Product attributes for business markets: Implications for selling and sales management

Product Attributes forBusiness Markets:Implications for Selling and Sales ManagementJ. David LichtenthalCity University of New York – Baruch College

Stephen A. GoodwinIllinois State University

ABSTRACT

This article offers a conceptual framework for classifying attributes ofofferings in a business-marketing context. Typologies on the nature ofproduct-related attributes and classification of industrial products aresynthesized for viewing levels of product meaning. Repertory grid pro-cedures first developed in clinical psychology and recently adapted foruse in business settings are presented as an approach for elicitingsalient/determinant attributes. Enhanced effectiveness of the classicindustrial selling process is demonstrated along with implications formanaging the sales force. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In a summary of the “Trends 2005” survey of business marketing expertscompleted by the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) atPennsylvania State University’s Smeal College of Business, top businessmarketing challenges for 2004–2005 were identified. They included “Getthe marketing basics right: Segmentation, targeting and positioning,”and “Build markets through higher buyer-value solutions.” Another aspectof the “Trends 2005” survey summarized the most frequently mentionedanswers to the question, “What are the critical capabilities business mar-

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23(3): 225–251 (March 2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20097

225

keters must build over the next two to three years?” Answers included“Develop a buyer focus” and “Understand what the buyer values” (Donath,2004, pp. 1–2).

Savvy marketers have found ways to meet such challenges and tobuild such critical capabilities as those articulated above by opera-tionalizing one or more of the various multiattribute attitude models(MAAMs) developed by such scholars as Rosenberg (1956), Fishbein(1967), Ajzen and Fishbein (1980), Shimp (1981), N. H. Anderson (1982),and Fazio (1990). Although each of these models (e.g., theory of rea-soned action; the theory of planned behavior; theory of trying; the orig-inal Fishbein attitude measurement model) differ in one way or another(each modeler specifies at least a slightly different manner in whichbuyers are thought to evaluate each salient attributes/consequences),all are similar in that they assume a goal-directed, motivated buyer.Each model also specifies the attitude object as a bundle of salientattributes/characteristics or a bundle of salient consequences/benefitoutcomes, or both (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The terms used might dif-fer, and the exact definition of each term in the formulation varies,but all MAAMs are essentially two-factor models (some containingtwo or more two-factor component parts, such as theory of plannedbehavior) that take on the following functional form:

A � �i

(B i) * (I i)

where A � overall attitude, B � belief assessment, I � importance judg-ment, and i � the salient/determinant attributes or benefit outcomes.Of utmost concern is that in all MAAM formulations, the lower-case iincludes salient/determinant attributes (Alpert, 1971) or the related bun-dle of salient/determinant consequences or benefit outcomes.

Studies in diverse contexts (Ajzen, 1991; Ahtola, 1975; Anderson &Edwards, 1998; Cohen, Fishbein, & Ahtola, 1972) have examined withvarying results the efficacy of these multiattribute attitude models infurthering what the marketer understands of the buyer’sneeds/wants/desires (Howard, 1977; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Mazis,Ahtola, & Klippel, 1975). These empirical efforts also help the marketerto predict the buyer’s behavior more accurately (Mahajan, Jain,Thangarajj, & Goodwin, 1979).

Not surprisingly, most of the published research has been in the con-sumer-goods realm, but there is evidence that business marketers havedirectly or indirectly used a MAAM to their advantage. Examples ofimportant contexts where we believe business marketers have used mul-tiattribute attitude models include the following:

• Sales training—ascertaining what key field sales personnel thinkare salient/determinant criteria to each member of a buying centeras he/she endeavors to evaluate prospective suppliers (Choffray &

LICHTENTHAL AND GOODWINPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

226

Lilien, 1978; W. J. Johnston & Lewin, 1996; Sheth, 1996; Wilson &Lichtenthal, 1985).

• Positioning research (Marshall & Wood, 1975; Ries & Trout, 1982;Sims, 1979)—the firm’s position is found by measuring organiza-tional buyers’ perceptions/preferences for a product/service/com-pany in relation to its major competitors. Also referred to as imageresearch, attitude research, and, more recently, customer valueassessment (D. C. Anderson, Jain, & Chintagunta, 1993).

• Segmentation research (Haley, 1968, 1971; Moriarty & Reibstein,1986; Sudharshan & Winter, 1998; Webster, 1991). Segmentation onthe basis of desired benefits is recommended whenever feasible.

• New product development research: ratings of specific new productideas (Di Benedetto & Crawford, 2004; Urban & Hauser, 1993); con-cept tests (e.g., risk perception studies: Conchar, Zinkahn, Peters,& Olavarrieta, 2004); prototype evaluation (Di Benedetto & Craw-ford, 2004; Urban & Hauser, 1993).

• Trade show evaluation and performance (Gopalakrishna & Lilien,1995).

• Buyer feedback on the perceived performance of the business mar-keter’s professional sales force and those of the major competition(Cannon & Perreault, 1999; Guinipero & Brewer, 1993; Stafford &Stafford, 2003).

The focus of this article is on a step that is important to successful imple-mentation of any MAAM, that being the prior step of establishing thesalient/determinant attribute descriptors, with specific implications for sell-ing in business markets. Understanding and deriving the most appropriatephraseology—a precise definition of the attributes in buyers’ own words—could be as important as knowing their saliency or the evaluation proce-dures buyers implicitly use. Also, it is important to distinguish among thevarious types of business offerings in terms of their inherent nature andconsider the implications for selecting appropriate attributes once elicited.

Businesses who subscribe to the philosophies of the marketing con-cept and relationship marketing (or their hybrids) realize it is importantto understand how buyers make choices sets. Buyers are viewed as see-ing a market offering as a bundle of tangible and intangible benefitsconsisting of perceived product or service attributes, imagery, and thetransactional environment (R. E. Anderson & Dubinsky, 2004; Czinkotaet al., 2004). The importance of meaningfully conveying product/serviceattributes and benefits in influencing the perceptions of prospects andbuyers has also long been recognized. For example, Abruzzini (1967)found that the more closely the wording used in advertisements matchesthe language of target customers, the higher the comprehension andinterest in the product or service offered. R. P. Anderson and Jolson(1980) ascertained that more technical descriptions in promotions could

PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES FOR BUSINESS MARKETSPsychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

227

enhance product perceptions and purchase intentions of customers,depending on their educational levels and product experience.

In both theoretical and applied studies (Marshall & Wood, 1975; Sims,1979; Spector, 1961; Stiff & Khera, 1977), business marketers haveemployed a wide assortment of attribute descriptors to obtain measuresof perceptions about and preferences for competing offerings. Unlessproper phraseology is developed and consistently used for deriving dis-tinct types of attributes, such findings and their interpretation may beconfounded and of limited value to practitioners and scholars (Myers &Shocker, 1981). Therefore, the quality and practical application for per-sonal selling, when it involves communicating the benefit bundle, couldbe substantially improved by the development and use of more appro-priate product/service attributes. Work to date has focused on evaluat-ing brand-positioning models (Gwin & Gwin, 2003), evaluating new prod-uct evaluation models (Ozer, 1999), translating buyer/designer wantsinto product attributes (Durgee, O’Connor, & Veryzer, 1996; Shaw, Giglier-ano, & Kallis, 1989; Wolter, Bacon, Duhan, & Wilson, 1989), and com-paring decompositional models (Jain, Acito, Malhotra, & Mahajan, 1979;Mahajan, Jain, Thangarajj, & Goodwin, 1979; Mazis et al., 1975).

Without setting up a guiding theoretical framework for eliciting/clas-sifying different kinds of attributes pertinent to offerings in businessmarkets, there may be a tendency to continue emphasizing attributephraseology that inadvertently leads to underspecified descriptors. Theresult is to inhibit personal selling effectiveness in the businessbuyer/seller dyad. It is important to make a meaningful choice of attrib-utes in a manner that links derivation and selection of the attributes tospecific types of business offerings.

In this article, a product typology based on the ideas of Myers andShocker (1981) is cross-referenced with a common approach to classify-ing business goods/offerings. Subsequently, the Kelly repertory grid (Kelly,1955, 1969; Slater, 1976) is discussed as an approach well suited to deriv-ing the attribute descriptors that the business marketer (Brint.com,2004; Stewart, 1997) can trust as being a salient/determinant attributein the minds of targeted buyers. Implications for the use of these attrib-ute descriptors in the industrial selling process (step-by-step) and forindustrial sales force management are presented as well.

TYPES OF PRODUCT-RELATED ATTRIBUTES

The classification schema, as proposed by Myers and Shocker (1981) fordescribing products, services, and brands, includes three major categories:(a) product referent, (b) task or outcome referent, and (c) user referent.

Product Referent. Physical characteristics or product referent charac-teristics (CHAR) are in the cognitive realm used by potential users/eval-


228

uators to describe a product/service in two subcategories. Physical char-acteristics (PCs) are the most objective types of product descriptors in thesense that they are measurable on some sort of physical scale, for exam-ple, temperature, color intensity, hue, hardness, thickness, degree of acid-ity, or chemical content. Pseudophysical characteristics (PPCs) are objec-tive in nature but not quite as measurable as PCs on a physical scale.Nevertheless, they reflect physical properties that are generally per-ceived and understood as such by both sellers and buyers, for example,strength, shininess, or smoothness.

Task or Outcome Referent. Attribute dimensions that reflect the per-ceived benefits or outcomes from using a product/service are labeled taskor outcome referent. These attributes primarily involve instrumentaltypes of outcomes in the affective realm and entail subjective evalua-tions. In addition, they can include the ambience of surrounding condi-tions while using the product or service. For example, a product or serv-ice can be shown in pleasant surroundings such as beautiful scenery orin the company of friendly people. Benefits (BENs) consist of attributesthat describe specific need-satisfaction outcomes from using a product orservice or buying from a particular supplier. Potential benefits can bedescribed in straightforward ways using such positive terms as “durable,”“convenient,” “compatible,” or “safe.” Conversely, by inserting qualifiers,such as “not” or “in,” normally negative adjectives can be turned into pos-itives. For instance, buyers might describe a product as “not heavy” or as“inexpensive.”

User Referent. Attribute dimensions that reflect what usage of theproduct or service indicates about the user are called user referent.These attributes reveal expressive properties that are also subjectivein nature and referred to as imagery (IM). IM attributes suggest vari-ous types of associations that may be evoked by the product or service.They usually indicate how the product use of the product epitomizes theuser to other people. Phrases such as “the choice of professionals,” “givesa high-tech appearance,” or “selected by only the most demanding pur-chasing agents” are examples of IM attributes. Imagery is not intrin-sic to the product itself, so such attributes need to be conveyed sym-bolically in promotions.

Relative Importance of Categories. As suggested by Myers and Shocker(1981), the relative importance of the foregoing three attribute categoriesvaries by product.Also, any given product or service often may be presentedin more than one attribute class. For an office computer, for example, faststartup is a BEN, whereas 512 mg of RAM is a CHAR (PC and PPC).Thus, the same product concept can be positioned in more than one attrib-ute class, depending on how it is represented. This indicates the impor-tance of modeling when using attributes from a particular classification.


229

Inexpensive, for instance, has the same conceptual meaning for most peo-ple and, ceteris paribus, is intrinsically desirable (hence, BEN), whereasany specific dollar amount may or may not be regarded as inexpensive bydifferent individuals. Having noted the nature of product-related attrib-utes, the next section shows how these levels of product meaning areadaptable to the business-to-business context.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRIAL GOODS

Products sold in industrial markets are often quite different than thosesold in consumer markets, which thus impacts all mix elements, includ-ing selling. As distinct from consumer goods, industrial offerings tend toexhibit some of the following characteristics:

• more unique, complex, and technical in nature

• often purchased on the basis of specifications

• often there is a choice of whether to make (produce themselves) orbuy products

• seldom sold in final markets (e.g., raw materials/componentparts/earth-moving equipment)

• more protective packaging, which is informative and less persua-sive in nature

• emphasis on timely delivery, essential to avoiding production delaysfor buyers

• emphasis on preselling and postsale technical assistance and serv-icing

Underscoring such differences is the classification of industrial goodsscheme, originally proposed in 1980 by Philip Kotler and adapted by Huttand Speh (2004) (see Table 1).1 According to this typology, industrial prod-ucts/services can generally be divided into three broad categories (enter-ing goods, foundation goods, and facilitating goods), and each is subdivided.Table 2 highlights the linkages between the various classifications ofgoods categories and the Myers and Shocker (1981) product-related attrib-ute framework. It portrays, for each type of good, the likelihood that thebuyer would use each product-related attribute category as the primarysource for his/her salient/determinant attributes. For example, the busi-ness buyer of raw materials (an entering good) would typically view suchofferings, because of their basic nature, in terms of CHAR (PC and PPC)with little or no likelihood of categorizing them as BEN, or especially IM.


230

1 Given that textbooks often contain the canonized wisdom of a discipline (Lichtenthal & Beik,1984), it is not surprising that perusal of recent business marketing texts (e.g., Anderson &Narus, 2004; Bingham, Gomes, & Knowles, 2005; Blythe & Zimmerman, 2005; Dwyer & Tanner,2001; Hutt & Speh, 2004) reveals a predominant view for the classification of industrial goods.

In general, entering goods (raw materials, processed materials, compo-nent parts) are purchased and used to build a final product.

As such, these goods have direct impact on quality and performanceattributes. Accordingly, PC and PPC attribute perceptions are of para-mount concern. At the other extreme, the business buyer of consumablesupplies (facilitating goods) would be much more apt to view such offer-ings in terms of the beneficial outcomes (BEN) their use would provide.


231

Table 1. Classification of Industrial Goods.

Foundation goods—Used in the production process; do not become part of the fin-ished product, e.g., installations and equipment.

Installations—Part of the fixed plant. Examples: large machine tools, printingpress, and elevators.

Equipment—Capital investment items not regarded as part of the fixed plant.Examples: motor vehicles, portable tools, computer, and desks.

Entering goods—Components that become part of the finished product, e.g., rawmaterials, semi-manufactured goods, part and manufacturing services.

Raw material—Unprocessed primary materials from agriculture and otherextractive industries. Examples: wheat, livestock, cotton, crude petroleum, iron ore,and lumber.

Semi-manufactured goods—Finished output of one manufacturer or processorthat undergoes additional changes in its form by another. Examples: sheet steel,basic chemicals, cement, textiles sold to garment manufacturers, and flour sold tobakeries.

Parts—Manufactured products that can be installed as a component of largerproducts. Examples: electric motors, automobile batteries (original equipment), andthermostats.

Contract manufacturing services—Part of the manufacturing process con-tracted to an outside organization. Examples: dyeing, casting, cutting, or shapingservices performed by a company on materials supplied by the customer.

Facilitating goods—Consumed in the production process, e.g., maintenance andrepair items, operating supplies and services.

Maintenance and repair items—Quickly consumed and highly expendableitems that ensure the continuing, satisfactory functioning of plant and equipment.Examples: repair parts, lubricants, nails, cleaning materials, and paint.

Operating supplies—Items required for day-to-day operations. Examples: copierpaper, and pencils.

Business services—Services provided by others, often involving the use of sup-plies. Examples: printing services, cleaning services, repair services, advertising, orconsulting services.

Source: Hutt & Speh (2004); Kotler & Keller (2006).

Bingham and Raffield (1990) note that for foundation goods theemphasis is on strong personal selling effort and after-purchase servicesupport, implying buyer focus on BEN. A distinction between majorequipment and accessory equipment is less pronounced, because a pieceof accessory equipment for one company may be major equipment foranother. All entering goods typically become part of the finished prod-uct. Processed and raw materials not only become part of the product,they often cannot be identified in the finished product. Standards aredeveloped for these materials, and they are generally bought per spec-ification developed by the business buyer or according to trade stan-dards, thus suggesting CHAR (PC and PPC) level attributes are of mostconcern with the emphasis on physical characteristics. Similarly, com-ponent parts are selected with buyer-determined or industry-predeter-mined specifications, suggesting attention to PC or PPC level attrib-utes. These items often remain easily identified and distinguishable.PC/PPC attributes are equally important here, but are in addition toBEN/IM, because the components themselves are often a featured partof the finished product and brand name. For example, a lathe might fea-ture a particular brand of electric motor, a computer may do the samefor a brand of processor.

Business buyers in a market-oriented framework must convey to sell-ers the nature of their needs/wants/requirements. In turn, business prod-uct/service suppliers, being able to more accurately elicit the varyinglevels of attribute meaning from a buying-center member, will encouragemore accurate personal selling messages, more effective product devel-opment, and more effective integrated marketing communications. The


232

Table 2: Source of Salient/Determinant Attributes.

Industrial Product Offering by Nature of Product Related Attribute

Type of Attribute → PC PPC BEN IM

Industrial Physical Pseudo-Physical Offering Characteristics Characteristics Benefits Imagery

Raw materials Very High High Medium LowProcessed materials Very High High Medium LowComponent parts Very High High Medium Low or HighLight equipment Medium High Very High MediumHeavy equipment Medium Very High High MediumInstallations Medium High Very High MediumConsumable Supplies Low Medium High MediumServices Low Medium High Medium

Adapted from Myers and Shocker (1981), Hutt and Speh (2004), and Kotler (2006).Note: PC � physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, intensity of color, hue)

PPC � pseudo-physical characteristics (e.g., warmth, shininess, tone) BEN � benefits (e.g., convenient, durable, compatible) IM � image (e.g., subjective � “choice of professionals,” “looks hi-tech”).

Indu

stri

alO

ffer

ing

question then remains, how does one derive these attributes and makethem useful for sales personnel with direct business buyer contact?

ATTRIBUTE ELICITATION

Behind each act of judgment a business buyer makes in a particularproduct class leading toward a brand selection (consciously or uncon-sciously) lays his/her implicit theory about the class of offerings withinwhich he or she is making judgments. In its multitude of formats, therepertory grid technique (Kelly, 1955, 1969) is a valuable way of explor-ing the structure and content of such implicit theories and remains in useto this day (Peter & Olson, 2005; Stewart, 1997). The goal here is to obtainattribute descriptors for industrial offerings in buyers’ own words, forsubsequent use by sales personnel during buyer/seller interactions.

It is an attempt, much like Atticus’ in To Kill a Mockingbird, to standin others’ shoes, to see their world of role relations as they see it. In hisoriginal thinking, Kelly (1955, 1969) did not argue that such theoriesare formal and articulated; indeed, in using the metaphor of “theory,”it is not argued that such theories are formal and articulated. But theyare theories in the sense of being networks of meaning through whicha person sees and handles the universe of situations in which theymove. In this sense, a person’s theories—his/her personal constructsystem2—might be referred to in other psychological approaches ashis/her “personality,” his/her “attitudes,” his/her “habits,” and his/her“reinforcement history.”

Kelly (1955, 1969) argued that it would be convenient and useful to seepersonal construct systems as being made up of hierarchically linkedsets of bipolar constructs—nice–nasty, here–there, two stroke–four stroke,ugly–beautiful, alkali–acid, past–future, master–servant, odd–even, andso on. Thus, a “dictionary” containing a person’s constructs would revealthat each is bipolar. How the person makes sense out of our world is bysimultaneously noting likenesses and differences. It is in the contrast,although not always specified, that the usefulness of the construct exists.Bipolarity makes the design of grids possible. Thus, a sort of internaldictionary can be elicited that shows how verbalized constructs are pub-licly related. The difficulties of exploring construct systems, by grid or anyother means, forces individuals to focus more heavily on verbalized andeasily accessible constructs, and ultimately associated sets of productattribute descriptors.

The purpose of grids (Kelly, 1955, 1969) is to reveal how a particularsystem is evolving with its limitations and possibilities. The grid is per-haps best looked on as a particular form of structured interview. The


233

2 For the present purposes here, constructs are abstractions, likely encompassing many facets andtherefore a constellation of related attributes.

usual way of exploring another person’s construct system is by conver-sation. The grid formalizes this process and assigns mathematical val-ues to the relationship between a person’s constructs. It enables one tofocus on particular subsystems of construing and to note what is indi-vidual and surprising about the structure and content of a person’s out-look on a particular part of the world. It is a formalized version of the kindof information that people seek about each other and the kind of under-standing people are in the process of gaining about one another. And itis adaptable so as to permit focus on particular subsystems of con-structing, such as industrial supplier, product, and brand selection (Peter& Olson, 2005; Stewart, 1997).

Kelly (1955, 1969) devised the repertory grid technique as a methodfor exploring personal construct systems. Kelly offers several definitionsof a construct, including “a way in which two or more things are alike andthereby different from a third or more things.” This definition manifestsitself directly in one of the procedures for eliciting constructs for grids.Kelly (1969) espoused this view by also noting that a construct was “a wayof transcending the obvious.” In other words, when making a new abstrac-tion out of events, one is escaping from the limitations of the “facts” of ear-lier abstractions.

In all his definitions, Kelly retained the essential notion that con-structs are bipolar. People do not always, or even very often, specify theircontrast pole. But Kelly’s argument is that a person makes sense out ofthe world by simultaneously noting likenesses and differences. It is bipo-larity that makes the designing of grids possible. For persons complet-ing a grid, all elements must be within their range of convenience.3 Touse a grid requires understanding the nature of the elements to be usedand the format for construct elicitation.

Choice of Elements

Elements (e.g., business market offerings) are chosen to represent the areain which construing is to be investigated (Stewart, 1997). If it is inter-personal relationship, the elements may well be people. These may be pre-sented in the form of unspecified acquaintances, or they may be peoplenamed to fit specific role titles. The 24 role titles suggested by Kelly(1955, 1969) included, among others, teacher, wife, employer, mother,father, and neighbor. Obviously, the grid designer can modify these asmuch as desired to meet the requirements of particular situations. Someexamples of different elements that have been used in the psychologyliterature are occupations (Shubsacks, 1975), feelings (Fransella & Adams,1965), situations (Fransella, 1972), rooms (Honikman, 1976), photographs


234

3 All grids involve a consideration of the issue of range of convenience (e.g., attributes and other eval-uative words used to characterize business brand names in a product class). Kelly argued thata construct (or a subsystem of constructs) operates always within a context and that there area finite number of elements to which a given person can apply it.

of people (Bannister, 1962), Rorschach cards (Salmon, Arnold, & Collyer,1972), stores (Hudson, 1974), and foreign countries (Lemon, 1975). Someexamples of different elements that have been used in the business lit-erature are managers in oil companies (Stewart, 1997), consumable officesupplies manufacturers (Wilson & Lichtenthal, 1985), automobile man-ufacturers/marketers (Brint.com, 2004), and running shoes (Peter &Olson, 2005).

As Stewart noted in 1997, in business markets these include the com-pany name, business brand name, and business product line or itemname. The goal is to elicit, in the buyer’s own phraseology, attributedescriptors (Zaltman, 1997; Srinivasan & Parl, 1997) for industrial offer-ings that can be subsequently used by the sales force.

METHOD OF ATTRIBUTE ELICITATION BY TRIADS OF ELEMENTS

Kelly (1955) originally described six ways in which a researcher can elicitconstructs and therefore ultimately attributes (see Table 3 for a condensedsummary). Three of these approaches (see Methods 1–3 in Table 3) areespecially appropriate for business-marketing contexts.These forms, whenmodified for brands or product types or suppliers, represent a way forrespondents and researchers to discuss how the subject sees his/her ownand others’ perceptions of the business offering. In eliciting these con-structs, the respondent will reveal the attribute dimensions he/she uses.

Three of these approaches use the element “myself” (see Methods 4–6in Table 3), which allows for the inclusion of tapping the influence of theinterpersonal dynamic of the buyer–seller dyad. The buyer/seller dyadoften emphasizes close professional relationships; so it can be inferred thatsales rep referent elements will sometimes emerge as salient/determinant.This makes it possible for the fabric of boundary-role relationships to bederived in the business-marketing context.

It also appears to make a difference how the opposite pole is obtained.One way to elicit the contrast pole of a construct is to ask how the respon-dent’s element in the elicitation triad is different from the two that arestated to be alike. People often give the conventional opposite (answer-ing what they think others might expect them to say) of the constructrather than the opposite that the person actually uses.

Adapting the aforementioned to settings deemed relevant to the busi-ness marketer is not as difficult or as awkward as it might appear. Cen-tral to the successful application of this elicitation methodology is theproper selection of elements. In other words, management and market-ing research teams must agree on the frame of reference. For example,does a business marketer wish to discover how a company’s specificbrands are positioned in the minds of target-market members in com-parison to that of major competitors’ brands? Or, does the business mar-


235

keter wish to discover how his/her entire company is positioned in theminds of target-market members in comparison to the major competitors?For example, Wilson and Lichtenthal (1985) used the minimum contextcard format in seeking to elicit salient/determinant attributes of sup-pliers (company position, not product line or item) of consumable officesupplies. During interviews, purchasing agents were given the names ofthe top 25 suppliers in their region. After removing unfamiliar companynames, respondents were given random sets of three names and asked


236

Table 3. Methods of Attribute Elicitation by Triads of Elements*.

1. The Minimum context card form. The person is first asked to give names to roletitles, for example, “listed by Kelly.” Then, they are presented with three of these ele-ments and asked to specify some important way in which two of them are alike andthereby different from the third. Having recorded the reply, they are asked in whatway the third person differs from the other two people (If they have not indicatedwhich two people are alike, they are asked to do so). The answer to the question con-cerning the difference is the contrast pole. As many triads of elements are presentedto the subject as the administrator deems appropriate. There are no set rules. Thereare only questions of “sample size” in the number of constructs to be examined.

2. The full context form. In this form, all elements are written on separate cardsand spread out in front of the person. They are asked to think of important ways inwhich groups of the people are alike. When the first two cards are selected, they areasked in what way they are alike. As subsequent cards are added, the person is occa-sionally asked whether it is still the same category as for the first two cards. If one istaken away, the person is also asked if the same category is still being used.

3. The sequential form. Here the elements are presented as in the Minimum Con-text Form (i.e., as triads rather than as a group), but they are presented systemati-cally by changing one in the triad each time. For example, having been presented with1, 2, and 3, number 1 is removed and number 4 substituted for it and so on.

4. The self-identification form. The elements are presented as in the SequentialFrom, but the element “myself” is always included in the triad. This ensures (as far aspossible) that all constructs elicited are personally relevant.

5. The personal role form. This is similar to the Self-Identification Form, but theinstructions now are: “Suppose that the three of you were all together by yourselves foran evening. What kind of place might it be? What would happen? How would you your-self be likely to act? How would each of the others be likely to act?” Many other situa-tions or conditions could be used in order to allow the subject greater flexibility of reply.

6. Full context form with the personal role feature. For this method, all elementcards are laid out before the individual. When all the cards have been sorted into piles,the “myself” card is placed by each pile and the Personal Role questions asked foreach. These are posed in the form: “Suppose you were to spend an evening with thisgroup, what would be likely to happen?” and so on. The Personal Role Form seems tobe a way in which subject and examiner can discuss how the subject sees his/her ownand others’ personal interactions. The course of this conversation the subject willlikely reveal the construct dimensions he uses, which the examiner can note.

* Kelly (1955; 1969) originally describes six ways in which constructs can be elicited, and they are usedmore recently in variant form Kelly in Slater (1976) and Stewart (1997).

each time to describe the ways that two suppliers were alike/similar butdifferent from the third. Replies were recorded until each respondent’srepertoire was exhausted. Table 4 portrays the levels for element choicethat correspond to company, business brand name and product/itemname, depending on objectives of the sales managers involved.

Kelly (1955; 1969) based his triad method for eliciting constructs onhis theory of how constructs are first formed. However, because one is elic-iting constructs already established in the person’s repertoire, there isno reason why three elements need to be used. The triad is not even nec-essary to ensure obtaining the opposite of the emergent pole given. Still,people have less access to important constructs if there is insufficientvariety in the elements during elicitation. Finally, it is not surprisingthat people regard their own constructs (in general) as being more impor-tant than those selected from a pool of constructs.

ATTRIBUTE DERIVATION PROCEDURE

Whether performed by an in-house market research function or a con-sulting firm, several research issues must be resolved to acquire accurate


237

Table 4. Elements for Attribute Elicitation in Business Marketing.

Company name. A company wants to know its “corporate image” and that of itsmajor competitors from the precipitous of members of a defined target population. Thereference points (elements) for the survey respondent are the names of all companiesdeemed relevant from the point of view of the respondents to be surveyed as represen-tative of the target market. For example, in the agricultural equipment industry, JohnDeere might want to know what its corporate image is as well as its major competi-tors’ images are from the viewpoint of all U.S. farm owners of 1,000 acres or more.Separate cards are typeset with such names as John Deere, Allis-Chalmers, Case,Gehl, and Shield, including respondent-reported company names.

Business product line name. When a business marketer sells several related prod-ucts/services in one line as well as several related products/services in one or more dif-ferent lines, the company might want to discover how one of the product lines is posi-tioned relative to those similar lines offered by competitors. For example, amanufacturer of heavy equipment such as Komatsu might want to know how its lineof highway construction equipment is positioned in the minds of targeted buyers incomparison with the perceived positions of such competitors as Caterpillar, Interna-tional, Kato, Crane, Sumito, Krup, Grove, Holmes and Kobelco, including respondent-reported company names.

Business product item name. Sometimes, business marketers brand some of theirspecific products/services and compete against companies that have similarly brandedcompetitive offerings. The question of uncovering relative positioning in this instanceis answered in a manner analogous to a brand positioning study for a single-item con-sumer brand. The focal point is the specific business brand name of the company’sitem and each specific business brand name associated with similar items offered byall major competitors—from the point of view of the respondent.

phraseology of product-related attributes in business markets. Thesebreak out into three broad areas: conceptual, procedural, and attributecoalescing (see Table 5).

Marketing and sales managers must initially identify the target mar-ket of interest.The attributes/benefits information will be provided to salesrep for those markets they now serve. Some discussion should be held todetermine industry borders for the target market to make sure the scopeof competitors and buyers are accurately and exhaustively delineated.

Derivation of an elements list is contingent upon the results from theprior three steps executed almost simultaneously. Getting the sales forceinvolved now serves two purposes. It first lets them have a sense of own-ership in the project and gives them input that will be valuable in obtain-ing accurate information. Second, it tells the sales force this type of infor-mation will be made available to assist them in account acquisition,retention, and nurturing the account relationship, thus leading to higher


238

Table 5. Attribute Derivation Procedure.

Select target market

↓Identify industry bandwidth

(within/across industries, image, and product)

↓Decide level of analysis

(company, product line, item)

↓Develop a list of elements

(sales force involved too)

↓Decide the form of repertory grid

↓Administer grid with a convenience sample of buyers from target market

(due to the mechanics of the Kelly Grid procedure, individual interviews must be con-ducted in person)

↓Analyze for homogeneity among elicited responses

(mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive attribute categories)

↓Classify as PC, PPC, BEN, or IM

↓Integrate information into sales force training procedures

Note: PC � physical characteristics (e.g., temperature, intensity of color, hue).PPC � pseudo-physical characteristics (e.g., warmth, shininess, tone).BEN � benefits (e.g., convenient, durable, compatible).IM � image (e.g., subjective � “choice of professionals, “looks hi-tech”).

levels of satisfaction and long-term retention. The sales force can also beasked to supply their list of descriptors for inclusion.

Experience with proprietary studies suggests that the minimum con-text card form (see Method 1 in Table 3) is well suited for industrial mar-kets. This is because it is cognitively less taxing and more gratifyingthan Methods 2 or 3. Methods 2 or 3 can overwhelm the respondent bypresenting him or her with too many choices for meaningful compar-isons. Method 1 is inherently less ambiguous as to the task. When theobjective focuses on the relationship dynamic in the buyer/seller dyad,then Methods 4–6 warrant consideration, and, in like manner, Method4 most closely approximates Method 1. A carefully drawn conveniencesample is readied for personal interviews. Stewart (1997) and Kelly(1969) recommend a sample in the range of 30–60 respondents who arecarefully selected members of the target market. This approach allowsfor a rich attribute pool to emerge in industrial settings. Of course, oneshould strive to involve respondents who are extremely knowledgeableand willing to articulate definitions of attributes as they go. The volumeand quality of data (richness) offsets the effect of limited sample size.And, because the information obtained should be without respondents’knowledge of the sponsoring firm, outsourcing this task may be benefi-cial unless an in-house market research team has a corporate mecha-nism for doing it anonymously.

Regardless of format, a respondent’s derived attributes must beculled to a mutually and collectively exhaustive set of salient/deter-minant attribute categories. For example, respondents may have ini-tially and ambiguously reported “great delivery,” “speedy delivery, “and“timely delivery.” Upon further probing, respondents may have reported“delivery” to mean “time between placement of order and promiseddelivery date,” “product delivered by date agreed upon,” “delivery datenot met: you are called to make other arrangements,” and “providesemergency delivery.” Accurately ferreting out and isolating key prod-uct attributes is paramount (Corey, 1970; Myers & Chay, 1979, 1981).

Post hoc, the master list of attributes derived can be ordered by the fourmain categories of product-related attributes using the definitions ofthese terms supplied by Myers and Shocker (PC, PPC, BEN, and IM).This information can be made part of formal sales training under “knowthe buyer” and supplied to the field in monthly communications. Con-tent/copy of marketing communications can also reflect determinantattributes/benefits derived.

BENEFIT BUNDLE EMPHASIS DURING THE SELLINGPROCESS

Creating a benefit bundle of attributes or positive consequences that hasvalue to a buyer is a fundamental task for marketers (Green, Wind, &


239

Jain, 1972; Haley, 1968; 1971; Moriarty & Reibstein, 1986). This attrib-ute bundle is directly related to product attributes. Furthermore, it isthe industrial sales rep that typically conveys this benefit bundle in thecontext of the buyer/seller dyad (see Table 6). Selling efforts have evolvedfrom “forceful” techniques to a more relationship selling approach (Mon-crief & Marshall, 2005). The most widely accepted selling process modelis the seven steps of selling, as articulated by Dubinsky (1980/1981).4

The strategic role of selling approaches implies going beyond mereapplication of sequential selling steps to an evolved, nonsequential,often team-based relationship marketing approach (Moncrief & Mar-shall, 2005).5 Marshall, Moncreif, and Lassk (1999) tracked the dailyactivities of salespeople and compared them to activities in 1981.Although a majority of activities remained, another 49 related to newphilosophies pertaining to consultative/value added/adaptive/relation-ship selling emerged. These approaches add a bandwidth for viewingeach of the selling steps. It is incumbent upon industrial sales reps whenengaging in each of these selling steps to convey the benefit bundle ina manner that accurately reflects what the offering is about (PC/PPC)and the benefits available (BEN), while personifying associated com-pany/brand image (IM).

Prospecting →→ Buyer Retention/Deletion. Before calling on a prospect,the industrial sales rep should be knowledgeable about the buying organ-ization (what its needs are and who is involved) and about the buyersthemselves (their characteristics and buying styles). The sales rep mustdevelop a list based on his or her contacts/research, or the firm may haveoutsourced this lead-generating step.The evolved emphasis to retain/deletea buyer in part requires an assessment of the firm’s desire and ability tofulfill requirements. Determining needs/specifications for entering goodsrequires identifying if a prospect has requirements (specs) that can or evenshould be fulfilled (is a match feasible?). For heavy and light equipment,the buying firm must be within range of minimum levels of needing IM andBEN commensurate with the conspicuous use in the workplace and func-tional performance needs. For installations, the buyer will likely want tobuy from a “similar” firm. Thus, IM is the main level for screening. Con-sumable supplies must function (simply do the job) at a minimum level ofBEN, while where they are obtained may have an IM basis. The initialmatch for services comes primarily from IM within feasible levels of BEN.


240

4 The steps of the selling process appear in variant form in many current personal selling text-books, such as those texts cited in Moncrief and Marshall (2005), Futrell (2002), Manning andReece (2001), and Weitz, Castleberry, and Tanner (2001).

5 In contrast, the evolved selling process assumes that the salesperson typically will perform the var-ious steps of the process in some form, but all the steps do not necessarily occur. Rather, they occurover time, accomplished by multiple people from within the selling firm, and not necessarily ina lockstep linear sequence. Not all sales organizations use all components of the evolved sellingprocess (Moncrief & Marshall, 2005). Differences are found in the degree of modernization amongsales forces (Marshall et al., 1999).


241

Tab

le 6

:Ben

efit

Bu

nd

le E

mp

has

is b

y In

du

stri

al S

elli

ng

Ste

p.

Sel

lin

g P

roce

ss →

Pre

-app

roac

hH

andl

ing

Indu

stri

al O

ffer

ing

Pro

spec

tin

g(Q

ual

ifyi

ng)

App

roac

hP

rese

nta

tion

Dem

onst

rati

onO

bjec

tion

sC

losi

ng

Fol

low

-Up

Raw

mat

eria

lsP

CP

PC

PC

/PP

CP

PC

/PC

PP

CA

NY

AN

YB

EN

/IM

Pro

cess

ed m

ater

ials

PC

PP

CP

C/P

PC

PP

C/P

CP

PC

AN

YA

NY

BE

N/I

M

Com

pon

ent

part

sP

CP

PC

PC

/PP

CP

PC

/PC

PP

CA

NY

AN

YB

EN

/IM

Lig

ht

equ

ipm

ent

IM/B

EN

BE

NB

EN

BE

N/I

MP

PC

/IM

AN

YA

NY

IM/B

EN

Hea

vy e

quip

men

t IM

/BE

NB

EN

BE

NB

EN

/IM

PP

C/I

MA

NY

AN

YIM

/BE

N

Inst

alla

tion

sIM

PC

/BE

NB

EN

PP

C/P

CB

EN

/IM

AN

YA

NY

PC

/PP

C

Con

sum

able

su

ppli

esB

EN

/IM

IM/B

EN

BE

NB

EN

PC

AN

YA

NY

PC

/IM

Ser

vice

pro

visi

onIM

/BE

NB

EN

/IM

IMB

EN

PC

AN

YA

NY

PC

/IM

Att

rib

ute

em

ph

asis

in

eac

h s

tep

of

the

sell

ing

pro

cess

Ada

pted

fro

m:

Du

bin

sky

(198

0/19

81),

Mon

crie

f an

d M

arsh

all (

2005

),M

yers

an

d S

hoc

ker

(198

1),H

utt

an

d S

peh

(20

00),

and

Kot

ler

and

Lan

e (2

006)

.N

ote:

PC

�ph

ysic

al c

har

acte

rist

ics

(e.g

.,te

mpe

ratu

re,i

nte

nsi

ty o

f co

lor,

hu

e).

PP

C �

pseu

do-p

hys

ical

ch

arac

teri

stic

s (e

.g.,

war

mth

,sh

inin

ess,

ton

e).

BE

N �

ben

efit

s (e

.g.,

con

ven

ien

t,du

rabl

e,co

mpa

tibl

e).

IM �

imag

e (e

.g.,

subj

ecti

ve �

“ch

oice

of

prof

essi

onal

s,”“

look

s h

i-te

ch”)

.

Preapproach (Qualifying) →→ Database/Knowledge Management.Further qualification comes from gleaning microbases of segmenta-tion/information about the buying firm. This includes refining purchasecriteria (facets of the benefit bundle sought), buying-center membership,the importance of a given buying instance, and other special needs. Deter-mining needs/specs for entering goods requires noting the pseudophys-ical characteristics (based on PCs ferreted out earlier) of an offering toidentify if a prospect has requirements that can be fulfilled at appropri-ate levels. Heavy and light equipment must have minimum levels ofBEN that a buyer wants, commensurate with the functional perform-ance needs and conspicuous use in the workplace. Consumable suppliesmust function at a minimum level of BEN, while where they are obtainedwill continue to have an IM basis. The match for services is on the BEN-based ability to deliver appropriate service levels with sufficient IM.Information acquisition is critical. The first two stages of the sellingprocess constitute a major preparatory phase, executed in close tempo-ral proximity but occurring before meeting the buying firm’s team on itsturf. Teleprospecting can also be used to identify and qualify prospectsas to the PC, PPC, BEN, or IM attributes required. For example, such anapproach to qualification could be based on sales reps’ qualifying ques-tions in questionnaire format during a telephone survey (Lichtenthal,Sikri, & Folk, 1989). The Internet’s main contribution during these ini-tial stages is almost exclusively information acquisition as a prepara-tory device.

Approach →→ Nurturing the Relationship. It is helpful at this stageto set call objectives, so that information needs can be quickly reassessedand lead to an unfolding and emphasis on desired benefit bundle attrib-utes. This is the start of face-to-face buyer/seller interactions. Listeningto the buyer is crucial, but particularly so going forward in order tobuild and nurture a relationship—not just for acquiring a given trans-action. Determining needs/specifications for entering goods requiresnoting both PC/PPC characteristics of an offering so as to identify if aprospect has requirements that can or even should be fulfilled (spec lev-els are now set or are known to be in a tight range). Heavy and lightequipment must have minimum levels of BEN/IM commensurate withthe functional performance needs and conspicuous use in the workplace.Installations must be shown to be up to code, implying PC/PPC empha-sis. Consumable supplies must function at a minimum level of BEN,while where they are obtained may have an IM basis. Services providersmust initially emphasize IM.

Presentation →→ Marketing the Product. The salesperson tells theproduct story to the buyer, presenting benefits and showing how theproduct solves the buyer’s problem better than what the competitor isoffering. It is the main body of the sales call. Presenting needs/specifi-


242

cations for entering goods requires noting the PPC/PC characteristics ofan offering so a prospect sees that their requirements can be fulfilled.Heavy and light equipment must have minimum levels of BEN/IM toprovide functional performance needs commensurate with use (work tobe done) in the workplace. Installations must be shown to be up to “code”in great detail, implying PC/PPC emphasis. Consumable supplies mustfunction at a minimum level of BEN, while where they are obtained mayhave an IM basis. Services providers must shift emphasis from IM toBEN, thus suggesting that they can deliver as promised.

Demonstration. Demonstrations of most industrial products and busi-ness services are required at trade shows, site visits, or visiting the busi-ness marketer’s facilities. And, thanks to the Internet, demonstrations cannow be performed in the buyer’s office.6 Where traditional methods arestill utilized, it is incumbent upon the sales rep to emphasize appropri-ate characteristics of the benefit bundle. Showing that the needs/speci-fications for entering goods emphasize PPC characteristics of an offeringleads a prospect to see that his/her requirements can be precisely fulfilled.Heavy and light equipment must have adequate levels of PPC/IM to pro-vide functional performance needs commensurate with use (work to bedone) in the workplace. Installations must be shown to be up to code,implying an emphasis on BEN. In selling consumable supplies, the sales-person must convey that minimum levels of PC are exceeded, and wherethey are obtained (IM) has been temporarily resolved. Services providersmust shift emphasis from BEN to PC (actual services features), andendeavor to convince the buyer that the seller can deliver as promised.

Handling Objections →→ Problem Solving. Buyers almost alwayshave objections either during the presentation or when asked to place theorder. Objections are an opportunity to turn a “warm buyer” into a cus-tomer. The problem can be related to economic (task) or psychological(nontask) attributes. This is where the industrial salesperson seeks out,clarifies, and overcomes buyer objections. Inhibitions in moving towardclosure can appear from all product characteristic areas of the benefit bun-dle. Solving these problems helps move toward securing the sale.

Closing →→ Adding Value. After handling the business buyer’s objec-tions, the salesperson tries to obtain a commitment to buy the indus-trial item/service. Closing techniques include asking for the order,reviewing points of agreement, offering to help write the order, offer-


243

6 This is historically unprecedented, that prospective business buyers no longer need to travel totrade shows, visit the business marketer’s plant, or visit other satisfied industrial buyers. Real-time viewing of the creation and use of foundation goods (installations, buildings, fixed equip-ment), accessory equipment (light factory equipment, office equipment), and entering goods (rawmaterials and manufactured materials and parts), as well as a myriad of business services, areall made possible—travel-free.

ing another similar model, or providing special reasons such as extraquantity or higher quality. As in the prior step, inhibitions to obtain-ing the sale can manifest from all product characteristic areas of thebenefit bundle. This stage and the prior one evolve and are executed inclose temporal proximity. Final details may be ironed out via e-mailwith referral to rep and marketer Web sites (if needed at all). In fact,“the offer and an acceptance,” by e-mail can make the “put it in writ-ing” aspect a lower-threshold event.

Follow-Up →→ Buyer Relationship Maintenance/Furtherance. Thesale may be over, but the relationship has just begun.This step is necessaryfor the industrial salesperson to ensure that the business buyer is satisfiedenough to be a repeat customer (SR or MR). Right after the closing, thesalesperson should complete any details on the order or purchase terms, orother matters. By the time the order is received, the sales rep should sched-ule an on-site visit to make sure there are no problems with usage instal-lation, or service for members of the buying center. For entering goods theemphasis will shift to BEN with IM reinforcing CHAR (PC and PPC) alreadyreceived. For heavy and light equipment the emphasis will shift to IM rein-forcing BEN commensurate with the functional performance needs andconspicuous use in the workplace. For installation, the emphasis should beon making sure that the IM presented early on became a reality—PPC andPC are delivered as promised. Consumable supplies and services must befound to have PC/IM in the level of PC delivered, while where they wereobtained may have an IM basis. The meeting of requirements may needfine-tuning. Anticipating and helping to alleviate business buyer postpur-chase cognitive dissonance is also crucial. These last three steps of the sell-ing process, for the most part, are done face-to-face.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The foregoing discussion has several important implications for theuse of the proposed attribute typology by industrial sales management,the industrial sales force, and the organization’s marketing researchdepartment.

Producer- Versus Buyer-Determined Orientation. BEN, the buyer-determined attribute descriptor, is usually most important in defining theset of competing alternatives and in affecting choice among competitors.By buyer determined, it is meant that their presence or absence is deter-mined by business-buyer criteria (e.g., intended usage), and their oper-ationalization for measurement is given meaning in terms of business-buyer discriminating abilities (e.g., levels of such attributes are restrictedby buyers’ abilities to discern meaningful differences). By way of con-trast, CHAR (PC and PPC) are more nearly producer-determined attrib-


244

utes, whereas BEN and IM are achievable only if enough business buy-ers perceive them to be (i.e., buyers determine whether or not a productcreates the requisite benefits or image).

Actionability by Attribute Type. Taking action to change an offeringis usually much more attainable for PC and for PPC than for BEN orIM. The latter are buyer semantics that may or may not be meaningfulto technical personnel who must develop the product/service. [Some-times, in an attempt to provide immediately usable results, sales man-agement may ask buyers to react directly to CHAR (PC and PPC) descrip-tors. In doing so, they make the assumption that buyers will alsocomprehend what the firm finds most meaningful.] The buyer, however,not possessing the same semantics or measurement apparatus as thesales management team, must translate the task and make an evalua-tion based upon the BEN, which is implied. The sales manager typicallyknows little of what is going on in the buyer’s mind, as all that can beobserved are the data; he or she often does not realize that buyers makeattributions in unknown ways.

Objectivity/Subjectivity. A further complication arises when the salesmanager does not account for the fact that the CHAR (PC and PPC) ofa firm’s market offerings are relatively objective, whereas BEN andIM exist only in the minds of the beholder. Sales managers and theirsales force need to be concerned with whether the CHAR (PC and PPC)promoted will lead to the inference of important BEN or to a desiredIM. The research instruments developed that measure a buyer’s per-ception of certain attributes also must verify their determinancy ofmarket behavior.

Team Selling/Buying. When team selling is deemed relevant, care-ful decisions about who should be on which selling team must be made.Key questions relate to how various types of business buyers can bebest approached, persuaded, and serviced. The typology proposed in thisarticle can provide a useful blueprint to help the sales manager makesuch decisions, for the individual salesperson who has total sellingresponsibility or for members of a sales team that collectively sell toa buying center. The typology can be tied to the organization’s com-mitment to skill improvement and to training programs geared toimprove the sales presentation. This is increasingly true given thatmany salespeople work as part of cross-functional teams. At IBM, forexample, the account exec for a client such as EDS serves as the cap-tain of a team involving IBM sales reps spread out across the globe,as well as representatives from manufacturing, marketing, finance,and other areas within IBM. Especially when the selling is to a mul-tiperson buying center, the message is clear: Each member of the buy-ing center may require different types of information based on his or


245

her role. Sales managers of the selling organization need to matcheach member of his or her selling team to each member of the buyingcenter, arming each salesperson with the best and most relevant infor-mation judged to be of most relevance to the assigned buying-centerteam member. Sales management must remember that the concept ofthe buying center7 indicates that in many organizations today, a groupof individuals is charged with the responsibility to make purchasedecisions for various products/services and suppliers (Robinson, Faris,& Wind, 1967; Webster & Wind, 1972a, 1972b; Weigand, 1968).8

FIELD RESEARCH

An assessment of the efficacy of the approach described in this articlewould involve a pilot test to create a sample of matched sales rep pairs.A randomly selected rep of each pair would use the approach herein, andthe other rep would proceed with business as usual. Measuring on a pre-and post-test basis would require tracking short-term indices of effec-tiveness, such as changes in sales volume, buyer retention rates, brandswitching rates, and first-time buyer acquisition rates. Effectivenessmeasures such as brand loyalty, customer satisfaction, and changes inbrand equity would reveal the long-term efficacy of the approach describedin this article.


246

7 It was originally defined as all individuals and groups who participate in the purchasing deci-sion-making process (Webster & Wind, 1972a, 1972b). Furthermore, there are at least five nom-inally distinct roles used to describe interpersonal influence: buyer (formal authority to select sup-plier and implement obtaining the item), decider (makes the decision by virtue of settingspecifications, but does not have formal authority), gatekeeper (controls information to be reviewedby other buying-center members), user (handles the item during the offer-creation process), andinfluencer (influences buying in ways not otherwise specified). These functional roles are thetheoretical articulation point between individual and group measures (Rommetveit, 1954 inRidgeway, 1983), and the role structure endures regardless of whoever occupies these functionalroles with associated shifts in evaluative criteria (Lichtenthal, 1988). Hence, the members of thebuying center, as a group, differ primarily because of functional roles they take on and thereforevalue different attributes of a competitive offering. So, positioning in business markets musttake into account these multirole/multiattribute sets.

8 Research has demonstrated the likelihood that the evaluative criteria that each member of the groupuses can differ by functional role occupied by each team member (Lichtenthal, 1988). Hence, adeterminant attribute for one member might not be a determinant for any other members. Forexample, the buyer is concerned about price-/availability-related attributes (BEN) as well assupplier reputation (IM), the decider about product specs and performance-related attributes(PC/PPC), and the user is concerned with attributes related to production processes (PC/PPC).When it comes to selling in the business-to-business sector, the multiperson and multimarketnature of organizational buying suggests that positioning must be determined in the minds ofall parties concerned with the buying decision (Lichtenthal, 1997). Selling/promotional cam-paigns are most effective when they reach all of the members of the buying center (Lichtenthal& Ducoffe, 1994). Focus must be placed on determining how individuals with different roles areexposed to the most appropriate role-based or role-fitting, because technical wording in adver-tising has been found to be important (R. P. Anderson & Jolson, 1980, and this likely extends toteam selling.

REFERENCES

Abruzzini, P. (1967). Measuring language difficulty in advertising copy. Jour-nal of Marketing, 31, 22–26.

Ahtola, O. T. (1975). The vector model of preference: An alternative to the Fish-bein model. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 52–59.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting socialbehavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Alpert, M. I. (1971). Identification of determinant attributes: A comparison ofmethods. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 184–191.

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (2004). Business market management: Under-standing, creating, and delivering value (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Anderson, J. C., Jain, D. C., & Chintagunta, P. K. (1993). A customer value assess-ment in business markets Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 1,3–29.

Anderson, N. H. (1982). Methods of information integration theory. New York:Academic Press.

Anderson, R. E., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2004). Personal selling: Achieving customersatisfaction and loyalty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Anderson, R. P., & Edwards, E. A. (1998). Goal setting and goal pursuit in theregulation of body weight. Psychology and Health, 13, 593–621.

Anderson, R. P., & Jolson, M. A. (1980). Technical wording in advertising: Impli-cations for market segmentation. Journal of Marketing, 44, 56–66.

Bannister, D. (1962). The nature and measurement of schizophrenic thoughtdisorder. Journal of Mental Science, 108, 825–842.

Bingham, F. G., Jr., Gomes, R., & Knowles, P. (2005). Business marketing. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Bingham, F. G., & Raffield, B. T. (1990). Business-to-business marketing man-agement. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Blythe, J., & Zimmerman, A. (2005). Business-to-business marketing manage-ment: A global perspective. London: Thomson Learning.

Brint.com: The Biz Tech Network Homepage. (2004). Personal construct theoryand repertory grid homepage on the Internet.

Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1999). Buyer–seller relationships in busi-ness markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 439–460.

Choffray, J. M., & Lilien, G. (1978). Assessing response to industrial marketingstrategy. Journal of Marketing, 42, 20–31.

Cohen, J., Fishbein, M., & Ahtola, O. T. (1972). The nature and uses of expectancy-value models in consumer research. Journal of Marketing Research, 9,456–460.

Conchar, M. P., Zinkhan, G. M., Peters, C., & Olavarrieta, S. (2004). An inte-grated framework for the conceptualization of consumers’ perceived-risk pro-cessing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 4, 418–436.

Corey, L. G. (1970). How to isolate product attributes. Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 10, 4.

Czinkota, M. R. (2004). Marketing: Best practices. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.


247

Di Benedetto, A., & Crawford, M. (2004). New products management (7th ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Donath, B. (2004). Marketplace: The ISBM review. University Park, PA: PennState University, Institute for the Study of Business Markets.

Dubinsky, A. J. (1980/81). A factor analytic study of the personal selling process.Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 1, 26–33.

Durgee, J. F., O’Connor, G. C., & Veryzer, R. W. (1996). Observations: Translatingvalues into product wants. Journal of Advertising Research, 90–100.

Dwyer, F. R., & Tanner, J. F. (2001). Business marketing: Connecting strategy,relationships, and learning. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL:Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: TheMODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advancesin experimental social psychology (Vol. 23). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach to the relations betweenbeliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In M. Fishbein(Ed.), Readings in attitude theory and measurement. New York: Wiley.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: Anintroduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fransella, F. (1972). Personal change and reconstruction: Research on a treat-ment of stuttering. London: Academic Press.

Fransella, F., & Adams, B. (1966). An illustration of the use of repertory gridtechnique in a clinical setting. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-chology, 5, 51–62.

Gopalakrishna, S., & Lilien, G. L. (1995). A three-stage model of industrialtrade show performance. Marketing Science, 14, 22–42.

Green, P. E., Wind, Y., & Jain, A. (1972). Benefit bundle analysis. Journal ofAdvertising Research, 12, 31–36.

Guinipero, L. C., & Brewer, D. J. (1993). Performance-based evaluation sys-tems. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 29,35–41.

Gwin, C. F., & Gwin, C. R. (2003). Product attributes model: A tool for evalu-ating brand positioning. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11,16–30.

Haley, R. I. (1968). Benefit segmentation: A decision oriented research tool.Journal of Marketing, 32, 30–35.

Haley, R.I. (1971). Beyond benefit segmentation. Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 2, 3–4.

Honikman, B. (1976). Construct theory as an approach to architectural andenvironmental design. In P. Slater (Ed.), Explorations of interpersonal space(Vol. I). London: Wiley.

Howard, J. A. (1977). Consumer behavior: Application and theory. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hudson, R. (1974) Images of the retailing environment: An example of the useof the repertory grid methodology. Environmental Behaviors, 6, 470–494.

Hutt, M. D., & Speh, T. W. (2004). Business marketing management: A strate-gic view of industrial and organizational markets (8th ed.). New York:Thompson/Southwestern.

Jain, A. K., Acito, F., Malhotra, N. K., & Mahajan, V. (1979). A comparison ofthe internal validity of alternative parameter estimation methods in decom-


248

positional multiattribute preference models. Journal of Marketing Research,16(4), 313–22.

Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2003). Churchill/Ford/Walker’s sales forcemanagement. 7th edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Johnston, W. J., & Lewin, J. E. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Towardan integrated framework. Journal of Business Research, 35, 1–15.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs, Vols. 1 and 2. NewYork: Norton.

Kelly, G. A. (1969). The role of classification in personality theory in clinical psy-chology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (B. Maher, Ed.),New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, S.-H., & Srinivasan, V. (2003). A multiattribute model of the timing of buy-ers’ upgrading to improved versions of high technology products. ResearchPaper Series, Paper No. 1720(R), Stanford Graduate School of Business, PaloAlto, CA.

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2006). Marketing management. 12th ed. Upper Sad-dle River, New Jersey: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Lemon, N. (1975). Linguistic developments and conceptualization. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 173–188.

Lichtenthal, J. D. (1997). One customer—multiple targets. Business-to-Busi-ness Journal.

Lichtenthal, J. D., & Ducoffe, R. H. (1994). Industrial advertising decisions.Advances in Business Marketing, 6, 219–256, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lichtenthal, J. D., Sikri, S., & Folk, K. (1989). Teleprospecting: An approach toqualifying accounts. Industrial Marketing Management, 18, 1, 9–17.

Lichtenthal, J. D. (1988). Group decision making in organizational buying: Arole structure approach. Advances in Business Marketing, 3, 119–157, Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

Lichtenthal, J. D., & Beik, L. L. (1984). A history of the definition of marketing.Research in Marketing, Volume 7, 133–167.

Mahajan, V., Jain, A., Thangarajj, A., & Goodwin, S. (1979). Attribute determi-nance: An evaluation of alternative measures and some potential applica-tions. In Analytical approaches to product and marketing planning (AllanShocker, Ed.), pp. 257–272. Boston: Marketing Science Institute.

Marshall, G. W., Moncreif, W. C., & Lassk, F. G. (1999). The current state of salesforce activities. Industrial Marketing Management, 28, 87–98.

Mazis, M. C., Ahtola, O. T., & Klippel, R. E. (1975). A comparison of four multi-attribute models in the prediction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Con-sumer Research, 2(1), 38–52.

Moncrief, W. C., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). The evolution of the seven steps. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 34, 13–22.

Moriarty, R., & Reibstein, D. J. (1986). Benefit segmentation in industrial mar-kets. Journal of Business Research, 14, 6, 463–487.

Myers, J. H., & Chay, R. F. (1981). Direct vs. derived estimates of ideal productcharacteristics. Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research,Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8.

Myers, J. H., & Chay, R. F., (1979). A comparison of two methods for determin-ing optimum levels of product characteristics. Proceedings of the Associationfor Consumer Research, Advances in Consumer Research, 6, 259–262.

Myers, J. H., & Shocker, A. D., (1981) The nature of product-related attributes.Research in Marketing, 5, 211–236.


249

Ozer, M. (1999). A survey of new product evaluation models. Journal of ProductInnovation Management, 16, 77–94.

Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (2005). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy(7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Ratneshwar, S., & Shocker, A. D., (1991). Substitution in use and the role of usagecontext in product category structures. Journal of Marketing Research, 28,281–295.

Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, andinterpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 11–31.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1983). The dynamics of small groups. New York: St. Martin’sPress.

Ries, A., & Trout, J. (1982). Positioning: The battle for your mind. New York:Warner Books.

Robinson, P. J., Faris, C. W., & Wind, Y. (1967). Industrial buying and creativemarketing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1956). Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 367–372.

Salmon, P., Arnold, J. M., & Collyer, Y. M. (1972). What do the determinants deter-mine: The internal validity of the Rorschach. Journal of Personality, 36, 33–38.

Shaw, J., Giglierano, J., & Kallis, J. (1989). Marketing complex technical products:The importance of intangible attributes. Industrial Marketing Management,18, 45–53.

Sheth, J. (1996). Organizational buying behavior: Past performance and futureexpectations. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 11, 7–24.

Shimp, T. A. (1981). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brandchoice. Journal of Advertising, 10, 9–15.

Shubsacks, A. (1975). To repeat or not repeat? Are frequently used constructsmore important to the subject? A study of the effect of allowing repetition ofconstructs in a modified Kelly repertory test. The British Journal of MedicalPsychology, 48, 31–41.

Sims, J. T. (1979). Measuring the industrial firm’s image. Industrial MarketingManagement, 8, 341–347.

Slater, P. (Ed.). (1976). Explorations of intrapersonal space: The measurement ofintrapersonal space by grid technique (Vol. 1). New York: Wiley.

Spector, A. J. (1961). Basic dimensions of the corporate image. Journal of Mar-keting, 25, 47–51.

Srinivasan, V., & Park, C. S. (1997). Surprising robustness of the self-explicatedapproach to customer preference structure measurement. Journal of Mar-keting Research, 34, 286–291.

Stafford, T. F., & Stafford, M. R. (2003). Industrial buyers’ perceptions of indus-trial salespersons. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18, 40–58.

Stewart, V. (1997). Business applications of the repertory grid. (2nd ed.). NewZealand: Enquire Within Developments, Ltd.

Stiff, R., & Khera, I. (1977). Industrial product positioning: Pragmatic uses.Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 119–123.

Sudharshan, D., & Winter, F. (1998). Strategic segmentation of industrial mar-kets. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 13, 8–21.

Urban, G. L., & Hauser, J. R. (1993). Design and marketing of new products (2nded.). Lebanon, IN: Prentice-Hall.


250

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1991). Industrial marketing strategy (3rd ed.). New York:Wiley.

Webster, F. E., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972a). A general model for understanding orga-nizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36, 12–19.

Webster, F. E., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972b). Organizational buying behavior. Foundationof marketing series. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Weigand, R.E. (1968). Why studying the purchasing agent is not enough. Jour-nal of Marketing, 32, 41–45.

Wilson, D. T., & Lichtenthal, J. D. (1985, May). Testing for deterministic sales-person attributes in mature markets. Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement, 23–30.

Wolter, J. F., Bacon, F. R., Duhan, D. F., & Wilson, R. D. (1989). How designersand buyers evaluate products. Industrial Marketing Management, 18, 81–89.

Zaltman, G. (1997). Rethinking market research: putting people back in. Jour-nal of Marketing Research, 34, 424–438.

The authors appreciate the partial funding for this project provided by the Insti-tute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) at the Pennsylvania State Uni-versity.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: J. David Lichtenthal,Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York, OneBernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010.


251

Documents

Product attributes for business markets: Implications for selling and sales management