Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs

Russell Lacey Robert M. Morgan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Russell Lacey Robert M. Morgan, (2008),"Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs", Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 24 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 13
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620910923658
Downloaded on: 01 February 2017, At: 04:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5163 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Effects of customer equity drivers on customer loyalty in B2B context", Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 28 Iss 4 pp. 335-346 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621311313929
(2006),"Customer advocacy and brand development", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 121-129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420610658956

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:551360 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B
loyalty programs
Russell Lacey
Department of Marketing and Logistics, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, and
Robert M. Morgan
Department of Management and Marketing, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this article is to explore linkages between committed customers and their willingness to serve as advocates and investigate
the moderating influence of B2B loyalty programs toward supporting customer advocacy behaviors.
Design/methodology/approach A model was developed to assess linkages between customer commitment and an assortment of customer
advocacy behaviors, including sharing information, marketing research support, word-of-mouth referrals, and increasing repatronage. The model was
tested on 248 agricultural business clients of a chemical manufacturer using confirmatory factor analysis. Multi-group analysis was conducted to assess
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

hypothesized B2B loyalty program membership effects.

Findings The findings suggest that customers with stronger levels of commitment are indeed more willing to contribute as customer advocates.
Surprisingly, B2B loyalty program membership shows no significant moderating effects on the tested model.
Research limitations/implications The tested model provides an expanded view of customer advocacy. Researchers are advised to regard this
work as a starting-point for expanded hypotheses development of future customer advocacy models.
Practical implications The study considers the potential for how business customers can be further engaged to serve as advocates and thereby help
improve the firms marketing performance. However, when loyalty program membership is firm-determined, marketers should not expect that the
program will enhance customer advocacy behaviors toward the sponsoring firm.
Originality/value Since much of the previous work on customer advocacy has been based on anecdotal evidence, the study advances the
relationship marketing literature by providing empirical evidence for the multi-dimensional view of customer advocacy behaviors and further argues
that customer lifetime value (CLV) encapsulates customer advocacy.

Keywords Relationship marketing, Customer retention, Loyalty schemes

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
An emerging view in the field of marketing is that customers
should be considered as the firms most valuable asset
(Blattberg and Deighton, 1996; Bolton et al., 2004; Peppers
and Rogers, 2004). This view extends contemporary
customer relationship management (CRM) literature by
arguing that firms can increase customer lifetime value
(CLV) by building and maintaining relationships with its
customers. Given that CLV represents the net present value of
the expected stream of future profits from a customer
(Peppers and Rogers, 2004), it encompasses all customer
behaviors and activities that affect firm profitability from each
customer. Yet CLV models remain operationalized by
purchase behaviors (e.g., Blattberg et al., 2001; Kamakura
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
et al., 2002; Rust et al., 2000). Hence, as a first step toward
expanding the determination of CLV, this study will examine
business customers willingness to contribute as marketing
advocates.
An increasingly common CRM initiative used by business
marketers to secure cooperative behaviors is the employment
of business-to-business (B2B) loyalty programs (Capizzi,
2002). Loyalty programs are coordinated, membership-based
marketing activities designed to enhance closer, more
cooperative relationships among pre-identified customers
toward specific products and services offered by the program
sponsor (Lacey and Sneath, 2006). While loyalty programs
are most commonly used in consumer markets, they are also
utilized across a spectrum of business markets, including
financial services (e.g. American Express, MasterCard,
Chase, CitiBank, Wells Fargo), airlines (British Airways,
American, United, Continental), telecommunications
(BellSouth, Sprint, MCI, Verizon), car rental companies
(Hertz, Avis, Alamo, National), and retailers (Office Depot,
Staples, OfficeMax). Through targeted communications and
customized delivery of goods and services, B2B loyalty
programs attempt to build stronger bonds with the

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

24/1 (2009) 313 Received: March 2007
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] Revised: July 2007
[DOI 10.1108/08858620910923658] Accepted: November 2007

3
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13

sponsoring firm. While loyalty programs have attracted Figure 1 Hypothesized model
widespread attention among marketing scholars in recent
years (e.g. Kivetz and Simonson, 2002; Lacey and Sneath,
2006; Lewis, 2004; Nunes and Dreze, 2006; OMalley and
Prothero, 2004), there remains a noteworthy absence of
research investigating B2B loyalty programs. In an effort to
help close this research gap, we will examine the advocacy
roles of customers in the context of B2B loyalty programs.
In short, this studys objective is twofold: first, we explore
linkages between committed marketing relationships of
customers and their willingness to serve as marketing
advocates; and second, we investigate the moderating
influence of B2B loyalty programs toward supporting
customer advocacy behaviors. The study begins by
introducing the hypothesized model using relationship
marketing theory to examine linkages to various aspects of
customer advocacy behaviors. As part of this discussion, B2B
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

loyalty program membership is anticipated to strengthen the

linkages of the hypothesized model. We then describe how the
model was tested on 248 agricultural buyers of products sold
by a chemical manufacturer using confirmatory factor
analysis. After the major findings are discussed, we conclude
our work by offering managerial implications and recognizing
the major limitations of this study.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
CRM is an enduring process that involves the advancement
and influence of customer advocacy for building and
sustaining a profit-maximizing portfolio of customer
relationships (Zablah et al., 2004, p. 480). Clearly,
sustaining customer relationships require more than ongoing
marketing exchanges. Customer advocates are vital sources
for future revenue streams and market intelligence as they
offer insight about their needs and provide the opportunity for
firms to tailor products, pricing, distribution channels, and
marketing communications. Customer advocacy reflects
combinations of marketing resources that contribute to a
more efficient and effective marketing enterprise, including
voluntarily sharing customer-specific information, engaging in
firm-sponsored marketing research activities, word-of-mouth
referrals, and increasing levels and proportions of current
purchasing activities. Due to the multi-dimensional nature of
customer advocacy, a conceptual model is developed to
simultaneously assess linkages between committed business
relationships and this assortment of marketing support
behaviors and activities. This section briefly discusses the
hypothesized relationships between the constructs of our
model as depicted in Figure 1, including the anticipated
moderating influence of B2B loyalty programs.
Commitment and trust
Our focus on trust and commitment as the key relational
constructs of the hypothesized model supports the most
important aspects of relationship marketing theory the
creation, development, and maintenance of long-standing
relationships between a firm and its customers (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Commitment can be defined as an implicit or
explicit pledge of relational continuity between buyers and
sellers (Dwyer et al., 1987). Willingness to remain committed
assumes that the relationship will produce continued value or
benefits to both parties (Hardwick and Ford, 1986). Trust is a
customers belief that a firm is reliable, stands by its word,
fulfills its promised obligations, and is sincere (Anderson and
Narus, 1990). In a resource-sharing context, trust reduces
customer vulnerability because they know they can rely on the
firms personnel and its products and services (Spekman and
Carraway, 2006). Consistent with other relationship
marketing researchers (e.g. Morgan and Hunt, 1994;
Tellefsen and Thomas, 2005), trust is modeled as a
precursor to commitment. As part of this model, B2B
loyalty program membership is anticipated to positively
moderate this relationship because committed customers
receive greater assurances that they stand to benefit by their
loyalty program participation (Lacey et al., 2007).
H1a. Customers trust in the firm is positively related to
their commitment to the firm.
H1b. Loyalty program membership positively moderates the
effect between trust in the firm and commitment to the
firm.
Customer advocacy behaviors
Information sharing
Information sharing is conceptualized in this study as the
willingness of business customers to voluntarily provide
focused organization-specific intelligence that can be used to
help build and maintain customer relationships. Migrating
from aggregated marketing information systems to focused,
individual customer relationships can be used to position the
firm toward realizing strategic advantage (Campbell, 2003).
As an organizational input, focused customer intelligence can
help support the development of customized products and
services (Spekman and Carraway, 2006). Customer-specific
intelligence also facilitates personalized communications.
Customers are predicted to be willing to share organization-
specific information when they are already committed to the
requesting firm. Those customers displaying stronger levels of
commitment have greater confidence that the requesting firm

4
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
will exercise good judgment in how to appropriately store and
access the customers information in support of its business
activities (Ryssel et al., 2004). Furthermore, a key benefit of
B2B loyalty programs resides in the data mining and
knowledge base that firms can use to develop statistical
models to develop new offerings and support customer
service, contributing to reduced customer defection and
increased CLV (Wansink, 2003). Hence, loyalty program
membership is anticipated to moderate the relationship
between commitment and information sharing behaviors.
H2a. Customers commitment is positively related to
information sharing.
H2b. Loyalty program membership positively moderates the
effect between commitment and information sharing.
Marketing research support
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
Marketing research support is used in the present study as a
collective term to describe various firm-requested customer
input activities, such as making suggestions for improving
products, services and processes, providing feedback about
new products, as well as sharing insight about unfulfilled
needs. Customers readiness to share their views of such
issues depends on the degree to which a business relationship
with the requesting firm already exists (Sheehan and Hoy,
2000). As business relationships strengthen, they expand
beyond repatronage to active marketing support activities
(e.g. Bailetti and Litva, 1995; Bettencourt, 1997). Since
customer input is fundamental to the marketing concept,
active customer participation is necessary for collaborative
marketing relationships (Cooper, 1998) and B2B loyalty
programs are a key facilitator to solicit customer participation
(Capizzi, 2002). Customer loyalty programs have been shown
to raise the level of voluntary customer feedback via marketing
research requests (Lacey et al., 2007). Thus, committed
customers are anticipated to willingly provide marketing
research support and loyalty program membership is posited
to positively influence this linkage.
H3a. Customers commitment is positively related to
marketing research support.
H3b. Loyalty program membership positively moderates the
effect between commitment and marketing research
support.
Word-of-mouth referrals
Reichheld (2006) argues that the ultimate test of strong
customer relationships is their willingness to recommend the
firm. Word-of-mouth referrals represent the favorable
personal recommendations from one individual to other
individual regarding a firm and its products and services.
Word-of-mouth is well understood as a credible source of
communications and plays an instrumental role in new
customer acquisitions (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Despite
its long history in the marketing literature (e.g. Day, 1971;
Katz and Lazarfeld, 1955), interest in word-of-mouth
communications has been revitalized in marketing practice,
being chiefly fueled by the internets frequently powerful role
as a source and outlet for electronic word-of-mouth (Gruen
et al., 2006, p. 449). Committed customers promote the
supplying firm through word-of-mouth referrals (Gronroos,
5
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
2004), and loyalty program membership is anticipated to
positively moderate this relationship.
H4a. Customers commitment is positively related to word-
of-mouth referrals.
H4b. Loyalty program membership positively moderates the
effect between commitment and word-of-mouth
referrals.
Increased repatronage intentions
In the marketing literature, there is wide agreement on the
crucial role of repatronage as the key behavioral outcome for
relationship marketing success (Crosby and Stephens, 1987;
Reichheld, 1996). Proportion of purchases devoted to a single
entity is well entrenched in the marketing literature as a
manifestation of committed customer behavior (Day, 1990).
Thus, in assessing customer advocacy, it is also revealing to
consider customer intentions for increasing the level of
demand for a firms products. In the hypothesized model,
committed customers are not just expected to maintain the
business relationship, but to increase both the level and
proportion of their purchasing activities over time (Gronroos,
2004). Further, we anticipate that loyalty program
membership will positively moderate this effect since these
programs typically offer stronger value propositions to its
members in return for higher purchasing levels (Bolton et al.,
2000).
H5a. Customers commitment is positively related to
increased repatronage intentions.
H5b. Loyalty program membership positively moderates the
effect between commitment and increased repatronage
intentions.
Research method
Sample and data collection
We set out to secure the participation of an industrial firm to
test the hypothesized model on distinct categories of
customers, including its B2B loyalty program members. The
decision to sample customers of a single enterprise helps
control for the heterogeneity of a host of concerns, such as
potential moderating influences pertaining to different
industry affects, levels of product involvement, and
heterogeneous CRM initiatives. An internationally
recognized chemical manufacturer, of which among its
many products offers agricultural products to farmers and
other industrial buyers, agreed to participate in this study.
In an effort to control against disproportionate
representation of loyalty program members who may have
recently enjoyed tangible rewards, a stratified sample of 4,500
customers equally comprised three categories:
1 customers who had been enrolled in the chemical
manufacturers B2B loyalty program and received
program rewards within the 12-month period from the
time of the sample;
2 customers who were enrolled in the program for a
minimum of 12 months and had no recent reward
redemption history; and
3 customers who were not enrolled in the chemical
manufacturers loyalty program.
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
Simple random sampling was conducted on each category.
Note that in this particular B2B loyalty program, customers
were automatically enrolled in the program through their
purchase of certain agricultural chemicals.
All mail surveys contained a questionnaire along with a
postage-paid business reply envelope and a letter of
introduction requesting the individual buyers participation.
Out of the 4,500 questionnaires mailed, 134 were returned
non-deliverable, resulting in an adjusted sample size of
4,366. A total of 147 usable questionnaires were returned
from the initial mailing, for a response rate of 3.4 per cent.
Approximately four weeks after the first mailing, a second
mailing went out along with a follow-up letter and another
copy of the questionnaire, again asking for the individual
buyers participation. From the second wave, another 101
usable questionnaires were returned, for a total of 248
returned surveys, yielding a response rate of 5.7 per cent.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
The following is the number of respondents by customer
category:
.
113 loyalty program members who had recently reaped
program rewards;
.
73 program members who had no recent redemption
history; and
.
62 customers who were not enrolled in the chemical
manufacturers loyalty program.
Farmers operating in 38 states were represented in the
sample. In terms of customer revenues for the previous 12
months, the mean was $5,063, ranging from $7,777 for
Category 1 customers, $3,378 for Category 2 customers, and
$2,091 for Category 3 customers.
In an effort to investigate the presence of nonresponse bias
resulting from the low response rates, a nonresponse bias test
was performed by comparing the responses of early
respondents to those of late respondents (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977). The results indicated no significant
differences ( p . 0.05), failing to show evidence for this
concern.
Measures
All of the construct scales were measured using self-report
measures of respondents perceptions. The four items used to
measure commitment and trust respectively, were taken from
Morgan and Hunt (1994). Five scale items used to measure
marketing research support were adapted from Morgan and
Hunts cooperate scale. Four word-of-mouth referral scale
items were adapted from a measure developed by Gremler
and Gwinner (2000). A scale containing four items was
created in order to measure how willing a customer would be
to share information with the firm by presenting various
scenarios. Lastly, a two-item scale was developed to measure
increased repatronage intentions. Appendix 1 contains the
construct scale items. Appendix 2 (Table AI) shows the
correlations, means, and standard deviations of the
constructs.
Measurement model analysis and results
The model was tested using the two-step procedure advocated
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Results from the
measurement model exhibit acceptable levels of fit with
x2(232) 557.06, Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.97,
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.98, Incremental Fit Index
6
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
(IFI) 0.98, Relative Fit Index (RFI) 0.96, and Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.08.
Although the overall model fit as indicated by the chi-square
statistic ( p =0.00) is unsatisfactory, each of the remaining
absolute and incremental fit measures yields acceptable levels
of fit (Hair et al., 2006). Standardized lambda loadings, t-
values, composite reliabilities, squared multiple correlations
(SMC), and average variance extracted (AVE) are displayed
in Table I. All lambda loadings are significant, providing
evidence of convergent validity. Discriminant validity is
assessed by comparing the variance extracted for each
construct to the square of each off-diagonal value within the
w matrix for that construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In
addition, Bagozzi and Yi (1991) suggest strong evidence of
convergent validity results when the factor loading on an item
of interest is significant. Strong evidence is achieved when the
squared factor loading is greater than 0.50. The SMC values
for the measures in the model range from 0.63 to 0.88.
Evidence of discriminant validity is observed by the AVE
values ranging from 0.75 to 0.81, with each measure
substantially greater than the 0.50 threshold suggested by
Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Finally, composite reliabilities for all
the measures are high, ranging from 0.85 to 0.95, and well
above the 0.70 minimum threshold of acceptability (Nunnally
and Bernstein, 1994).
Structural model analysis and results
The hypothesized relationships in the model are tested
simultaneously using structural equation modeling. In
particular, the structural model described in Figure 1 was
estimated using LISREL 8.8. The overall fit statistics
suggest acceptable levels of fit between the hypothesized
model and the observed data. The structural model
demonstrate acceptable levels of fit with x 2(224) 634.75,
NFI 0.97, CFI 0.98, IFI 0.98, RFI 0.97, and
RMSEA 0.08. As was the case with the measurement
model results, although the chi-square value is significant,
collectively the remaining fit indices provide support for the
quality of the structural model. Given the satisfactory fit of
the model, the standardized coefficients for the structural
relationships were then examined. All five paths of the
hypothesized model are highly significant ( p , 0.001). As
posited in H1a, trust is shown to have a significantly
positive effect on commitment (l 0.87, t 19.32). In
support of H2a-H5a, commitment significantly influences
information sharing (l 0.59, t 9.57), marketing research
support (l 0.60, t 10.13), word-of-mouth referrals
(l 0.90, t 19.77), and increased repatronage intentions
(l 0.62, t 8.10).
For comparison purposes we also examined a rival
structural model, in which a non-mediated model is
identified as a theoretically plausible alternative (Morgan
and Hunt, 1994). For the rival model, while the overall fit
indices are closely identical, the parsimony fit indices suggest
that the hypothesized model is stronger than the rival model.
The Parsimony Goodness of Fit Index (PGFI) produced a
value of 0.64 for the nonmediated model, compared to a
PGFI of 0.66 for the mediated model. The competing
models Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI) of 0.84 versus
0.86 for the hypothesized model. The lower PGFI and PNFI
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13

Table I Measurement model results

Standardized loadinga t-Value SMC AVE

Trust TRU1 0.91 24.80 0.82 0.813

a 5 0.946 TRU2 0.92 25.64 0.84
TRU3 0.85 20.52 0.72
TRU4 0.93 0.81
Commitment CMT1 0.88 20.94 0.77 0.805
a 5 0.943 CMT2 0.93 24.14 0.86
CMT3 0.88 20.75 0.77
CMT4 0.90 0.82
Information sharing INF1 0.86 18.79 0.73 0.752
a 5 0.924 INF2 0.87 19.24 0.75
INF3 0.85 18.29 0.71
INF4 0.90 0.80
Marketing research support MRS1 0.90 21.79 0.81 0.793
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

a 5 0.95 MRS2 0.89 21.08 0.78

MRS3 0.88 20.67 0.77
MRS4 0.89 21.34 0.79
MRS5 0.90 0.81
Word-of-mouth referrals WOM1 0.92 24.37 0.85 0.803
a 5 0.942 WOM2 0.94 24.79 0.88
WOM3 0.81 17.73 0.65
WOM4 0.91 0.83
Increased repatronage intent REP1 0.93 11.94 0.87 0.749
a 5 0.855 REP2 0.79 0.63
Note: a Reference variables were set using the last item for each component of the model

values of the rival model indicate a preference for the Table II Estimated standardized coefficients and chi-square difference
hypothesized model (Hair et al., 2006). tests
In order to investigate the five moderating hypotheses,
Dx2 Dx2 Dx2
multi-group analysis within LISREL 8.8 was conducted to Coefficient (1) vs. (2) vs. (1) vs.
assess B2B loyalty program membership effects on the Dependent constructs Estimates (2) (3) (3)
structural model. The multi-group analysis is used to
facilitate a simultaneous examination between the three Commitment 0.87 0.04 0.02 0.06
customer categories. The measures are presumed to be Information sharing 0.59 0.15 0.98 0.33
invariant in the sense that the hypothesized model is Marketing research support 0.60 4.87* 0.75 3.00
Word-of-mouth referrals 0.90 0.03 3.75 0.09
anticipated to behave the same way across customer
Increased repatronage intent 0.62 2.69 0.48 1.72
groups. The multi-group analysis test was conducted using
a two-step approach prescribed by Joreskog and Sorbom Note: p , 0.05
(2004). First, the appropriate structural parameters are
constrained to be equal across groups, thereby generating an
estimated covariance matrix for each group and an overall The chi-square difference test yielded non-significant results
chi-square value for the sets of sub-models as part of a single between the three customer categories assessing the moderating
influence of loyalty program membership. More specifically, no
structural system. Next, parameter equality constraints are
evidence for a moderating effect is found for the path from trust
removed to allow paths to be freely and independently
to commitment or on the respective paths of commitment to
estimated, producing a second chi-square value with less
information sharing, marketing research support, word-of-
degrees of freedom. Assessing whether statistical differences mouth referrals, and increased purchase intentions. Indeed, the
exist between the two chi-square values tests hypothesized only significant difference in chi-square is found between
moderator effects. For the customer categories, the change in customer categories 1 and 2, showing a moderation effect
chi-square is significant, rejecting the null hypothesis that between commitment and marketing research support at the
structural parameters are identical across groups (parameter p , 0.05 level. Given the previous descriptions of these two
invariance). After rejecting the parameter invariance test, a categories of loyalty program members, we note that no
series of tests are then investigated to determine what is evidence is found showing significant moderating effects
responsible for unequal covariance structures. The results are between members (i.e. categories 1 and 2) and non-members
displayed in Table II. (i.e. Customer Category 3).

7
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
Discussion and managerial implications
In a business-to-business marketing environment, we find
strong evidence for the linkages between committed
customers and their willingness to function as voluntary
marketing advocates, thereby accomplishing the first major
research objective of this study. As noted at the onset, much
of the previous work on customer advocacy has been based on
anecdotal evidence, rather than systematic research. Based on
the findings and analyses provided in this study, customer
advocacy is a multi-dimensional concept and its collective
contributions extend beyond projected future repatronage
behaviors.
Before exploring the tested customer advocacy components
and their managerial implications, our study examines the
evidence in support of the hypothesized relationship of trust
to commitment (H1a). Though this linkage is well established
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
in the literature (e.g., Kumar et al., 1995; Tellefsen and
Thomas, 2005), it is included since the studys foundation is
based on the commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. The importance of commitment as a mediator to
various customer advocacy behaviors is further demonstrated
by producing higher parsimony fit indices than a rival
structural model that identifies both trust and commitment as
independent antecedents to customer advocacy behaviors.
These results provide additional evidence of the critical
mediating role of commitment to relationship marketing
theory.
Yet the crux of this study is to shed light into the capability
and extent to which firms may engage their customers to
perform distinct customer advocacy behaviors, beginning with
the empirically support found for the linkage between
commitment and discretionary information sharing (H2a).
Although sharing information represents just one aspect of
customer advocacy captured in this study, it carries potentially
important ramifications in an era of accelerated CRM-related
demands for enterprise-specific customer information. With
the widespread practice of CRM among business marketers,
there are trepidations about the collection and misuse of
customer profile information (Rich, 2002). While business
customers can be expected to fully cooperate with the selling
firms request for information needed to complete the
marketing transaction, they are becoming increasingly
concerned with misuse of information when it is used for
purposes beyond the marketing exchange itself (Zabin and
Brebach, 2004). Moreover, the transformation of customer
information systems from basic data depositories into
customer-driven marketing information is a basis for long-
term competitiveness. It not only involves having the
technological infrastructure necessary to store and access
data, but also requires that the firm be capable of securing
focused customer-specific information. While many business
marketers are readily able to accumulate knowledge about
specific customers without first securing explicit permission
from these customers, not only would voluntary cooperation
likely improve the quality of the information but it would also
help alleviate rising ethical concerns regarding how
individualized customer information is secured (Culnan and
Armstrong, 1999; Rich, 2000).
Owing to the importance of both customer retention and
new customer attraction to a firms sustainability, we also
8
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
assessed the influence of customer commitment on key
customer advocacy behaviors that help support new customer
attraction, namely marketing research support and word-of-
mouth referrals. We found empirical support for the
hypothesized relationship between commitment and
marketing research support (H3a). Marketing managers
have long appreciated the value of customer-focused
marketing research support to gain greater understanding of
customer needs, expectations, and product performance
perceptions. Marketing research support (e.g. new product
testing, advertising post-testing, and evaluation of service
quality) can be utilized to reduce business risks as well as
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the firms
marketing performance. The results also demonstrated that
committed customers are more likely to engage in positive
word-of-mouth referrals (H4a). While the benefits of positive
word-of-mouth is well entrenched in the marketing literature,
its inclusion in this study remains quite relevant, especially
given the dramatic influence of Web-enabled word-of-
mouth (e.g. e-mails, blogging, and social networking) on a
firms marketing performance.
According to the tested model, committed business
customers are not just expected to maintain purchasing
activities, but rather in support of H5a, are shown to
anticipate increasing both the level and proportion of its
purchasing activities over time. Marketing managers are
advised to supplement conventional metrics that calculate a
business customers total purchases and use estimated
product category purchases as the dominator to determine
share-of-customer, with a second measure of business
customers intentions to increase portion of product
category purchases from the selling firm over a defined time
period into the future. This expanded view of customer
retention measurement would allow managers to take into
account not only current share-of-customer at an individual
business customer level but projected probability to increase
current share levels.
Based on the above findings, we advise that customer
advocacy should be factored into the valuation of CLV
formulas used by marketing managers in order to more
robustly capture the customers value to a firm. In the
burgeoning field of customer equity research, we are aware of
no CLV model that includes valuation of customers as
marketing advocates. Marketing managers need to more fully
account for the value of customer advocacy as the sum total of
earnings from expanding customer revenues and reducing
expenses for future transactions resulting from shared
information, participation in firm-sponsored marketing
activities, word-of-mouth referrals, along with other forms
of customer advocacy behaviors not investigated in this study.
While substantial research is still needed in order to capture
this component of customer value, we hope that our work will
serve as an important first step toward achieving more robust
CLV models.
The second major research objective of this study is to
investigate the moderating influence of B2B loyalty programs
toward supporting customer advocacy behaviors. Contrary to
the B2B loyalty program predictions (H1b-H5b) set forth in
this study, loyalty program membership does not show
significant moderating effects on the hypothesized model.
First, we found no evidence for the H1b moderating effect on
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
the relationship between trust and commitment. Second, no
evidence is found in support of H2b for how membership in
loyalty programs increases customers willingness to share
information. Despite this finding, firms can still benefit from
employing loyalty programs in order to help mitigate invasion
of privacy concerns regarding how firms go about the
culmination and utilization of organization-specific
information (Caudill and Murphy, 2000). Third, no
evidence is found for the H3b moderating effect for how
membership in loyalty programs positively influences the
relationship between customer commitment and marketing
research support. Though the results indicate greater
prevalence among loyalty program members who recently
received program rewards to cooperate in marketing research
support requests compared to members who had not received
program rewards, no evidence is found for the moderating
effect between members and non-members. Fourth, no
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
evidence for H4b is found to demonstrate that loyalty program
membership positively impacts the relationship between
committed customers and their willingness to engage in
word-of-mouth referrals. Fifth, no evidence is found in
support of H5b that loyalty program membership positively
magnifies the influence of the relationship between
commitment and increased repatronage intentions. Overall,
these five unanticipated results reveal that while loyalty
programs represent firm marketing initiatives to recognize and
reward valuable customers, the tested loyalty program fails to
produce any discernable moderating influence on customer
advocacy outcomes included in this study.
In retrospect, the lack of empirical support for the
moderating effect of B2B loyalty program membership
appears to be consistent with the viewpoint among those
researchers who argue that many loyalty programs drive
committed behaviors only toward the program itself, but not
toward the sponsoring firm (e.g. Kumar and Shah, 2004;
Nunes and Dreze, 2006). In the case of the tested B2B loyalty
program, the firm only enrolls qualified customers, so it is the
firm (not the customer) that determines loyalty program
membership. Dholakia (2006) recently reported that
customers who perceive their joining the firm as self-
determined (i.e. they believe they joined the firm through
their own initiative) engage in more relational outcomes than
do those who perceive their joining as firm-determined.
Even though customers initiated their eligibility in the loyalty
program, it was the firm (not the customer) that automatically
enrolled them in this particular B2B loyalty program. Hence,
the results of this study may be indicating the limited impact
of firm-determined relationship marketing initiatives for
enhancing customer advocacy outcomes toward the
sponsoring firm.
Despite the lack of evidence for the moderating effect of
B2B loyalty programs, the verification of the impact on
committed marketing relationships on various customer
advocacy roles suggest the potential for the firm to optimize
the leverage of its customers as advocates, if indeed there
already exists a general willingness among the firms
customers to serve in such roles. Hence, to the extent that a
critical mass of business customers are willing to share
discretionary information, support marketing research
initiatives, promote the enterprise through positive word-of-
mouth, and increase current repatronage levels, the firm
9
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
obviously stands to benefit. Conversely, a firm with less
established or relatively weak customer relationships needs to
create and build higher levels of trust and commitment before
it can anticipate widespread voluntary cooperation of its
customers to serve as marketing advocates.
Limitations and opportunities for future research
As for the studys limitations, the results are based on
confirmatory factor analysis of the tested model using cross-
sectional data. As such, no absolute conclusions related to the
actual effects of trust and commitment on customer advocacy
can be affirmed. Second, the models constructs are measured
using only self-reported measures, which may result in
common method variance. While it mirrors the approach
used in other studies investigating customer relationships
(e.g., Cho, 2006; Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), this
approach may result in overestimations of the hypothesized
model. Third, given the low response rate of the sample, we
acknowledge the likelihood of a non-response bias despite the
lack of evidence from the non-response bias test performed.
Given the models rationale that committed customers are
more willing to provide marketing research support to the
firm, it is likely that the respondents of the mailed survey were
more committed to the firm in comparison to their non-
respondent counterparts. Fourth, although the overall sample
size of 248 customers is more than adequate for estimating
the direct linkages of the tested model and the sub-sample
customer categories are typically sufficient for multi-group
comparisons (Hair et al., 2006), the customer category
comparisons are less statistically sensitive due to their
respective smaller sub-sample sizes. Fifth, this study is
confined to customers of a specific firm and thus the
findings may have limited applicability to other B2B
marketers. Replicating this study in other business
marketing settings could help establish the generalizability of
our results beyond the context tested here. Given the strong
psychometric properties observed from this studys adopted
and developed measures, these measures should be useful to
other researchers interested in replicating or extending our
work. Even so, researchers are advised to regard our
conceptualization and tested constructs as a starting point
for expanded hypotheses development of future customer
advocacy models.
By considering more than purchasing activities and word-
of-mouth referrals, the tested model provides an expanded
view of customers as advocates. The tested model captures
potential contributions of customers to share information and
participate in marketing research activities, both of which can
be instrumental in improving the efficiency and effectiveness
of marketing performance. This study clearly does not
attempt to encapsulate all potential advocacy behaviors and
outcomes of committed customers (e.g. willingness to pay
higher prices, contribution to higher employee satisfaction
and retention, etc., see Reichheld, 1996; Zeithaml et al.,
1996). Thus, another opportunity to enrich the developed
model would be to test other types of customer advocacy
outcomes.
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural
equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), A model of
distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 42-58.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), Estimating
nonresponse bias in mail surveys, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 14, August, pp. 396-402.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of
structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1991), Multitrait-multi-method
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
matrices in consumer research, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 17, March, pp. 426-39.
Bailetti, A.J. and Litva, P.F. (1995), Integrating customer
requirements into product designs, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 3-15.
Bettencourt, L.A. (1997), Customer voluntary performance:
customers as partners in service delivery, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 383-406.
Blattberg, R.C. and Deighton, J. (1996), Managing
marketing by the customer equity test, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 136-44.
Blattberg, R.C., Getz, G. and Thomas, J.S. (2001), Customer
Equity: Building and Managing Relationships as Valuable
Asset, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Bolton, R., Kannan, P. and Bramlett, M. (2000),
Implications of loyalty program membership and service
experiences for customer retention and value, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2004),
The theoretical underpinnings of customer asset
management: a framework and propositions for future
research, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 271-92.
Campbell, A.J. (2003), Creating customer knowledge
competence: managing customer relationship management
programs strategically, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 375-83.
Capizzi, M. (2002), Small business, big potential, Colloquy
White Paper.
Caudill, E.M. and Murphy, P.E. (2000), Consumer online
privacy: legal and ethical issues, Journal of Public Policy
& Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-19.
Cho, J. (2006), The mechanism of trust and distrust
formulation and their relational outcomes, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Cooper, R.G. (1998), Product Leadership: Creating and
Launching Superior New Products, HarperCollins,
New York, NY.
Crosby, L.A. and Stephens, N. (1987), Effects of
relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and
prices in the life insurance industry, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 24, November, pp. 404-11.
Culnan, M.J. and Armstrong, P.K. (1999), Information
privacy concerns, procedural fairness, and impersonal trust:
an empirical investigation, Organization Science, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 104-15.
10
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
Day, G.S. (1971), Attitude change, media, and word of
mouth, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 31-40.
Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Dholakia, U.M. (2006), How customer self-determination
influences relational marketing outcomes: evidence from
longitudinal field studies, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 109-20.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Sejo, O. (1987), Developing
buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobserved variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18, February, pp. 39-50.
Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. (1999), The different roles
of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer
relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 70-87.
Gremler, D.D. and Gwinner, K.P. (2000), Customer-
employee rapport in service relationships, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 82-104.
Gronroos, C. (2004), The relationship marketing process:
communication, dialogue, and value, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Gruen, T.W., Osmonbekov, T. and Czaplewski, A.J. (2006),
EWOM: the impact of customer-to-customer online
know-how exchange on customer value and loyalty,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 449-56.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hardwick, B. and Ford, D. (1986), Industrial buyer rescues
and responsibilities and the buyer-seller relationships,
Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 1, pp. 3-25.
Joreskog, K. and Sorbom, D. (2004), LISREL8.71: Users
Reference Guide, Scientific Software International, Inc,
Chicago, IL.
Kamakura, W.A., Mittal, V., de Rosa, F. and Mazzon, J.A.
(2002), Assessing the service profit chain, Marketing
Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 294-317.
Katz, E. and Lazarfeld, P.F. (1955), Personal Influence, Free
Press, Glencoe, IL.
Kivetz, R. and Simonson, I. (2002), Earning the right to
indulge: effort as a determinant of customer preferences
toward frequency program rewards, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 39, May, pp. 155-70.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K. and Steenkamp, J.B. (1995),
The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer
attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, August,
pp. 348-56.
Kumar, V. and Shah, D. (2004), Building and sustaining
profitable customer loyalty for the 21st century, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 317-30.
Lacey, R. and Sneath, J.Z. (2006), Customer loyalty
programs: are they fair to consumers?, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 464-70.
Lacey, R., Suh, J. and Morgan, R.M. (2007), Differential
effects of preferential treatment levels on relational
outcomes, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 241-56.
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
Lewis, M. (2004), The influence of loyalty programs and
short-term promotions on customer retention, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 41, August, pp. 281-92.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Nunes, J.C. and Dreze, X. (2006), Your loyalty program is
betraying you, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84 No. 4,
pp. 124-31.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric
Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
OMalley, L. and Prothero, A. (2004), Beyond the frills of
relationship marketing, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57
No. 11, pp. 1286-94.
Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (2004), Managing Customer
Relationship. A Strategic Framework, Wiley, Hoboken.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect, Harvard Business
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
School Press, Boston, MA.
Reichheld, F.F. (2006), The Ultimate Question, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1990), Zero defections:
quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68
No. 5, pp. 105-11.
Rich, M.K. (2000), The direction of marketing
relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 15 Nos 2/3, pp. 170-9.
Rich, M.K. (2002), Are we losing trust through
technology?, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 17 Nos 2/3, pp. 215-22.
Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A. and Lemon, K.N. (2000), Driving
Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value Is Reshaping
Corporate Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Ryssel, R., Ritter, T. and Gemunden, H.G. (2004),
The impact of information technology deployment on
trust, commitment and value creation in business
relationships, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 197-207.
Sheehan, K.B. and Hoy, M.G. (2000), Dimensions of
privacy concern among online consumers, Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 62-73.
Spekman, R.E. and Carraway, R. (2006), Making the
transition to collaborative buyerseller relationships:
an emerging framework, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 10-19.
Tellefsen, T. and Thomas, G.P. (2005), The antecedents and
consequences of organizational and personal commitment
in business service relationships, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 23-37.
Wansink, B. (2003), Developing a cost-effective brand
loyalty program, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43
No. 3, pp. 301-9.
Zabin, J. and Brebach, G. (2004), Precision Marketing:
The New Rules for Attracting, Retaining, and Leveraging
Profitable Customers, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Zablah, A.R., Bellenger, D.N. and Johnston, W.J. (2004),
An evaluation of divergent perspectives on customer
relationship management: towards a common
understanding of an emerging phenomenon, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 475-89.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),
The behavioral consequences of service quality, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
11
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
Appendix 1. Construct scale items
Trust. Given my experience, ______: (1 strongly disagree/
7 strongly agree)
1 . . . is very honest and truthful.
2 . . . has high integrity.
3 . . . can be trusted completely.
4 . . . can be counted on to do what is right.
Commitment. My relationship with ______: (1 strongly
disagree/7 strongly agree)
1 . . . is one that I am very committed to
2 . . . is very important to me.
3 . . . is one that I really care about.
4 . . . is worth my effort to maintain.
Information sharing. How willing would you be to cooperate
with the following scenarios? _____ tells you . . . (1 not at all
willing to cooperate/7 very willing to cooperate)
1 To provide your name, title, organization, and address so
that you can be notified about new product updates.
2 To fill out a form about your preferences so they can
better serve their customers.
3 That in order to provide more personalized marketing
information to you, the company asks your permission to
track your purchases.
4 To provide your name and answer some questions about
your product preferences, so that your future interactions
with this company can be more personalized.
Marketing research support. How would you characterize your
willingness to cooperate with _____ regarding the following
activities? (1 not at all willing to cooperate/7 very willing
to cooperate)
1 Provide feedback about this companys new product
offerings.
2 Share my feelings about unmet needs.
3 Participate in new product development testing.
4 Provide feedback about this companys advertising.
5 Discuss my views about this companys quality of service.
Word-of-mouth referrals. Please indicate your level of agreement
or disagreement with the following statements concerning
your relationship with _____: (1 strongly disagree/
7 strongly agree)
1 I am willing to encourage individuals to do business with
this company.
2 I am willing to recommend this company whenever
anyone seeks my advice.
3 When the topic of [product category] comes up in
conversation, I am willing to go out of my way to
recommend this company.
4 I am willing to recommend this company to my peers.
Increased repatronage intentions. In the next 12 months, how
likely are you to . . . (1 very unlikely/7 very likely)
1 Make a larger share of your [product category] purchases
from ____, rather than from other [product category
providers]?
2 Do business with _____ more often?
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
Appendix 2
Table AI Correlations, means, and standard deviations of constructs
Constructs Mean s.d.
(1) Trust 4.722 1.549
(2) Commitment 4.357 1.456
(3) Information sharing 4.371 1.683
(4) Marketing research support 4.735 1.512
(5) Word-of-mouth referrals 4.106 1.420
(6) Increased repatronage intent 3.665 1.319
Corresponding author
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
Russell Lacey can be contacted at: rlacey@uno.edu
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
Customer advocacy not just repeat business, word-of-
mouth testimonials and referrals but a comprehensive
willingness on the customers part to help the business grow
is a prize worth nurturing.
Not least at a time when there are invasion-of-privacy
concerns about the information organizations gather and keep
about customers and potential customers. How much better
for firms to have help in compiling this information from
willing participants from customers whose experience with
the company has left them committed, trusting and loyal, and
voluntarily inclined to help spread the good word.
Customer lifetime value (CLV) represents the net present
value of the expected stream of future profits from a customer
and encompasses all customer behaviors and activities that
affect firm profitability from each customer. Yet CLV models
remain operationalized by purchase behaviors. As a step
towards expanding the determination of CLV, Russell Lacey
and Robert M. Morgan examined business customers
(agricultural clients of a chemical manufacturer) willingness
to contribute as marketing advocates.
As anticipated, trust is shown to have a significantly positive
effect on commitment and commitment significantly
influences information sharing, marketing research support,
word-of-mouth referrals, and increased repatronage
intentions.
To the extent that a critical mass of business customers are
willing to share discretionary information, support marketing
research initiatives, promote the enterprise through positive
word-of-mouth, and increase current repatronage levels, the
firm obviously stands to benefit. Conversely, a firm with less
established or relatively weak customer relationships needs to
create and build higher levels of trust and commitment before
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1.00
0.629 1.00
0.283 0.359 1.00
0.324 0.344 0.510 1.00
0.571 0.674 0.388 0.367 1.00
0.273 0.376 0.372 0.304 0.441 1.00
it can anticipate widespread voluntary cooperation of its
customers to serve as marketing advocates.
The second objective of the study to investigate the
moderating influence of B2B loyalty programs toward
supporting customer advocacy behaviors revealed
unanticipated results. While loyalty programs represent firm
marketing initiatives to recognize and reward valuable
customers, the tested loyalty program failed to produce any
discernable moderating influence on customer advocacy
outcomes included in the study. Despite this finding, firms
can still benefit from employing loyalty programs to help
mitigate invasion-of-privacy concerns.
In a business-to-business marketing environment, strong
evidence was found for the linkages between committed
customers and their willingness to function as voluntary
marketing advocates. Customer advocacy is a multi-
dimensional concept and its collective contributions extend
beyond projected future repatronage behaviors
The transformation of customer information systems from
basic data depositories into customer-driven marketing
information is a basis for long-term competitiveness. It not
only involves having the technological infrastructure necessary
to store and access data, but also requires that the firm is
capable of securing focused customer-specific information.
While many business marketers are readily able to accumulate
knowledge about specific customers without first securing
explicit permission from them, not only would voluntary
cooperation likely improve the quality of the information but
it would also help alleviate rising ethical concerns.
Marketing managers have long appreciated the value of
customer-focused marketing research support to gain greater
understanding of customer needs, expectations, and product
performance perceptions. Marketing research support (e.g.
new product testing, advertising post-testing, and evaluation
of service quality) can be utilized to reduce business risks as
well as improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the firms
marketing performance.
The results also demonstrated that committed customers
are more likely to engage in positive word-of-mouth referrals.
While the benefits of positive word-of-mouth is well
entrenched in the marketing literature, its inclusion in this
study remains quite relevant, especially given the dramatic
influence of Web-enabled word-of-mouth (e.g. e-mails,
blogging, and social networking) on a firms marketing
performance.
12
 Customer advocacy and the impact of B2B loyalty programs
Russell Lacey and Robert M. Morgan
According to the tested model, committed business
customers are not just expected to maintain purchasing
activities, but are shown to anticipate increasing both the level
and proportion of purchasing activities over time. Marketing
managers are advised to supplement conventional metrics that
calculate a business customers total purchases and use
estimated product category purchases as the dominator to
determine share-of-customer, with a second measure of
business customers intentions to increase portion of product
category purchases from the selling firm over a defined time
period into the future.
This expanded view of customer retention measurement
would allow managers to take into account not only current
share-of-customer at an individual business customer level
but projected probability to increase current share levels.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
13
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 24 Number 1 2009 3 13
The authors advise that customer advocacy should be
factored into the valuation of CLV formulas used by
marketing managers in order to more robustly capture the
customers value to a firm. Marketing managers need to more
fully account for the value of customer advocacy as the sum
total of earnings from expanding customer revenues and
reducing expenses for future transactions resulting from
shared information, participation in firm-sponsored
marketing activities, word-of-mouth referrals, along with
other forms of customer advocacy behaviors not investigated
in this study.
(A precis of the article Customer advocacy and the impact of
B2B loyalty programs. Supplied by Marketing Consultants
for Emerald.)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Dianne Staal Wsterlund, Thomas Kronholm. 2016. Family Forest Owners Commitment to Service Providers and the Effect of
Association Membership on Loyalty. Small-scale Forestry . [CrossRef]
2. Paul W. Fombelle, Sterling A. Bone, Katherine N. Lemon. 2016. Responding to the 98%: face-enhancing strategies for dealing
with rejected customer ideas. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44:6, 685-706. [CrossRef]
3. Matti Leppniemi, Heikki Karjaluoto, Hannu Saarijrvi. 2016. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of
willingness to share information. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 1-25. [CrossRef]
4. Jui-Chang Cheng, Cheng-Shiung Wu, Chang-Hua Yen, Chien-Yu Chen. 2016. Tour Leader Attachment and Customer
Citizenship Behaviors in Group Package Tour: The Role of Customer Commitment. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
21:6, 642-657. [CrossRef]
5. Zeeshan Ahmad, Meng Jun, Imran Khan, Muhammad Abdullah, Tauqir Ahmad Ghauri. 2016. Examining Mediating Role of
Customer Loyalty for Influence of Brand Related Attributes on Customer Repurchase Intention. Journal of Northeast Agricultural
University (English Edition) 23:2, 89-96. [CrossRef]
6. Elizabeth Levin Faculty of Business & Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Paramaporn
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

Thaichon S P Jain School of Global Management, Sydney Olympic Park, Australia Thu Nguyen Quach Faculty of Business &
Enterprise, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia . 2016. The impact of creative competence and project
management on longevity of the client-advertising agency relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:2, 274-286.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Cassandra France, Bill Merrilees, Dale Miller. 2016. An integrated model of customer-brand engagement: Drivers and
consequences. Journal of Brand Management 23:2, 119-136. [CrossRef]
8. Shujaat Mubarik Department of Economics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia VGR Chandran Department of
Development Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Evelyn S Devadason Department of Economics, University
of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia . 2016. Relational capital quality and client loyalty: firm-level evidence from pharmaceuticals,
Pakistan. The Learning Organization 23:1, 43-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. David Finch, Carola Hillenbrand, Norm OReilly, Paul Varella. 2015. Psychological contracts and independent sales contractors: an
examination of the predictors of contractor-level outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management 31:17-18, 1924-1964. [CrossRef]
10. Dr Ross Brennan and Professor Sue Halliday Cassandra France Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Southport,
Australia Bill Merrilees Department of Marketing, Griffith University, Southport, Australia Dale Miller Department of
Marketing, Griffith University, Southport, Australia . 2015. Customer brand co-creation: a conceptual model. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 33:6, 848-864. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Jan Mattsson Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark AND School of Business, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia .
2015. Initiating service encounter-based innovation by word-of-business. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 30:7, 880-888.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Yong-ki Lee School of Business, Sejong University, Seoul, Republic of Korea Sally Kim Harry F. Byrd Jr., School of Business,
Shenandoah University, Winchester, Virginia, USA Min-Seong Kim School of Hospitality Administration, J. Mack Robinson
College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA Jae-Han Lee Department of Food Service Franchise Business
Administration, Shinhan University, Uijeongbu-Shi, Republic of Korea Ki-Taek Lim School of Business, Sejong University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea . 2015. Relational bonding strategies in the franchise industry: the moderating role of duration of the
relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 30:7, 830-841. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Zhibin Lin Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK Dag Bennett Department of
Management, London South Bank University, London, UK . 2014. Examining retail customer experience and the moderation
effect of loyalty programmes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 42:10, 929-947. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
14. Pedro Pimpo PhD Researcher at the ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon,
Lisbon, Portugal Antnia Correia Professor at the European University, Laureate International Universities, CEFAGE, Lisbon,
Portugal Joo Duque Professor at the ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Lisbon, Portugal Jos Carlos
Zorrinho Professor at the University of vora, vora, Portugal . 2014. Exploring effects of hotel chain loyalty program.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:4, 375-387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Nwamaka A. Anaza Department of Marketing, Francis Marion University, Florence, South Carolina, USA Brian Rutherford
Department of Marketing and Professional Sales, Michael J. Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw,
 Georgia, USA . 2014. Increasing business-to-business buyer word-of-mouth and share-of-purchase. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 29:5, 427-437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Linjuan Rita Men. 2014. Why Leadership Matters to Internal Communication: Linking Transformational Leadership,
Symmetrical Communication, and Employee Outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research 26:3, 256-279. [CrossRef]
17. Abdullah Firdaus Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia Agnes Kanyan
Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kota Samarahan, Malaysia . 2014. Managing relationship
marketing in the food service industry. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:3, 293-310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Bodo Lang, Rob Lawson. 2013. Dissecting Word-of-Mouth's Effectiveness and How to Use It as a Proconsumer Tool. Journal
of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 25:4, 374-399. [CrossRef]
19. Thomas Brashear AlejandroOya I. TukelCleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Ashutosh DixitCleveland State
University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2013. Application of customer lifetime value model in maketoorder manufacturing. Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 28:6, 468-474. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Edward Shih-Tse Wang, Shu-Yu Chang. 2013. Creating Positive Word-of-Mouth Promotion Through Service Recovery
Strategies. Services Marketing Quarterly 34:2, 103-114. [CrossRef]
21. YiMin ChenDepartment of AsiaPacific Industrial and Business Management, National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 04:48 01 February 2017 (PT)

Taiwan YiFan SuDepartment of AsiaPacific Industrial and Business Management, National University of Kaohsiung,
Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2011. Do countryofmanufacture and countryofdesign matter to industrial brand equity?. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing 27:1, 57-68. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Christine Falkenreck, Ralf Wagner. 2011. The impact of perceived innovativeness on maintaining a buyerseller relationship in
health care markets: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Marketing Management 27:3-4, 225-242. [CrossRef]
23. S. H. Liao, Y. C. Chung, Y. R. Hung, R. WidowatiThe impacts of brand trust, customer satisfaction, and brand loyalty on
word-of-mouth 1319-1323. [CrossRef]
24. Anne Jalkala, Risto T. Salminen. 2010. Practices and functions of customer reference marketing Leveraging customer
references as marketing assets. Industrial Marketing Management 39:6, 975-985. [CrossRef]
25. Wilson Ozuem, Tara ThomasInside the Small Island Economies: 1622-1655. [CrossRef]
26. Wilson Ozuem, Tara ThomasInside the Small Island Economies 316-349. [CrossRef]