. Focusing on core competencies and
providing superior infrastructure and technology can differentiate and deliver
value propositions in the logistics market (Marquardt et al., 2011). Technology
was also found highly important in the industrial markets by Kuhn et al. (2008).
These findings confirm the importance of the subdimension of “primary
characteristics and secondary features” within the Servbrand Framework
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66).
“Service reliability” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) was another subdimension
that stood out from the results as a critical element in the decision-making
45
process, which is a widely referred expectation by industrial customers
(Marquardt et al., 2011; Mudambi et al., 1997; Steenkamp et al., 2020).
Reliability, especially having reliable data, is very important for the customers of
logistics service providers. Reliability is one of the necessary pillars of creating
brand equity, as discussed by Sarin (2014).
The results also highlighted the importance of effective delivery, which needs
to be efficient and adaptable to the customers' needs. Bendixen et al. (2004)
referred the delivery as the most critical factor in the industrial market. Effective
delivery was also discussed widely as an expectation in industrial markets and
the logistics market (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014; Bendixen et al., 2004;
Marquardt et al., 2011; Sarin, 2014). Besides, the speed and responsiveness of
the service are essential for the customers of the logistics service providers. The
literature addressed this aspect primarily as responsiveness (Marquardt et al.,
2011; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). The results also remarked the
importance of empathy towards the customers, providing individual and
adaptable solutions based on their needs. These implications provided the
necessary background to say that “service effectiveness, efficiency, and
empathy” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) is a subdimension required to build
brand equity in logistics markets.
Processes are important for the customers. It needs to be efficient (O’Cass &
Grace, 2004) and enforced by people and additional certifications and data
interchange capabilities. Services consist of multiple processes (O’Cass & Grace,
2004) that need to be enhanced and facilitated appropriately (Steenkamp et al.,
2020). Therefore, this study supports the implication that “processes”
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) subdimension is necessary.
Another key topic for the customers is the price, as there has to be a competitive
price considering the automotive market conditions and the cost pressure in the
supply chain. Price is a common fact within the purchasing process (Bendixen
et al., 2004; Kim & Hyun, 2011; Mudambi et al., 1997; Sarin, 2014) and could
be even superior to any other branding efforts (Zablah et al., 2010). Price is also
the primary differentiation tool commonly used by logistics service providers
(Davis et al., 2008). Therefore, the “price” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)
subdimension is highly relevant within this context.
As the last performance-relevant subdimension, “distribution” (Steenkamp et
al., 2020, p. 66) refers to the channel used within the tendering process, mainly
an existing customer database or an e-tender platform that is becoming
46
widespread across the customers. This aspect was indicated as “purchase and
usage situations” within the CBBE model (Keller, 2013, p. 108) and transferred
to Servbrand Framework as “distribution” to refer to the place where the service
is delivered (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66).
5.3. Brand Personification
The people element is one of the most often addressed subjects by the
customers. It affects how reliable, efficient, qualified the service provider is, and
it is the driver of positive experiences with the brand. The block of “service
brand personification” and all of the subdimensions except “personableness”
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) were considered relevant and important within
the logistics market. This exception was because the customers did not address
the outlook and manner besides attitude and demeanor.
The importance of people is well known in the industrial markets to build
meanings about the brand (Lynch & de Chernatony, 2007; Mudambi, 2002).
People enhance the delivery process (O’Cass & Grace, 2004) and are also
referred to as a dimension to build brand equity by Kuhn et al. (2008). Building
relationships enforce the level of trust towards the brand (Mudambi, 2002).
Attitude is also referred to by Ryan and Silvanto (2013) and Sarin (2014) as an
essential aspect to deliver a positive experience, bringing the perception of
professionalism (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013). The results also provided many
personality traits and values about the brands, such as being dynamic, open to
learn and communicate, and innovative. The aspects of personality and values
are included within the CBBE model by Keller (2013) and remained within the
Servbrand Framework. Besides, people’s knowledge of the customers' needs
and expectations and the industry requirements is fundamental, which
supported the two dimensions as “product knowledge” and “client knowledge”
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). Davis et al. (2008) and Marquardt et al. (2011)
emphasized internal communication as an important way of building a positive
image which was considered more important in the logistics market.
5.4. Brand Opinions
Opinions, also referred to as judgments by Keller (2013), are necessary to build
brand equity. The results approved the subdimensions of “service quality,”
“credibility and trust,” and “service satisfaction” within the Servbrand
Framework (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66), but also pointed out that two new
subdimensions are necessary, which are ‘service experience’ and ‘consideration.’
47
The results showed that quality is a crucial element for logistics service
purchasing. Perceived quality is one of the most mentioned aspects within the
literature that it is necessary to build brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Bendixen et al.,
2004; Biong & Silkoset, 2014; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Grant et al., 2014; Keller,
2013; Kim & Hyun, 2011; Kuhn et al., 2008; Marquardt et al., 2011; Mudambi
et al., 1997; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). Perceived quality is informed
by many aspects such as the image of the brand (Bendixen et al., 2004; Cretu &
Brodie, 2007), the corporate naming strategies (Shipley & Howard, 1993), and
brand awareness (Kim & Hyun, 2011), which are the implications the findings
had supported. Service quality also leads to satisfaction (Grant et al., 2014;
Steenkamp et al., 2020), which the customers addressed as an aspect.
The results emphasized that customers care for reliability and trust, as included
within the “credibility and trust” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) subdimension.
Trust is crucial for services as it is harder for customers to trust (Berry, 2000).
Being trustworthy derives positive experiences (Marquardt et al., 2011), which
was supported by the findings that the experience between the representatives
of the brand and the customers is crucial in building a trustful relationship.
Credibility and trust are vital within the purchasing process (Mudambi, 2002)
and build strong brands (Jensen & Klastrup, 2008; Ryan & Silvanto, 2013). The
customers’ perception of a credible partner known in the market with good
attributes is an essential factor in brand considerations. This is widely addressed
as reputation as an influential element of brand evaluations (Abdul Rahman et
al., 2014; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Kuhn et al., 2008; Marquardt et al., 2011;
Mudambi et al., 1997).
The results indicated that satisfaction is necessary to build brand equity. The
performance and people elements of the brand derives positive quality
perceptions and experiences, and therefore the sense of satisfaction. Building
solid brands requires attaching good performance and other indications to
derive satisfaction (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and provide value (Aaker,
1991). Grant et al. (2014) also provided evidence that service quality derives
satisfaction, loyalty, and brand equity.
Two new subdimensions are proposed that are not independently addressed by
Servbrand Framework:
• Service experience: It is necessary to build positive experiences with the
brand, informed by the performance and people. Good experiences are at the
core of good service perceptions, and it is necessary to build a successful
48
service brand (Berry, 2000; Marquardt et al., 2011; O’Cass & Grace, 2004).
Biedenbach and Marell (2010) also provided the implication of customer
experience positively affecting brand equity.
• Consideration: Logistics companies need to fit the needs and market
conditions to be part of the customers' consideration. No matter how strong
the brand is regarding the other elements, the value is captured if the customers
actually use the brand's services. Consideration was a subdimension within
Keller’s CBBE model (2013) and was also found appropriate for the industrial
market by Kuhn et al. (2008).
5.5. Brand Relationships
The results approved the importance of the relationship block with its
dimensions of “interpersonal” and “partnerships” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p.
66).
It is imperative to build a good relationship among people, as also highlighted
within the personification block. Having long-term relationships are one of the
ultimate goals for brands to differentiate in the market (Bendixen et al., 2004).
Through experiences and relationships, it is possible to achieve higher
performance (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Relationships are also addressed as
necessary to build brand equity (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013; Sarin, 2014) and are part
of the several brand equity building frameworks proposed so far (Keller, 2013;
Kuhn et al., 2008; Steenkamp et al., 2020).
Partnerships are significant for industrial markets, as was the case for logistics
services. The results indicated that partnerships are expected as there needs to
be a collaborative, innovative long-term relationship. The level of collaboration
is influenced by past experiences, the level of interaction, the level of trust, and
the capabilities to follow up future market conditions. It is necessary to note
that partnerships are long-term as long as the service provider provides value to
the customer and is competitive considering the market conditions. In this case,
partnerships enhance the loyalty level of the parties towards each other (Abdul
Rahman et al., 2014). The partnership is part of both the amended CBBE model
versions proposed by Kuhn et al. (2008) and Steenkamp et al. (2020).
Loyalty was found relevant within the context of the study but may be
considered not as an antecedent of brand equity but an outcome. This was
because loyalty depends on the conditions of building brand equity and is
possible thereafter. Loyalty is still an unclosed aspect of brand equity as it was
either considered as an antecedent (Aaker, 1991; Grant et al., 2014; Keller, 2013;
49
Kim & Hyun, 2011), as an outcome (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013; Steenkamp et al.,
2020) or could not be approved (Juntunen et al., 2011). The subject of loyalty
still needs further investigation.
The findings designated an amended version of the Servbrand Framework
(Figure 3) to guide logistics service providers on building brand equity, which
meets the study's objectives. As industrial branding is based on B2C
implications, there is a need for an amended brand equity model (Kuhn et al.,
2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Steenkamp et al., 2020), and service
branding needs further investigation (O’Cass & Grace, 2004; Steenkamp et al.,
2020). Hence, the study has a clear conceptual contribution with that the model
is transferable. The findings provided rapport that service providers must
achieve each discussed block and subdimensions to build brand equity within
the industry. Therefore, the study acts as a continuation of the previous efforts
on providing an adequate brand equity model within the B2B service industry,
as called out by Kuhn et al. (2008), O’Cass & Grace (2004), and Steenkamp et
al. (2020).
50
6. Conclusion
This chapter summarizes the research contribution, explains to what extent the research
objectives are met, and provides the managerial implications. In the end, the chapter reflects the
study’s limitations in terms of the methodological design and shows guidance on potential future
research.
This research investigates a framework that can guide industrial service
providers to manage their branding activities to ensure long-term success and
create equity. The study applies the newly proposed brand equity model,
Servbrand Framework, within the logistics service industry to assess the
framework's transferability and provide a guideline for logistics service
providers to build strong brands. Both of the objectives of exploring how
logistics service providers can manage their branding activities to build brand
equity and to what extent is the Servbrand Framework is transferable are met
with the findings.
The findings asserted that the model is transferable to the logistics services
context, but with several amendments. All of the blocks within the model were
found appropriate within the given context. Two subdimensions, ‘servicescape’
and ‘personableness’ that are part of the performance and personification
blocks, are not considered relevant for the logistics industry. Also, two new
subdimensions as part of the client-brand opinions block, ‘consideration’ and
‘service experience’ was utilized to be necessary. Accordingly, to build brand
equity, logistics brands need to create salience among the potential customers
and make brand meanings both within performance and people notion. This
needs to be followed by the opinions that the brand will fit the needs and
circumstances, and there is perceived quality and good experiences derived from
the brand. Therefore, the brand is credible and trustworthy, which will drive
satisfaction. Based on these brand opinions, there needs to be a collaborative
business relationship built by interpersonal interactions and a broad-visioned
partnership. In this way, the brand can be chosen and kept within the portfolio
of the customers long-term.
6.1. Managerial Implications
Logistics service marketers need to focus on delivering value by promoting the
brand's human factor and attaching attributes to the corporate name. It becomes
evident that price and quality is a basic expectation by the customers and is
readily given by the market. Thereby, companies need to highlight their
51
differentiation points: how reliable, transparent, responsive, caring, and
understanding the brand is for the customers. People deliver these attributes of
the brand because the main point of contact between the customers and the
logistics service provider is people, particularly the key account management.
One must note that purchasing is a complex process involving many actors
(purchasing, logistics, and divisions) with different expectations and influences,
and companies need to examine how to approach them carefully. The logistics
service provider needs to be within the RFQ process of the customers, initially
being competitive in terms of price and then promising good performance,
which means effective and efficient delivery in addition to a responsive and
caring key account management. Knowing the industry expectations and the
specific need of the client have primary importance. Therefore, competent
people are essential to delivering premium service. By keeping promises,
building positive experiences with good service quality and relationships, the
brand can enjoy price premiums and long-term partnerships.
6.2. Limitations and Further Research
Like all researches, this research also has limitations, mainly due to the nature
of being qualitative. The primary limitation is the study being within a specific
context, investigating the logistics service providers within the automotive
industry in Germany. Therefore, the results could be industry and country-
specific. Another qualitative research limitation is the results being based on the
interpretation of the researchers. However, the study has a particular conceptual
contribution to building brand equity within the logistics industry by pointing
out that the Servbrand Framework is transferable for the logistics industry. The
study gathered insightful information about what industrial service purchasers
value the most in their brand considerations. The results are expected to apply
to commodity-like services that are crucial inputs for industrial companies. The
implications could be further investigated within another sector or location to
enhance the transferability of the findings. The findings are also encouraged to
be tested quantitatively on a broader sample, contributing to transferability. In
addition, this research was part of an ongoing effort to build a brand equity
framework applicable in the B2B service setting. Similar efforts are needed in
other contextual frameworks to contribute to the industrial service brand equity
literature.
52
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalization on the value of a brand name. The Free Press.
Abdul Rahman, N. A., Melewar, T. C., & Sharif, A. M. (2014). The establishment of industrial branding through dyadic logistics partnership success (LPS): The case of the Malaysian automotive and logistics industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.09.003
Ackerman, L. (1998). Secrets of the corporate brand. Across the Board, 35(1), 33–37.
American Marketing Association. (n.d.). Branding. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://www.ama.org/topics/branding/
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship. Journal of General Management, 21(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709502100102
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.001
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012
Biedenbach, G., & Marell, A. (2010). The impact of customer experience on brand equity in a business-to-business services setting. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2009.37
Biong, H., & Silkoset, R. (2014). The ineffectiveness of corporate brand investments in creating price premiums. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220211
Cretu, A. E., & 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, 36(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.08.013
Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. (2009). Measuring brand equity for logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910981297
Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. J. (2008). Branding a B2B service:
53
Does a brand differentiate a logistics service provider? Industrial Marketing Management, 37(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.02.003
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. R., & Jaspersen, L. J. (2018). Management & Business Research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
FAZIT Communication. (2018). Facts About Germany. https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/files/2020-11/tatsachen_2018_eng.pdf
Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K., & Strange, R. (2020). Research Methods in Business Studies (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, G. L., Calantone, R. J., & di Benedetto, C. A. (1993). Brand Equity in the Business-to-Business Sector: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2(3), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429310046689
Grant, D., Juntunen, J., Juga, J., & Juntunen, M. (2014). Investigating brand equity of third-party service providers. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2012-0104
Gray, D. E. (2017). Doing Research in the Business World (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.
GTAI. (n.d.). Logistics. Retrieved March 18, 2021, from https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/industries/logistics
Hutton, J. G. (1997). A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(6), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429710190478
iXPOS. (n.d.). Service Industry. Retrieved March 18, 2021, from https://www.ixpos.de/IXPOS18/Navigation/EN/Home/Eu-service-market/service-industry.html
Jensen, M. B., & Klastrup, K. (2008). Towards a B2B customer-based brand equity model. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 16(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2008.4
Juntunen, M., Juntunen, J., & Juga, J. (2011). Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: A study among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management, 18(4–5). https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.43
Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101
54
Keller, K. L. (2001). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands (Report No. 01-107).
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (4th ed.). Pearson.
Kim, J. H., & Hyun, Y. J. (2011). A model to investigate the influence of marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.024
King, N., Horrocks, C., & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Kuhn, K. A. L., Alpert, F., & Pope, N. K. L. (2008). An application of Keller’s brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research, 11(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750810845540
Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: Challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.006
Low, J., & Blois, K. (2002). The evolution of generic brands in industrial markets: The challenges to owners of brand equity. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00131-0
Lynch, J., & de Chernatony, L. (2007). Winning Hearts and Minds: Business-to-Business Branding and the Role of the Salesperson. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1–2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707x178594
Marketline. (2015). Global Transportation Services. https://store.marketline.com/report/ohip0631--global-transportation-services-5/#product-105768
Marquardt, A. J., Golicic, S. L., & Davis, D. F. (2011). B2B services branding in the logistics services industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111107050
Meyer Industry Research. (2018). Top 100 Automotive Suppliers in Germany. https://www.meyer-industryresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/180214_TOP100-Automotive-Suppliers-in-Germany_FINAL.pdf
Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand Values Related to Industrial
55
Products. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00097-8
Mottram, S. (1998). Branding the Corporation. In S. Hart & J. Murphy (Eds.), Brands (pp. 63–71). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26070-6_7
Mudambi, S. (2002). Branding importance in business-to-business markets. Three buyer clusters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00184-0
Mudambi, S., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(5), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00151-4
O’Cass, A., & Grace, D. (2004). Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(4), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420410546961
Ohnemus, L. (2009). B2B branding: A financial burden for shareholders? Business Horizons, 52(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.004
Oliver Wyman. (2016). Insights on Automotive Supplier Excellence: Sourcing in the Automotive Industry: How Can Suppliers Create More Value? https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2016/jan/OliverWyman_Sourcing_in_the_AutomotiveIndustry_web.pdf
Rosenbröijer, C. J. (2001). Industrial brand management: A distributor’s perspective in the UK fine-paper industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420110382795
Ryan, J., & Silvanto, S. (2013). The critical role of corporate brand equity in B2B marketing: An example and analysis. The Marketing Review, 13(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934713x13590250137745
Sarin, S. (2014). Relevance and creation of strong brands for B2B markets. Vikalpa, 39(4), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920140407
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Seyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M. J., & LaPlaca, P. (2016). Advancing theory and knowledge in the business-to-business branding literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2664–2677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.002
Shipley, D., & Howard, P. (1993). Brand-naming industrial products. Industrial Marketing Management, 22(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-
56
8501(93)90021-X
Sinclair, S. A., & Seward, K. E. (1988). Effectiveness of branding a commodity product. Industrial Marketing Management, 17(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(88)90023-5
Steenkamp, P. (2016). Towards a client-based brand equity framework for selected business-to-business services (Issue March). Stellenbosch University.
Steenkamp, P., Jacobus Herbst, F., Christiaan De Villiers, J., Terblanche-Smit, M., & Schmidt, H. J. (2020). Servbrand Framework: A Business-To-Business Services Brand Equity Framework. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1713560
Świtała, M., Gamrot, W., Reformat, B., & Bilińska-Reformat, K. (2018). The influence of brand awareness and brand image on brand equity – an empirical study of logistic service providers. Journal of Economics and Management, 33(3), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2018.33.06
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
Wise, R., & Zednickova, J. (2009). The rise and rise of the B2B brand. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660910926911
Zablah, A. R., Brown, B. P., & Donthu, N. (2010). The relative importance of brands in modified rebuy purchase situations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.005
57
Appendix
Appendix 1: Further Branding Models
1.1. Service Branding Model
1.2. Aaker’s Brand Equity Model
Company’s Presented Brand
External Brand Communications
s
Customer Experience with Company
Brand Awareness
Brand Meaning
Brand Equity
BRAND EQUITY
Name
Symbol
Brand Loyalty
Name Awareness
Perceived Quality Brand
Associations
Other proprietary Brand Assets
Provides Value to Customer by Enhancing Customer’s:
• Interpretation/ Processing of Information
• Confidence in the Purchase Decision
• Use Satisfaction
Provides Value to Firm by Enhancing:
• Efficiency and Effectiveness of Marketing Programs
• Brand Loyalty
• Price/Margins
• Brand Extensions
• Trade Leverage
• Competitive Adventage
Service Branding Model (Berry, 2000, p. 130)
Aaker's Brand Equity Model (Aaker, 1991, p. 16)
58
Appendix 2: Interview Guide (adapted within the author’s knowledge) (Steenkamp, 2016, p. 266-278)
➔ To be completed by the interviewer.
➔ (*) INDICATE MULTIPLE ANSWERS
Dilara Fulya Egesoy & Oguzhan Bilgili – Master in Marketing – Karlstad University Name of the Interviewer:
SECTION A: Qualifying questions
Good day/morning/evening. My name is ……………………………… We are conducting a survey as part of our master thesis at Karlstad University.
➔ Locate unit of analysis/person in the automotive supplier, responsible for purchasing,
renewing, or amending logistics services – buyer, general manager, finance, operation,
manager, MD, CEO, and so on.
QQ.A Who is responsible for purchasing, renewing, or amending logistics services for your company? (To be filled out before the interview – for controlling purposes only)
Name: Surname:
Position of the participant in the automotive supplier:
Name of the automotive supplier:
The physical address of the automotive supplier:
Telephone numbers of participant
Office: Cell:
➔ Ask to speak to the person identified above and once located, continue with the
interview.
***The interview starts here*** Good day/ morning/ evening. My name is...........................
We are conducting a survey as part of a Master's study, at the Karlstad University, on business-to-business brand building and would like to ask you
a few questions. The interview will last approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
QQ.B Which logistics service provider does your company work
with? (*) → IF MORE THAN ONE LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER, CIRCLE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.
59
________________________
If ‘Do not know’; the correct unit of analysis has not been identified. Locate an appropriate
person in the automotive supplier or REPLACE with the next automotive supplier. QQ.C To what extent can you influence the decision as to which
the logistics service provider your company use or reuse with?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If the participant cannot influence the purchase or renewal process at all (if in an administrative capacity only/ only handles claims), then locate a person in the automotive supplier that can influence the purchase process to some extent. If not possible REPLACE with the next automotive supplier.
QQ.D How would you classify your position in your company?
Owner/partner/shareholder QQD-1
SECTION B: Classification questions
B.1. Is your company operated as a:
Partnership
B1-1 Private company
B1-2
Public Company
B1-3 Do not know
B1-4
B.2. What is the market position of your company?
…………………………………………………………………………
B.3. How many full-time employees does your company have?
…………………………………………………………………………
B.4. How many years has your company been in operation?
…………………………………………………………………………...
SECTION C: Applicability of the Servbrand model’s sub-dimensions
➔ Circle responses to QQ.B, Q.1, Q.2 and Q.3, and record answers to Q.4 in the table below.
➔ Q.1a to Q.1f is unaided and relates to logistics service provider brands only, with Q.1a (1st mention) to Q.1e (5th mention) and then Q.1f all
Do not know QQB-2
Employee QQD-2
60
other mentioned brands (if more than 5 mentioned). Hence, Q.1f could have multiple answers.
➔ If brands are mentioned that are not part of the list, then add it to the bottom of the list, next to other, in the table.
➔ Q.2 is aided. Interviewer to call out options. If participant is unaware of brand, leave blank/ uncircled.
Q.1a to Q.1f When you think of logistics service providers, which
brands can you recall/ are you aware of? Any other?
Q.1a
Q.1b
Q.1c
Q.1d
Q.1e
Q.1f
TRANSFER ANSWERS TO SUMMATIVE TABLE BELOW
Q.2 Which of the following OTHER logistics service providers do you recognize/are you aware of? (*) Participant to confirm options (Listed in the table below).
Q.3 Which logistics service providers do your competitors work with?(*)
…………………………………………………………………………....
Q.4a-Q4e What associations come to mind when you hear
……………. [brands mentioned in QQ.B, Q.1a, Q.1b, Q.1c, Q.1d, Q.1e]
→ DO NOT THINK OR SCREEN YOUR ANSWER, SIMPLY MENTION THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT COME TO MIND. [Prompt for further responses – any other associations?]
Q.1 to Q4 and QQ.B LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER BRANDS Q
.1a:
1st m
en
tio
n
Q.1
b:
2n
d m
en
tio
n
Q.1
c:
3rd
men
tio
n
Q.1
d:
4th
men
tio
n
Q.1
e:
5th
men
tio
n
Q.1
f: A
ll o
ther
men
tio
ns
(*)
Q.2
: R
eco
gn
itio
n (
aid
ed
)
.B:
Lo
gis
tics
sup
pli
ed
fro
m
Q.3
: C
om
peti
tors
‘lo
gis
tics
serv
ice p
rovi
ders
Q.4a – Q.4e Words association (only for the logistics service providers mentioned in QQ.B and Q.1a to Q.1e – 1st five brands mentioned (max) or less
1. DHL
2. Kuehne +Nagel
61
3. DB Schenker Logistics
4. XPO - Menlo Logistics
5. DSV - Panalpina Logistics
6. CEVA Logistics
7. Geodis
8. UPS
9. Dachser
10. Expeditors
11. Bolloré Logistics
12. Gefco Logistics
13. Agility Logistics
14. Hitachi Transport
15. Nippon Express
16. Maersk
17. KWE (Kintetsu World Express)
18. Kerry Logistics
19. Rhenus Logistics
20. Neovia Logistics
21. Toll Group
22. C.H. Robinson
23. Ryder
24. Hellmann
25. APL Logistics
26. FIEGE Logistics
27. Pantos Logistics
28. Yusen Logistics
Other: 29.
62
Other: 30.
Uncertain / Cannot tell
Q.5a and Q5.5b What is the slogan of ……… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B)? What does the slogan mean to you? IF PARTICIPANT DOES NOT KNOW OR IS UNSURE, THEN LEAVE BLANK
Q.5a SLOGAN Q.5b MEANING OF THE SLOGAN
Q.6 Could you please tell us about your experiences with your
logistics services purchasing process: Did you deal? (*) call out the options
Directly with the logistics service provider
Through a mediator Name of the mediator:
Through a center
Telephonically
Via website
Q.7 Who was involved from your company when you purchased,
renewed or amended your logistics services?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………..........................................
Q.8 How did you experience the logistics service purchase,
renewal or amendment process; any other details that you would like to mention regarding your experience?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.9a How much influence does your mediator have over which
logistics service provider brand you use and how much influence do you have?
Q.9b Did your mediator suggest a logistics service provider or a selection of them for you to choose from?
63
Q.9a………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.9b………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.10 How would you describe …………’s (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) brand
personality? If ……….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) were to come alive as a person, what would the person’s personality be like?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.11 To what extent do you feel you have grown together with
………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) What is your opinion regarding the history, heritage and
(years of) experience of ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.12 How satisfied are you with the service that you receive(d)
from …………(→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)? Please explain.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.13 How efficient is ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) in terms of speed, responsiveness, and so forth? Please explain.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.14 How trusting and caring is ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)? Do they focus on you individually as a client? Please explain.
64
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.15 What rewards/ incentives (if any) did, do or will you get for
using ..…………’s (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) logistics services? Please explain.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
No rewards/ incentives
Q.16 Do you think that price is important when deciding which
brand of logistics service provider to purchase from? Why? Why not?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.17 What is your overall opinion of ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) and its quality?
(If ‘no opinion’, probe. Why?)
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.18 What are your feelings towards ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.19 To what extent would you be willing to invest time, energy,
money or other resources to get to know ………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER PER QQ.B) better? For example, by investing time to learn more about the brand, visiting their web site and talking to others about them.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
65
Q.20 To what extent is ……………. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) part of you and who you are (as a company)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.21 How would you describe your relationship with other
businesses that also use logistics services from ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.22 How would you describe your relationship with …………’s
(→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) mediator or representatives?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.23 What is most favorable about/ the best aspects of
…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Uncertain / cannot tell
Q.24 What is least favorable about/ the worst aspects
of…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Uncertain / cannot tell
Q.25 What is unique about …………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?
66
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Uncertain / cannot tell
Q.26 How likely are you to recommend…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) to another business?
→ Call out the options:
Most definitely ➔ Go to Q.28
Definitely ➔ Go to Q.28
Maybe ➔ Go to Q.28
Definitely not
Most definitely not
Uncertain / cannot tell ➔ Go to Q.28
Q.27 If participant answered ‘definitely not’ or ‘most definitely not’
in Q.26, then ask: why not?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.28 Which aspects of your relationship with mediators/ sales
people or other of the logistics service provider’s representatives are important? Why are they important?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
SECTION D:
Q.29 How did you experience this interview? Would you recommend any changes? Please explain.
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
Q.30 Are there any other comments that you would like to make as
we conclude?
67
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
➔ “This concludes the survey. Thank you for your participation and
contribution.
If we have any further questions, or require further advice, can we contact you again in the future?
Yes No
68
Appendix 3: Interview Questions Linked to Servbrand Framework
Client-Brand Relationships
(Q23, Q24, Q25) - Interpersonal
(Q22, Q28) - Partnerships
(Q11, Q20)
Service Brand Personification (Q22, Q28)
- Attitude and Demeanour
- Personality and Values (Q10)
- Personableness - Product
Knowledge - Client
Knowledge
Client-Brand Opinions (Q23, Q24, Q25)
- Service Quality (Q17) - Credibility and Trust (Q14) - Satisfaction (Q12)
Further links to Keller’s Resonance Pyramid (2013, p. 108): Feelings Block (Q18) Imagery Block - User profiles (Q3) - History, heritage &
experiences (Q11)
Resonance Block: - Attachment (Q20) - Loyalty (Q26, Q27) - Community (Q21) - Engagement (Q19)
Salience (QQB, Q2, Q4, Q5)
- Category Identification (Q1) - Needs Satisfied
Service Brand Performance
(Q23, Q24, Q25)
- Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features
- Service Reliability - Service Effectiveness
(Q12), Efficiency (Q13), and Empathy (Q14)
- Processes - Price (Q15, Q16) - Distribution (Q6,
Q7, Q8) and Servicescape
Further question to see the relevance of the mediators: (Q9) Servbrand Framework
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)
69
Appendix 4: Brand Considerations
4.1. Logistics Service Providers Portfolio
Logistics Service Providers Participants
Agility P3; P16
CS Cargo P7
Dachser P4; P5; P9; P16
DB Schenker P4; P5; P6; P7; P12; P15; P16 DHL P2; P3; P4; P5; P9; P11; P13; P15
DSV/Panalpina P3; P4; P5; P7; P9; P13; P15; P16
FedEx P5; P13; P15
Gefco P2; P4; P7
Geodis P7 Hartmann P13 Hartrodt P5; P9
Hellmann P5; P9 Honold P6 Kuehne+Nagel P2; P3; P4; P5; P15; P16
KWE P15
Logwin P6; P12
Maersk P4
MSC P4
Nippon Express P7; P15
One P4
TNT P13
UPS P13
XPO P7
Yousen P7
Local/regional companies P2; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P15; P16
70
4.2. Unaided Brand Recall of Participants
Brand 1st brand recall
2nd brand recall
3rd brand recall
4th brand recall
5th brand recall
Other brand recalls
Total recall
DHL P1; P2; P3; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12
P4; P5; P15
P13 P6 14
DB Schenker P6; P13; P14; P15
P8 P5; P10; P12
P4 P16 10
Kuehne+Nagel P4; P16
P1; P14
P8; P15
P2; P3; P10
P7 10
Dachser P6; P16
P4 P2; P3; P8
6
DSV P5 P3 P11 P9; P13
P4 6
FedEx P2 P1 P15 P5; P9; P13
6
Hellmann P9 P14; P16
P11 4
UPS P10; P13
P2 P4 4
Panalpina P8; P14
P1 3
Honold P6 P8 2
Expeditors P3 P1 2
Geodis P7 P8 2
TNT P12 1
Logwin P6 1
BLG Logistics P7 1
XPO P7 1
Nippon Express P15 1
Agility P16 1
Hartrodt P9 1
Duvenbeck P10 1
GLS P11 1
DPD P11 1
Andreas Schmid P8 1
Daher P8 1
HG Logistics P12 1
Ekol P12 1
Grupo Logico P14 1
71
4.3. Aided Brand Recognition of Participants
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P9
P10
P11
P12
P13
P14
P15
P16
Tota
l
DHL X X 2
Kuehne +Nagel
X X X X 4
DB Schenker Logistics
X X X X 4
XPO - Menlo Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X 11
DSV - Panalpina Logistics
X X X X X X X X 8
CEVA Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14
Geodis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14
UPS X X X X X X X X X X X X 10
Dachser X X X X X X X 7
Expeditors
X X X X X X X X X X X 11
Bolloré Logistics
X X X X X X X X X 9
Gefco Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
Agility Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X 11
Hitachi Transport
X X X X X X X X 8
Nippon Express
X X X X X X X X X X X 11
Maersk X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16
KWE (Kintetsu World Express)
X X X X X X 6
Kerry Logistics
X X X X X X X X 8
Rhenus Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14
Neovia Logistics
X X X X 4
Toll Group
X X X X X X X X 8
C.H. Robinson
X X X X X X X X X X 10
Ryder X X X X X X X X X 9
Hellmann X X X X X X X X X X X X 12
APL Logistics
X X X X X X X 7
FIEGE Logistics
X X X X X X X X X X X 11
Pantos Logistics
X X X 3
Yusen Logistics
X X X X X X X 7
72
4.4. Associations Towards the Brands
Brand Associations Themes Subdimensions of the Servbrand Framework (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)
DHL P1: Market leadership, big size, innovation… owned by the Deutsche Post….a private business... initially a government organization… own fleet…airplanes…
P2: Global company, distributing all kinds of goods… everything
P3: Innovation and price…digitalization
P4: Big… global presence. Not so much customer-oriented… Very fragmented…
P5: Yellow brand… global logistics provider covers everything…, post mail office or large company
P6: Express service… very global, present on many many markets… very strong network…
P8: Deutsche post, the guy who is ringing me out of my Home Office to bring me my parcel… yellow, and track and trace
P9: About brand equity, I would say that probably DHL is the more best in practice… digital, flexible… intermodal
P10: Parcel service… Deutsche Post… They have a lot of stuff running…
P11: Global player… international
➢ Standards/principles
− innovation/creativity
− flexibility
− vision
➢ Superiority-market leadership
➢ Profile
− size of company
− ownership & entity
− asset ownership
− global/international
− business setup/culture
− strength/solidity
➢ Price
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Capability
− digitalization
− network
− technology/automation
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ Visibility/design
➢ Service effectiveness/delivery
➢ Service quality
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Brand equity
➢ Awareness-marketing
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Service effectiveness, efficiency, and empathy
− Price
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
− Credibility
73
transport… container ship transport…
P12: Work with them on the customer side… the big customers they work with DHL. … you see always the DHL trucks in your warehouses...
P13: Very good quality, nice presentations, nice service level but very expensive…
P15: One of the best marketing companies…. Technology development… future… a consulting company… and on operational side they are very strong… stronger… in regards to 4PL… global development, probably one of the strongest
Kuehne+ Nagel
P1: Market leader… sea freight… big… no assets
P2: Big freight forwarder with a lot of boats, global company, containers
P3: Solid company… lot of good stuff… very good in container transport… good capabilities
P4: global presence, very very very big. Traditional business setup… usually reliable… very customer-oriented
P5: global leading brand, blue, anchor.. interesting in terms of marketing… single men around the world, there was Kuehne+Nagel strong financial promoter… more present in the market
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Superiority-market leadership
➢ Profile
− asset ownership
− size of company
− strength/solidity
− global/international
− business setup/culture
− origin
➢ Consideration
− location
➢ Price
➢ Reliability
➢ Capability
− network
− technology/automation
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ Awareness-marketing
➢ Visibility/design
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Promotion
− sponsorship
➢ Attitude
− bargaining power
➢ Demeanor
− rigidness
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Reliability
− Service empathy
− Price
➢ Personification
− Attitude and Demeanor
− Personality & values
74
P7: very competitive in regards to sea freight
P8: Very Hanseatic, focus on sea freight, used to have their own airplanes
P9: Big one we have
P10: They do all the same… airfreight… that's the business is similar for all the big ones
P14: good overseas suppliers… become more interesting… changes in their organization and a setup… became more reactive… large organization… always try to find a good leverage to be interesting… have the right attitude… attitude change
P15: Extremely strong… they are number 3... ocean freight... very very good business in regards to logistics operations… very good technology competency… On the airfreight they're catching up… extend … in Asia
P16: big player, global. A lot of different branches or special fields… good in LTL business in Europe
DB Schenker P4: very big… very fragmented… a full-service provider… very big product or service portfolio
P5: Rail business… strong over land, complete capacity… global brand
P6: Professionals… know-how… global
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Consideration
− location
➢ Profile
− business setup/culture
− size of company
− global/international
− origin
− ownership & entity
➢ Capability
− goodwill/know-how
− good employer
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Price
➢ Personification
− Attitude
− Personality & values
75
P7: Best groupage network in Europe…A competitive supplier for contract logistics, airfreight, and sea freight. Good employer. Global coverage
P8: German Rail. Traditional. Big in air freight
P10: An overland service provider
P13: Extended network… railroad… all spectrum of logistics, but they come from railroad and there is still this pride in operating railroad
P14: Good network in Europe. Not fully international. A visible brand
P15: Deutsche Bahn… very active currently in the green area… sustainability
P16: All fields of logistics like ocean, air and but also road freight and train… a lot of warehouses… Deutsche Bahn
− network
➢ Attitude
− professionalism
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Visibility/design
➢ Price
FedEx P1: An American company. Privately owned… growing…
P2: Express shipments… big
P5: With TNT now a bit stronger… TNT is also not so easy to digest
P9: Parcel delivery… small quantities, ad-hoc deliveries
P13: Movie with Tom Hanks… envelopes and packages… efficient
P15: Big major cap companies… express business… global basis… very fast with a
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Superiority-market leadership
➢ Profile
− ownership & entity
− origin
− size of company
− mergers & acquisitions
− global/international
− strength/solidity
➢ Service efficiency
➢ Consideration
− issues/crises
➢ Capability
− network
➢ Awareness/market awareness
➢ Attitude
− customer categorization
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Service efficiency and empathy
− Processes
− Price
➢ Personification
− Attitude & Demeanor
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
− Credibility
76
very structured and secure approach… different picture with TNT and FedEx… different approach towards customers… stronger company… You're not into the legal guys, you're not talking to the operational guys… talking about the legal and finance guys
➢ Demeanor
− rigidness
➢ People
− finance/legal
➢ Promotion
− product replacement
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ Processes
− people
➢ Client-Brand Relationships
− Interpersonal
TNT P12: Airfreights… premium freights… this was the previous company that named as CEVA that TNT converted
P13: Good quality
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Consideration
− complexity
➢ Profile
− mergers & acquisitions
➢ Service quality
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Distribution
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
Expeditors P1: U.S. company… growing
P3: Very good IT infrastructure… don’t manage assets… they only manage their network … good service, but the price is not maybe the very best
➢ Profile
− Origin
− size of company
− asset ownership
➢ Capability
− IT infrastructure
− network
➢ Service quality
➢ Price
➢ Salience
− Category identification
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Price
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
DSV P3: Try to catch up… not good… lack of reliability
P4: Very big… global… everything everywhere… fragmented… very aggressive… service level or the reliability is not as good as always expected
P5: Global… Danish… bought Panalpina
P9: Backup provider…airfreight… reliable… no frills
P11: Landline freight
P13: Efficient… not organized around one let's say center… very
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Service quality
➢ Reliability
➢ Profile
− global/international
− size of company
− business setup/culture
− origin
− mergers & acquisitions
➢ Purchase situations
− issues/crises
➢ Price
➢ Service effectiveness/delivery
➢ Service efficiency
➢ Capability
− network
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Service reliability
− Service effectiveness and efficiency
− Price
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
77
aggressive… profit oriented
Panalpina P1: Acquired by DSV…Swiss… known in the market
P8: Traditional… big
P11: Air freight and intercontinental freight
P14: Big…strong in Europe. Overseas business
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Profile
− ownership & entity
− origin
− size of company
− mergers & acquisitions
− business setup/culture
− strength/solidity
➢ Awareness/market awareness
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
UPS P2: Big... focus on express
P4: Leading integrators, U.S. business, huge, strong... integrator network. Network driven
P10: Parcel service... North America
P13: Worldwide... very expensive
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Superiority-market leadership
➢ Profile
− size of company
− origin
− global/international
➢ Capability
− network
➢ Price
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Price
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Credibility
Dachser P3: Midsize company, family owned… innovation… strong in the truck… good logistics
P4: Small business… traditional very old company… trucking in Europe… very reliable and customer oriented… growing very fast… not having the same global presence
P5: European…global reach… stronger outbound… overland… work with them… blue-yellow
P8: Regional midsize company… very good in airfreight
P16: Best… in LTL… in Germany… in European market. High
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Profile
− ownership & entity
− size of company
− strength/solidity
− business setup/culture
− origin
− global/international
➢ Service quality
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Reliability
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ Visibility/design
➢ Consideration
− location
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Service reliability
− Service empathy
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
78
prices… good for ocean and airfreight
Hellmann P9: Container ships… conservative, large bulk… need of having good booking data… they're quite slow… not so customer-centric
P11: Global container shipping. But also warehousing
P14: International… good oversea partner. Smaller size… for company like us more leverage
P16: Ocean and airfreight… North Germany… had some some colleagues… from Hellman
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Profile
− business setup/culture
− size of company
− global/international
− origin
➢ Service efficiency
➢ Standards/principles
− flexibility
➢ Attitude
− bargaining power
➢ Demeanor
− rigidness
➢ Capability
− data interchange/EDI
− network
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Collaboration/partnership
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
− Service efficiency and empathy
− Distribution
➢ Personification
− Attitude & demeanor
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Relationships
− Partnerships
Hartrodt P9: Traditional… prestigious… big supplier… they make it happen
➢ Profile
− size of company
− business setup/culture
➢ Reputation
➢ Service quality
➢ Salience
− Category identification
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Credibility
− Service quality
Geodis P7: Some… bad experiences in their service quality… nothing specific
P10: Service provider you can have here
➢ History, heritage & experiences
➢ Service quality
➢ Awareness/market awareness
➢ Consideration
− location
➢ Salience
− Category identification
➢ Performance
− Distribution
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
Nippon Express
P15: Network in Asia… very strong in that, also in the transpacific area on the freight area… very good capability in technology… automation… automated warehouses… good competency
➢ Profile
− Strength/solidity
➢ Capability
− Network
− Technology/automation
➢ Service quality
➢ Consideration
− location
➢ Salience
− Category identification
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
79
Agility P16: Good… air and ocean freights… Arabian owned
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Profile
− origin
➢ Service quality
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
BLG P7: Very competitive in contract logistics. Customized approach… customer-oriented
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Price
➢ Caring & understanding
➢ Salience
− Category identification
➢ Performance
− Price
− Service empathy
XPO P7: Nothing specific ➢ Service quality ➢ Client-Brand Opinions
− Service quality
Duvenbeck P10: Overland service provider
➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience
− Category identification
GLS P11: Small boxes… packages
➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience
− Category identification
DPD P11: Packaging or small ➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience
− Category identification
HG Logistics P12: Milkrun or the pickups from the suppliers
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Consideration
− complexity
− location
➢ Salience
− Category identification
Grupo Logico P14: Truck business, America’s 4PL… interesting network… they have a good fit with us
➢ Expertise/coverage
➢ Profile
− origin
− business setup/culture
➢ Capability
− network
➢ Salience
− Category identification
− Needs satisfied
➢ Performance
− Primary characteristics and secondary features
➢ Personification
− Personality & values
80
4.5. Performance Criteria in Purchasing Process
Criteria Subdimensions of the
Servbrand Framework
(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)
Expertise/coverage (P2; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12; P13;
P14; P15; P16)
Wide network and presence (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7;
P8; P12; P13; P14; P15)
Operational infrastructure (P5; P8; P15)
Capacity (P5; P8; P9; P15)
Technology (P3; P5; P6; P9; P12; P15)
• IT infrastructure (P3; P5; P9; P12; P14)
• Data interchange (P5; P7; P9; P12; P13; P15)
Digitalization (P3; P5; P9; P15)
Goodwill/knowhow (P6; P9; P12)
• Custom knowledge (P12; P13)
Good employer (P7; P14)
Sustainability (P5; P7; P12; P14; P15)
Primary characteristics and
secondary features
Effective delivery and good quality (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5;
P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P15)
Service effectiveness
Efficiency (P1; P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P12; P13;
P14; P15; P16)
Service efficiency
Customer-centric, caring (P1; P3; P4; P7; P8; P9; P12;
P13; P14; P15)
Service empathy
Reliability (P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P11; P13; P14; P15)
• Data quality (P5; P6; P7; P9; P10; P11; P13; P15)
• Transparency (P1; P3; P8)
Service reliability
Price (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12;
P13; P14; P15; P16)
Costs (P1; P3; P4; P7; P8; P9; P15)
Price
Processes (P3; P15)
• People (P3; P4; P8; P11; P13; P15; P16)
• Fit payment terms (P13; P16)
• ISO Certification (P5; P16)
• Frame contracts (P3)
• Electronic data interchange (EDI) (P5; P12; P15)
Processes
RFQ Process (P1; P4; P5; P10; P14)
• e-tender platform (P4; P13; P16)
• Supplier database (P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P11; P13;
P14)
Distribution
81
Appendix 5: Consent Form
Consent to participate in the study:
Master Thesis: [Building Brand Equity in B2B Service Industry:
Examination of Logistics Service Providers]
I have been informed in written form about the study and agree to participate.
I am aware that my participation is completely voluntary and that I can cancel
my participation in the study without giving any reason.
I am aware that the interview will be manually recorded, and a digital record of
the interview will take place only after my consent is given at the beginning of
the interview.
My signature below means that I choose to participate in the study and agree
that Karlstad University processes my personal data following current data
protection legislation and information provided.
……………………………
Signature
…………………………… ………………………………………
Name Place and Date
Contact information:
Researchers:
Dilara Fulya Egesoy, [email protected]
Oğuzhan Bilgili, [email protected]
Supervisor:
Prof. Bo Rundh, [email protected]
82
Appendix 6: Information Letter
Master Thesis: [Building Brand Equity in B2B Service Industry:
Examination of Logistics Service Providers]
Introduction:
We (Dilara Egesoy & Oğuzhan Bilgili) invite you to participate in our Master
thesis research for Karlstad University, Sweden. You were contacted because
you are a decision-maker in purchasing logistics services, and can provide
insights regarding logistics industrial branding. Participation in the study
consists of no risks or issues in terms of confidentiality of processing the
personal data. The personal data is processed according to your informed
consent. Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You can revoke your
consent at any time without giving a reason, which, however, does not affect
the treatment that took place before the revocation. All information that comes
to us is processed in such a way that no unauthorized persons can access it.
Purpose of the Study:
To develop a brand equity framework that guides logistics service providers to
manage their branding activities.
Research Method and Purpose of the Processing Personal Data:
An in-depth interview is to be conducted as the data collection method of the
study. The interview will be manually recorded and the consent for the digital
recording will be asked at the beginning of the interview. Only after the given
consent, the interview will also be digitally recorded, to check the accuracy of
the obtained data. The data will be retained until the thesis has been approved
and the grade has been registered in Karlstad University's study register and then
destroyed.
The interview will be conducted with MS Teams or Zoom as audio and video-
coference tools, and processed through Atlas.ti9 as a qualitative data analysis
and research software, which are web-based tools provided outside of Karlstad
University.
Karlstad University is responsible for personal data. According to the Personal
Data Act (the Data Protection Ordinance from 25 May 2018), you have the right
to access all information about yourself that is handled free of charge and, if
necessary, have any errors corrected. You also have the right to request deletion,
83
restriction, or to object to the processing of personal data, and it is possible to
submit a complaint to the Data Inspectorate.
Contact information for the data protection officer at Karlstad University is
Contact information:
Researchers:
Dilara Fulya Egesoy, [email protected]
Oğuzhan Bilgili, [email protected]
Supervisor:
Prof. Bo Rundh, [email protected]