Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

Customer response to dissatisfaction: A synthesis of literature and

conceptual framework
Jodie L. Ferguson a,, Wesley J. Johnston b,1
a
Department of Marketing, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O. Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000, United States
b
Center for Business and Industrial Marketing, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 3991, Atlanta, GA 30302-3991, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Business-to-business customers who are dissatised with services or products may respond by voicing
Received 3 October 2008 complaints, by exiting the transaction relationships, by spreading negative word-of-mouth (WOM) about
Received in revised form 7 April 2010 their experiences, and/or by continuing the transactional relationships as they are. The authors synthesize
Accepted 13 April 2010
extant customer (dis)satisfaction response behaviors in the organizational buyer behavior literature, and
discuss within-rm and third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. A model of customer response
Keywords:
behavior is disclosed featuring possible inuences of exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM: number of
Customer dissatisfaction
Exit
alternative suppliers, past complaint response behavior, number of years in relationship, and type of
Response behavior purchase. Propositions are provided on the effects of inuence variables on response behavior relationships.
Word-of-mouth 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Voice

In Sheth's (1973) general model of industrial buying behavior, he
suggested that consumers' satisfaction with past buying experiences
inuences their future purchase decisions. Similarly, their dissatis-
faction with their past buying experiences should also inuence their
future purchase decisions. Unlike satisfaction, however, dissatisfac-
tion has the potential to cause negative future decisions, not simply
future purchase decisions such as declining to repurchase, but also
decisions to complain and to spread negative word-of-mouth (WOM)
that will damage the business or reputation of the offending provider
or supplier.
Suppliers have a great stake in lessening such harm by under-
standing dissatised customers' potential responses and understand-
ing what factors cause them to respond in certain ways. Companies
must be aware that dissatised customers may wreak damage
depending on the behavior they choose in responding to dissatisfac-
tion. They may simply complain about their dissatisfaction, or they
might terminate the transaction relationship, severing future reven-
ues, dissolving the company's relational investment, and costing the
company dissolution expenses, sanctions for future business, and set-
up outlays to establish new relationships (Tahtinen & Vaaland, 2006).
Negative WOM is one extreme hazard with far-reaching con-
sequences. Money, Gilly, and Graham (1998) demonstrated that
current customers responding to dissatisfactory experiences may
spread negative WOM to a supplier's existing and potential
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 804 828 3201; fax: +1 804 828 0200.
E-mail addresses: jlferguson@vcu.edu (J.L. Ferguson), mktwjj@langate.gsu.edu
(W.J. Johnston).
1
Tel.: + 995 404 413 7851.
customers. Negative WOM may cause the supplier to lose credibility
or suffer a tarnished reputation, which can mean substantial revenue
loss from multiple sources. With the proliferation of the Internet,
negative WOM on trade organization websites could blanket the
entire industry, potentially crippling the supplier. Bonoma, Zaltman
and Johnston (1977)) reported that rms rely on WOM communica-
tion within rms to make buying decisions. Negative WOM can not
only ruin the supplier's reputation for the buying center involved, but
can spread to other buying centers within the rm, causing lost
revenues for the supplier in other departments.
In this paper, the authors strive to accomplish the following
objectives: (1) to dene business customer dissatisfaction with a
purchase experience, (2) to synthesize the extant research on business
customer (dis)satisfaction and subsequent behavioral responses to
dissatisfaction, (3) to provide a conceptual framework for examining
business customer dissatisfaction response behavior, (4) to explore the
potential recipients of complaining and negative WOM in a business-to-
business context, (5) to proposition potential inuences on the business
customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship, and (6) to
suggest propensities for individual members of buying centers to
engage in response behaviors.
1. Business customer (dis)satisfaction
As the role of the business relationship and focus on the customer
has come to the foreground, the business-to-business literature has
paid increasing attention to customer satisfaction (see Emerson &
Grimm, 1999; Tikkanen & Alajoutsijarvi, 2002; Tikkanen, Alajoutsi-
jarvi, & Tahtinen, 2000). The satisfaction literature derives its concept

0019-8501/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.05.002
 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
Table 1
Summary of business-to-business research relevant to (dis)satisfaction and response behaviors.
Author(s) Variables involved
Backhaus and Bauer (2000) Presence of critical incidents,
satisfaction
Barksdale, Powell, and Hargrove Purchase price, number of
(1984) suppliers, types of purchase,
relationship with supplier
Blois (2008) Business-to-business exchanges
Emerson and Grimm (1999) Satisfaction, rm, and environmental
variables
Giller and Matear (2001) Interaction between trigger event
and existing state of the relationship
Hansen, Samuelsen, and Silseth Customer perceived value
(2008)
Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996a) Expertise, jurisdictional
disagreement, vendorbuyer
communications, dependency;
dissatisfaction
Hansen, Swan, and Powers (1996b) Effectiveness of complaint actions
Heide and Weiss (1995)* Pace of technology change,
technology heterogeneity,
experience, technological
compatibility, vendor-related
switching costs, importance of
purchase, formalization,
centralization
Hibbard, Kumar, and Stern (2001)* Destructive act intensity, supplier
attribution, self-attribution, external
attribution, relationship quality, total
dependence and relative dependence
Jones, Mothersbaugh, and Beatty Switching costs
(2002)
Liu (2006) Customer value
Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005) Customer value; customer
satisfaction and perceived
switching costs
Patterson, Johnson, and Spreng Expectations (inuenced by novelty,
(1997) importance, decision complexity)
and performance (inuenced by
stake holding and uncertainty),
disconrmation, fairness;
satisfaction
Perkins (1993) Satisfaction
Ping (1993)* Investment in relationship,
witching costs, alternative
attractiveness, satisfaction
Ping (1994)* Alternative attractiveness;
relationship satisfaction
(moderator)
Outcomes and responses behaviors
Voicing (complaining)
Exit, voice, and loyalty, and
nancial implications to
response behaviors
Loyalty
Relationship termination
Word-of-mouth and searching for
alternatives
Do nothing, complain, warn others,
third-party action
Types of complaint actions: positive
(seeking vendor assistance) and negative
(switching, negative WOM, complaints
that harm rm reputation, wait and see)
Vendor consideration and switching
behavior
Disengagement, constructive discussion,
passive acceptance, venting; performance
(supplier's perspective) and relationship
quality
Repurchase intentions
Switching costs
Share-of-business intention
Intentions
Loyalty, voice, exiting, opportunism,
neglect
Exit
119
Key ndings
Critical incidents impact satisfaction
formation.
Conjoint analysis shows that purchasers
fall into three categories for deciding
industrial complaining behavior: some
do not use consistent rules, some use a
single rule (e.g., price), and some use price
and number of suppliers.
Hirschman's (1970) model of customer
response behavior is applied to business-
to-business markets from an IMP perspective.
Exploration of nancial implications to
response behaviors.
Product line growth rate and supplier
exibility are found to inuence the customer
servicesatisfaction relationship.
Perspectives on relationship termination
are discussed and a model of inter-rm
relationship termination presented with
support through four case studies.
Customer perceived value is positively
related to word-of-mouth (positive) and
negatively related to searching for alternatives.
A typology of dissatisfaction style groups:
squawker, complainer, activist, and wait
and squawk.
Buyers experience problems in different
problem categories (e.g., delivery).
Survey of buyers to estimate the
effectiveness of 13 complaint actions.
Buyers' decision processes studied in
high-technology markets. Pace of technology,
vendor-related switching costs, and
formalization all positively affect switching
behavior, while experience and centralization
negatively affect switching behavior.
Responses to destructive acts in channels
setting examined.
Cognitions about the destructive act and
relationship characteristics to inuence
engagement in responses to the destructive act.
Switching costs examined and six dimensions
proposed: lost performance costs, uncertainty
costs, pre-switching search and evaluation costs,
post-switching behavioral and cognitive costs,
set-up costs, and sunk costs.
Firms can inuence perceptions of switching
costs by increasing perceptions of customer value.
Customer value, comprising three dimensions
(economic value, value of core services, and value
of support services), customer satisfaction, and
perceived switching costs inuence share-of-
business repurchase decisions.
The disconrmation paradigm for determining
satisfaction can be applied to industrial buying
situations.
A model of satisfaction is tested;
all but two hypothesized relationships
are conrmed.
An approach to measuring customer
satisfaction, using product and service
characteristics.
Negative associations found between
satisfaction and exit and neglect and
between investment and neglect.
Positive associations found between
alternative attractiveness and exit, neglect,
and opportunism; between investment and
voice; between satisfaction and voice; and
between switching cost and loyalty.
Relationship satisfaction has a nonlinear
moderating effect of alternative attractiveness
on exit behavior in a channels setting.
(continued on next page)
120 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

Table 1 (continued)
Author(s) Variables involved Outcomes and responses behaviors Key ndings

Ping (1997)*
Schellhase, Hardock, and Ohlwein
(1999)
Sharma (2006)
Tikkanen and Alajoutsijarvi (2002)
Tikkanen et al. (2000)
Trawick and Swan (1981)
Williams and Rao (1980)
Satisfaction, cost of exit,
partnering rm demographics
Customer satisfaction
Dissatisfaction, marketers'
relational assets, buyer's relational
assets, quality of alternatives,
buyer's knowledge of key account
personnel, lack of innovation,
social/personal bonds, environment
Customer satisfaction
Critical incidents; (dis)satisfaction
Follow-up required, actual response
equals desired, prior complaint
response, buyer rm larger than
supplier, buyer rm a major
customer, another supplier
available; satisfaction with rm
response to complaining behavior
Dissatisfaction, individual aspects
of behavior, problem situation,
structural variables, types of purchase
Voice In B2B relationships, satisfaction, cost of exit,
and partnering rm demographics affect
voicing behavior.
Measurement for customer satisfaction in
B2B marketing.
Specically developed for retail organizations
and their suppliers.
Key account success Dissatisfaction leads to lower key account
success.
Discussion of current procedures for tracking
customer satisfaction. Three steps proposed (the
inner context of a business relationship, the
connected network of the customersupplier
relationship, and the outer context of the
connected network) that must be considered
for industrial customer satisfaction.
Case study demonstrates that critical
incidents affect buyer satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.
Intentions to reorder, reorders Satisfaction with rm response is affected
by follow-up, actual/desired response, prior
complaining handled satisfactorily, and the
buyer rm being a major customer.
Satisfaction with rm response to
complaining behavior signicantly impacted
actual reordering.
Organizational buyer complaint A model proposed of organizational buyer
behavior complaint behavior

*From the marketing channels literature.

of (dis)satisfaction from Oliver's disconrmation between perceived
post-purchase outcomes (i.e., supplier performance) and pre-purchase
expectations (Oliver, 1980). The disconrmation affects the customer's
level of satisfaction. Although satisfaction can vary in degree, from less
to more (i.e., resulting in a continuum), generally speaking, a positive
disconrmation results in satisfaction and a negative disconrmation
results in dissatisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Customers may respond to
satisfaction by spreading positive WOM or purchasing and repurchasing
more frequently. Dissatised customers, however, may refuse to
repurchase from the supplier, or may undertake malicious attempts to
get even or harm the supplier, such as by spreading negative WOM.
Therefore, in this paper the authors focus on framing customer
responses to dissatisfaction, which may help suppliers better under-
stand dissatised customers' negative responses and better devise
measures to prevent or modify such responses.
Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that one cross-sectional negative
occurrence may not cause customers to become dissatised; rather a
series of dissatisfactory incidences may cause them to become
dissatised holistically with the supplier. Similarly, when a company
fails to meet purchasing consumers' expectations in one or several
aspects of the buying process, they may become dissatised with the
whole purchase experience. Perkins (1993) suggested several failures
that may lead to customer (dis)satisfaction: service (e.g., sales service,
and technology support), product specications (e.g., technical
quality, and reliability), and operations (e.g., price, on-time delivery,
and availability).
Webster and Wind (1972), in their general model of buying
behavior, discussed the concept of the buying center within a buyer
(i.e., customer). Because the buying process can be so complex and
involve multiple persons, multiple goals, and potentially conicting
decision criteria, to handle the buying process a company creates a
buying center, which comprises all organizational members involved
in the buying process, including users, inuencers, deciders, buyers,
and gatekeepers. Buying center members may have different levels of
expectations for the product/service purchased (Williams & Rao,
1980), and they may each have different experiences that shape their
perceptions of supplier performance, depending on their involvement
in aspects of service, product specications, and/or operations. With
their differences in expectations and perceived outcomes, individuals
may experience dissatisfaction while others are content. For example,
Bob Buyer's experience with the supplier's sales representative may
exceed his expectations, while Ursula User's experience with the
supplier's late delivery may fail to meet her expectations. In this
situation, the buyer is satised but the user is dissatised. Business
customer dissatisfaction results when at least one member of the
buying center is dissatised with a purchase experience, because that
one dissatised member can respond with behaviors that harm the
supplier.
Thus suppliers should be aware that in business-to-business
purchases, customers may be dissatised with their purchase experi-
ence when a supplier fails to meet the expectations of at least one
member of the customer's buying center on one or more aspect of
service, product specications, and/or operations.
2. (Dis)satisfaction and response behaviors in the literature
The authors' review of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the
organizational buyer behavior literature gave insights into business
customer dissatisfaction response behavior. Table 1 provides a
summary of this literature. Much of the research focused on dening
or measuring satisfaction (Backhaus & Bauer, 2000; Perkins, 1993;
Schellhase et al., 1999). The research that examined responses to (dis)
satisfaction, such as exit behavior, was limited and typically focused
on one or a limited number of response behaviors (Barksdale et al.,
1984; Giller & Matear, 2001; Jones et al., 2002). Research by Hansen
et al. (1996a) did, however, examine complaining and spreading
negative WOM behaviors, but only revealed clusters of similar
responding groups. A more complete framework of responses to
 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
business customer dissatisfaction needs to be developed, as exem-
plied by Ping (1993, 1994, 1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) who
developed models of response behavior for the marketing channels
and retailing contexts.
Hansen et al. (1996a) adapted Singh's (1990) typology of
consumer response styles to an industrial market setting by
developing four dissatisfaction style groups: squawkers, activists,
complainers, and wait and squawkers. The groups were clustered
according to their behavioral responses to a dissatisfying experience:
doing nothing, complaining, switching suppliers, warning others, or
taking third-party actions. In contrast to categorizing customers by
their response behaviors, we identied the recipients of the different
responses to frame the behaviors themselves and their contributions.
Earlier literature on customer complaints focused on complaints
delivered solely to the supplier (Barksdale et al., 1984; Trawick &
Swan, 1981; Williams & Rao, 1980). In their studies, Hansen et al.
(1996a,b) included complaint behavior to third-party individuals as
well as positive and negative complaint actions, such as negative
WOM. However, these studies focused on complaints to suppliers (i.e.,
the dyadic partner in the transactional relationship). Tikkanen et al.
(2000) suggested that the network outside the customersupplier
dyad is crucial in satisfaction. Today's communication options grow
ever more intense, so complaint behavior beyond the supplier and the
spread of negative WOM has heightened importance; therefore, we
have included complaining and spreading negative WOM within the
dyadic relationship and outside to third parties in our framework of
dissatisfaction response behaviors.
2.1. Hirschman's exit, voice, and loyalty dissatisfaction response model
As early as Hirschman's (1970) response framework, researchers
were focusing on response behavior frameworks. Several social
science arenas have recognized Hirschman's framework, including
psychology, political science, consumer behavior, and organizational
behavior (Singh, 1991). The framework model suggests that custo-
mers will behave in one of three general ways in reaction to a
dissatisfactory purchase experience: exit, voice, or loyalty.
When customers exit, they sever their relationship with the selling
or servicing rm. When they activate the voice option they express
their desire to change the undesirable situation and to seek
satisfaction. When they select the loyalty option, they choose to
continue their current transactional relationship; they omit the choice
of exiting the relationship. Singh (1990) took the framework one step
further by introducing another option that was similar to voicing but
needed its own classication: negative WOM, which entails commu-
nicating to others but not the supplier about the dissatisfactory
experience.
The marketing channels literature has somewhat accepted
Hirschman's framework since the model is basic for dissatisfaction
literature (Hibbard et al., 2001; Ping 1993, 1994, 1997). These studies
loosely used the exit, voice, and loyalty model and adapted it to
include additional variables to t the channels context. Ping (1993,
1997) and Hibbard et al. (2001) tested the effects of antecedents on
response behavior and found support for these effects and for the use
of Hirschman's response variables in the channels setting.
Blois (2008) used Hirschman's (1970) model to describe business-
to-business responses in eloquently adapting the model of exit, voice,
and loyalty to responses, but limited the focus to nancial implica-
tions of exercising each response behavior.
2.2. Literature summary
Reviewing the literature of dissatisfaction and response behaviors
revealed multiple opportunities. First, researchers have conducted
limited research on dissatisfaction in a business-to-business context.
They have paid some attention to various response behaviors (e.g.,
121
complaining; Trawick & Swan, 1981), but have provided no
framework for classifying most response behaviors in a business-to-
business context, particularly as it relates to the buying center. We
need to more clearly conceptualize the targets of customers' response
behaviors. Specically, who is on the receiving end of voicing and
negative WOM? Finally, Hirschman's (1970) model of exit, voice, and
loyalty has been adapted in marketing channels and retailing
contexts, has seen limited adaptation in the business-to-business
context (with the exception of Blois, 2008), and can be used to more
completely frame business customer dissatisfaction response
behavior.
3. Dissatisfaction response behavior framework
In the current paper, our proposed framework focuses on four
response behaviors: exit, voice, loyalty (Hirschman, 1970), and
spreading negative WOM (Singh, 1990). Blois (2008) summarized and
dened Hirschman's (1970) concepts in the business-to-business
context, where exit is moving from an existing supplier to one of its
competitors, where voice is an attempt to change, rather than escape
from, an objectionable state of affairsthrough general protest, and
where loyalty is an option where a customer may continue to purchase
from a supplierin hope that improvement or reform can be achieved
from within (Blois, 2008, p. 3; Hirschman, 1970, pp. 4, 15, 79). Finally,
Richins's (1983) premier article on consumers' negative WOM dened
spreading negative WOM as telling others about the unsatisfactory
product or [supplier] (p. 68).
In the next section, we discuss each of the four response behaviors
in more detail. It is important to note that exit, voice, loyalty, and
negative WOM are not mutually exclusive responses (Singh, 1990).
Instead, these responses can be engaged individually or together. For
example, it is possible for a customer to complain (e.g., voice) to the
supplier about poor performance and switch to another supplier (e.g.,
exit) when it is time to reorder the product. Also, voicing and negative
WOM are directed actions. The behavior is directed from the customer
to or at the supplier, or another individual or group.
3.1. Exit, voice, loyalty, and negative WOM
When customers choose to exit, they no longer wish to continue
their transaction relationship with the supplier. Their experience is so
severe that they believe that solely voicing their displeasure will not
persuade the vendor to respond in a way that will rectify the experience.
Their dissatisfactory experience may be the last in a succession of
inadequate responses, possibly being the one to push the customer to
sever the transaction relationship. Customers who choose to exit must
nd alternative sources to provide the service.
The exit response does not necessarily mean that the customer
exits all transactions with the supplier. In organizational buying
behavior, a rm may use a vendor for multiple different products and/
or services. Faced with a dissatisfactory situation, the rm may decide
to exit the relationship for that particular product or service, but may
decide to continue as usual with other products or services because
the same supplier fullls those needs. For example, Customer A
purchases bolts and fasteners from Supplier B. Supplier B delivers the
bolts on time but the fasteners are two weeks late. Customer A may
decide to sever the fastener purchasing part of the relationship but
continue the bolt purchasing. Because of satisfactory service on the
bolt orders, Customer A will continue that portion of the relationship
with Supplier B, but will exit the fastener portion of the relationship.
Customers who experience dissatisfaction with a supplier can
complain (i.e., voice) to persuade the supplier to solve the problem;
the goal of voicing is to turn the experience from dissatisfactory to
satisfactory (Trawick & Swan, 1981). Voice is an active response to
dissatisfaction, with intent to seek restitution (Singh, 1991). Voice is
often directed to the supplier but can also be directed toward
122 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127

individuals within the buying rm (i.e., the customer) or to a third-

party. For example, if Bob Buyer is dissatised with Suzie Supplier's
prices, he can complain to Suzie to lower the prices, complain to Dean
Decider (i.e., within the buying center) to increase the budget, or
complain to Len Lawyer (i.e., third-party) to sue Suzie for price
gouging.
The loyalty option may seem passive, but may actually be a
calculated response on the customer's part. When executing loyalty,
the customer chooses to refrain from exiting the relationship; rather,
the customer will continue the transactional relationship and status
quo purchases in hopes that the supplier will perform better in the
future. Blois (2008) suggested that even as customers remain loyal,
they may still voice or spread negative WOM.
Spreading negative WOM describes the very active response the
customer takes to inform others about the dissatisfactory experience
(Singh, 1990). Negative WOM is not directed toward the supplier, but
instead is directed to other individuals either within the buying rm
or third-party recipients. Voice and negative WOM are similar but
they have distinctions. Voice is an active option where the customer
seeks change; negative WOM is active, but not to effect change.
Negative WOM can be thought of as venting or as an attempt to
express frustration.
Fig. 1. Within-rm voicing and negative word-of-mouth.

3.2. Within-rm and third-party recipients

In their exit, voice, and loyalty studies pertaining to marketing Fig. 1 also demonstrates how members of the buying center can
channels, Hibbard et al. (2001) and Ping (1993) examined customers' spread negative WOM beyond the initial buying center and to other
responses to a single informant only, their responses to the supplier. buying centers within the buying rm. When faced with a dissatisfying
In reality, customer response behavior could stem from a variety of supplier experience, members of the buying center can vent to other
individuals within the buying center and could be directed toward buying centers, thereby expressing dissatisfaction with a common
individuals and/or groups inside or outside the dyadic relationship supplier and executing negative WOM response behavior.
(i.e., customersupplier). Tikkanen et al. (2000) suggested that when Voice and negative WOM can also be directed toward third parties.
studying customer satisfaction, one must look at the internal context A dissatised buying center member may decide that voicing to a legal
(i.e., the buyerseller dyad) as well as the external context (i.e., outlet or suing the supplier is the best response to get restitution.
industry scene). Along these lines, the response behavior should be Members of the buying rm's buying center may feel the urge to
considered within the buying rm (i.e., the customer), between the spread negative WOM about the supplier to friends and colleagues
two rms (i.e., customer and supplier), and within the industrial who may be current or potential customers of the supplier. Another
network. In the following section we discuss these situations. outlet for buying center members to vent may be a neutral third-party
Voice and negative WOM are distinctive from exit and loyalty such as a trade organization. Trade organizations may have blogs,
because voice and negative WOM are directed to a recipient, either newswires, or chat rooms established for communicating dissatisfac-
the supplier or beyond the supplier. When customers decide to exit or tion. Similar customers could use trade organizations as a resource to
remain loyal, they either sever or keep their relationship. They can make purchasing decisions and to learn about other dissatised
direct voice to the supplier, to others within their buying center, or to customers' experiences. Fig. 2 depicts the third-party recipient
third parties. Like voice, they can direct negative WOM to others options.
within the buying rm, beyond the buying center but within the
boundaries of the rm (i.e., to other buying centers within the rm),
or to third parties (e.g., legal outlets). Fig. 1 illustrates within-rm
voicing and negative WOM, and Fig. 2 illustrates supplier and third-
party voicing and negative WOM.
Johnston and Bonoma (1981) suggested that the buying center
exists as a communication network that derives its conguration from
regularized patterns of communication. Among other communication
dimensions, the vertical involvement and lateral involvement imply
that communication ows up and down organizational hierarchical
levels and side-to-side among divisions or departments, all within
buying centers.
Fig. 1 demonstrates that because all members of the buying center
can experience different levels of (dis)satisfaction, all members of the
buying center can also direct both voice and negative WOM to each
other. For example, Ursula User complains to Bob Buyer about an
insufcient supply of product from a purchase in an effort to correct
the delivery. Bob, in turn, must then complain directly to the supplier
to correct the problem. Because Ursula complains to Bob, she executes
voice. On the other hand, if Ursula complains to Bob just to express
frustration while making do with the dissatisfactory delivery, she
executes negative WOM. Fig. 2. Supplier and third-party voicing and negative word-of-mouth.
 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
4. Inuences of the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship
A number of variables may moderate the business customer
dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship more radically than
the consumer relationship does because both customer and supplier
may have so much more at stake. Business-to-business purchases may
be worth more money, be more abundant, and have more people
involved in the purchase. Thus, the business customer's decision to
engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, or spreading WOM may have
greater consequences (e.g., loss of productivity or loss of prots) and
may negatively affect more people (e.g., reprimanding or ring
salespersons or other associates).
Limited business-to-business research has explored the factors that
inuence response behaviors. Hansen et al. (1996a) suggested that
expertise, jurisdictional disagreement, vendorbuyer communications,
and dependency are variables that inuence response behavior. Hibbard
et al. (2001) found that intensity of destructive acts, attribution, and
relationship quality all inuence response behavior. Although many
additional moderators may exist, in the next section we propose that
four moderators may particularly inuence the business customer (i.e.,
any member of the buying center of a purchasing rm) dissatisfaction
response behavior relationship. Fig. 3 demonstrates the four inuences
of dissatisfactionresponse behavior.
(1) Number of alternative suppliers. Blois (2008) suggested that
the number of alternative suppliers available to the customer
may inuence response behavior; to help persuade the
supplier, customers may threaten exit, even if they fail to
follow through. Thus, the number of supplier alternatives is
posited to inuence each response behavior.
(2) Past complaint response. When customers want the supplier to
repair a dissatisfactory experience, customers are likely to
respond depending on how that supplier previously acted to
rectify complaints. Trawick and Swan (1981) suggested that
satisfaction with the supplier's previous responses to com-
plaints may affect future purchase intentions. Hence, supplier
response to prior complaining is posited to moderate the
relationship between dissatisfactionresponse behavior.
(3) Number of years in relationship. In his research of retailers and
wholesalers, Ping (1997) found signicant relationships be-
tween the number of years with partner, satisfaction, and voice.
Years of relationship did not directly affect voice, but the length
of time the customer and supplier have worked together may
moderate the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.
(4) Type of purchase. Patterson et al. (1997) found that type of
purchase inuenced the individual factors of satisfaction. That
is, novelty, complexity, and importance all signicantly
impacted customer expectations and perceptions of perfor-
mance. Type of purchase is included as a potential moderator
Fig. 3. Inuences on the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.
123
because it may also inuence the likelihood of customers
participating in dissatisfaction response behavior.
4.1. The dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship
When holding constant the number of alternatives, past compliant
response, length of relationship, and type of purchase, the more
dissatised a customer the more likely the customer will exit, voice, or
spread negative WOM, and the less likely the customer will remain
loyal. A dissatised customer may want to exit and nd an alternative
that will provide more satisfactory experiences. Also a dissatised
customer may seek to make the dissatisfactory experience satisfactory
by voicing complaints or by spreading negative WOM to warn others
or to inict harm on the supplier by discouraging future customers. As
levels of dissatisfaction increase, the customer is less likely to continue
hoping that the problem will work itself out or that it will not happen
again.
Proposition 1. The greater the level of dissatisfaction,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the more likely the customer will exit,
(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM
behavior.
4.2. Number of alternative suppliers
The concentration of alternative suppliers available to the customer at
the time of dissatisfaction may inuence response behavior. This can
include the ability to fulll the need internally (i.e., within the means of
the buying rm), using another supplier, or nding a substitute solution.
When the supplier is the only alternative, or one of just a few, the
customer will react differently to a dissatisfactory experience. Hirschman
(1970) identied that in this competitive situation the seller with little
competition has a monopoly or a loose monopoly.
The more alternatives a customer has, the more condent the
customer will feel, and the less the customer will feel dependent on the
supplier. When faced with a dissatisfying experience, the customer will
feel more condent that alternatives are available if the supplier
provides no restitution. In this case, the customer is likely to solve the
problem by voicing. Other options are available, so the customer can
switch to an alternative if voice fails to rectify the situation. The
customer is also more likely to exit and less likely to remain loyal
because multiple alternatives are available to ll the product or service
need. An abundance of alternative suppliers may bring about more
negative WOM behavior because the customer will feel less pressure to
protect or salvage a relationship with the supplier if the negative WOM
gets back to the supplier. The following proposition suggests the
inuence of the number of alternative suppliers on response behavior.
Proposition 2. The number of alternatives will moderate the business
customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. The more
alternative suppliers available to the customer,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the more likely the customer will exit,
(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM
behavior.
4.3. Past complaint response
A supplier's response to a customer's voice is called complaint
response behavior, dened as the action the supplier takes to provide
restitution. If a customer has led a complaint (i.e., voiced) with the
124 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
supplier in the past, the supplier's response to the complaint may
inuence the customer's future behavior (Trawick & Swan, 1981). If
the supplier responds as the customer desires (e.g., responds in a
timely way or gives a refund), then the customer will be satised with
the supplier's complaint response behavior. If the supplier fails to
respond as the customer desires, then the customer will be
dissatised with the supplier's complaint response.
Trawick and Swan (1981) found that customers' satisfaction with a
complaint response affects whether they will reorder from the
supplier. Satisfaction with complaint response behavior could also
inuence the customer's response when another dissatisfying
experience occurs. If the supplier responded satisfactorily to a past
complaint, the customer will be likely respond as before (i.e., through
voice) to future dissatisfactory experiences. If the supplier has
provided dissatisfactory responses to past complaints, the customer
will be less likely to complain again or to remain loyal, and may
choose to exit or spread negative WOM. The following propositions
regard past complaint response behavior.
Proposition 3. Past complaint responses will moderate the business
customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.
(a): When suppliers have given satisfactory responses to past voicing,
customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by voicing
again.
(b): When suppliers have given dissatisfactory responses to past voicing,
customers are more likely to respond to dissatisfaction by exiting or
spreading negative WOM, and less likely to respond by voicing or
remaining loyal.
4.4. Number of years in relationship
The number of years in the relationship refers to the number of years
the customer and supplier have done business with each other.
According to Day (2000), a long-term relationship can range from
transactional exchanges (e.g., purely contractual or automated
purchases) to collaborative exchanges (e.g., complete collaboration
with supplier); on one hand, some long-term contracts contain no
emotional commitment to keep the relationship going (p. 12). On
the other hand, Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987) suggested that
terminating relationships that have developed over extended periods
may be similar to termination of personal relationships, resulting in
psychological, emotional, and physical stress (p. 19). Even
without emotional connection, leaving a long-time supplier may
incur switching costs such as new supplier set-up expenses.
Despite the customer's emotional involvement in the relationship,
the number of years of doing business with the supplier is likely to
impact how the customer responds to dissatisfaction. The customer who
has been in business with the same supplier for years may feel more
comfortable bringing a problem to the supplier's attention and more
hopeful that it will be resolved. Also, because of satisfactory previous
experiences with a long-term supplier, the customer may be more
willing to let the dissatisfying experience pass without acting. Finally, if a
customer has remained with a supplier for a long time, the customer
may be less likely to spread negative WOM. The customer may fear that
spreading negative WOM will cause others to judge that an inadequate
supplier duped the customer into a long-term relationship.
Proposition 4. The number of years in the relationship will moderate
the business customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.
The more years of doing business with the supplier,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the less likely the customer will exit,
(c) the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.
4.5. Type of purchase
McQuiston (1989) studied the impact of three types of purchases
(i.e., novelty, complexity, and importance) on participation and
inuence variables in an industrial purchase decision. Novelty was
identied as individuals' lack of experience with similar purchase
situations in the buying center of the buying rm, complexity as how
much information the customer must gather to accurately evaluate the
product before making a purchase, and importance as the perceived
impact of the purchase on organizational protability and productivity.
Novelty, complexity, and importance may inuence response behavior.
When involved in novelty purchases, customers may feel less
condent about their purchase decision. They may feel that their
inexperience could have contributed to the supplier's failure, that they
might have communicated their specications inadequately, that they
could have failed to understand the supplier's specications, that they
might be responsible. They may then be less likely to spread negative
WOM because they lack condence in their judgment as to whether the
supplier met their expectations or who is responsible for the situation.
They may prefer to voice their dissatisfying purchase experience to the
supplier to reiterate what they need and to help resolve the problem.
Also, they may choose to exit instead of remaining loyal in this novelty
purchase situation because with they have so little invested in the new
purchase and may nd it simpler to end the transaction relationship.
Proposition 5. The type of purchase will moderate the business customer
dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a novelty purchase,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the more likely the customer will exit,
(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the less likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.
A highly complex purchase decision involves a great deal of
investment on the part of the customer. With so much invested, the
customer will want to voice complaints to rectify the problem and will
nd it very difcult to sever the relationship easily. Also, if the
purchase is highly complex and the customer has invested much time
in the purchase decision, the customer feels responsible for letting
others in similar purchase situations know about the dissatisfactory
experience. Thus, this customer may choose to spread negative WOM.
Proposition 6. The type of purchase will moderate the business customer
dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a highly complex
purchase,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the less likely the customer will exit,
(c) the more likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM
behavior.
Highly important purchases will also nd the customer more likely
to le complaints, not only with the supplier but with a legal outlet if
necessary. A dissatisfactory experience with a highly important
purchase can be very costly. The customer may also be more likely to
exit the relationship to prevent further dissatisfying experiences. As
with the highly complex purchase, customers will also have invested
time and money in making the purchase decision for a highly important
purchase. They may decide to spread negative WOM to inform others
who are making such important purchase decisions about the
dissatisfactory experience.
Proposition 7. The type of purchase will moderate the business
customer dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship. For a highly
important purchase,
(a) the more likely the customer will engage in voicing,
(b) the more likely the customer will exit,
 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
Table 2
Propensity to engage in response behavior by role of the buying center.
(c) the less likely the customer will remain loyal, and
(d) the more likely the customer will engage in negative WOM behavior.
5. Role in the buying center and response behavior
While the previous section examined inuences on a business
customer's response behavior (i.e., the general response of the rm
or the organizational buyer), the individual members of the rm's
buying center may possess different propensities to engage in exiting,
voicing, loyalty, and spreading negative WOM. Table 2 proposes
buying center members' individual propensities to engage in response
behavior.
Proposition 8. The propensity to engage in exiting, voicing, loyalty, or
spreading negative WOM will depend on an individual's role in the
buying center.
The tendency for an individual to choose response behavior may
depend on the amount of vertical and horizontal inuence that
members of the buying center possess; positions of authority, such as
management above the primary functions or senior management,
have more vertical inuence in purchases (Robey & Johnston, 1977)
and more control over whether the rm continues the relationship
with the seller after the dissatisfactory experience. Therefore, the
roles of buyer and decider, who traditionally are managers above the
primary functions, may have the highest propensities among buying
center members to exit or remain loyal. While the gatekeeper may not
always possess the ultimate authority to choose which supplier the
rm deals with, a dissatised gatekeeper who controls the informa-
tion suppliers relay may have moderate ability to engage in exiting
and loyalty.
Lateral inuence involves communication along an organization's
horizontal structure, such as with multiple users or multiple
departments involved in a purchase situation (Robey & Johnston,
1977). Users and inuencers are members of the buying center who,
through experience or rst-hand observation, can provide opinions
about products and services for business consumption. Thus, users
and inuencers may exhibit more lateral inuence by complaining
(i.e., voicing) and spreading negative WOM within the rm. Users
may not always possess the authority to make decisions on purchases,
but they use the purchases and can judge quality through experience.
They can complain about poor quality, hoping to get the dissatisfac-
tory product or service rectied, or they can share bad experiences
that may be considered for future purchases. The role of the inuencer
is to evaluate and communicate assessments of purchases. In
dissatisfactory situations, inuencers may choose to complain (i.e.,
voice) to other members of the buying center in hopes that the
situation will be resolved, or to spread negative assessments (i.e.,
negative WOM) about the situation, which in turn may inuence
future purchase decisions.
Users may also tend to complain directly to the supplier when
their usage experiences are dissatisfactory, and may also share their
125
dissatisfactory experiences with acquaintances at other rms. Since
the buyer deals directly with the supplier, the buyer may be more
prone to voice directly to the supplier or to seek restitution from a
legal rm if the experience calls for it. The buyer may also have more
opportunities to spread negative WOM at trade conventions or
through buyer networking groups.
6. Discussion and future research
The current research makes several contributions to the study of
business customer dissatisfaction. A synthesis of extant business-to-
business literature on (dis)satisfaction and response behavior reveals
several gaps in our knowledge of dissatisfaction and response
behaviors. First, researchers have examined some business customer
responses to dissatisfaction, but the possible responses should be
framed into a cohesive model. Using Hirshman's (1970) exit, voice,
and loyalty and Singh's (1990) negative WOM models, we developed
a general framework of business customer dissatisfactionresponse
behavior. Also the extant response behavior literature lacks research
on the recipients of voicing and negative WOM behaviors beyond the
customersupplier dyad. We discuss and propose both within-rm
and third-party recipients of voicing and negative WOM. Potentially
many variables may inuence a dissatised customer's response
behavior. A few of these inuences have been demonstrated (e.g.,
expertise and dependency, see Hibbard et al., 2001), but other factors
may also inuence responses. Number of alternative suppliers, past
complaint responses, number of years in the relationship, and type of
purchase are all propositioned to moderate the customer dissatisfac-
tionresponse behavior relationship. Finally, we discuss the propen-
sity for individuals to react differently to a dissatisfactory situation
based on their role within the rm's buying center.
While our purpose was to frame the customer dissatisfaction
response behavior relationship and postulate potential inuencers of
that relationship, our propositions remain unveried. To test this
model, real-world case studies could be used to illustrate a customer's
actual actions. First, critical incidence techniques could get study
participants to recall dissatisfactory service or purchase experiences.
Then a series of probing questions could expose how they responded.
Most of the proposed moderators of response behavior are objective
measures (e.g., number of alternate suppliers, number of years in
relationship, type of purchase), and scaled-response questions (i.e.,
subjective measures) could be used to measure satisfaction with past
complaint responses.
The unique dynamic of multiple buying center members makes
exploring dissatisfaction response behavior more complex than
consumer dissatisfaction response behavior. The effects of multiple
response behaviors per an individual dissatisfactory experience should
be examined. For example, the user may complain directly to the
supplier, while the buyer spreads negative WOM to acquaintances at
other rms. Future research should explore the interactive effects of the
role in the buying center and inuences of response behavior, such as
type of purchase.
Additional inuences of response behavior should be conceptualized
and tested. The level of relationalism could inuence the dissatisfaction
response behavior relationship. Although we proposition that the
number of years in the relationship inuences response behavior,
customers who are highly invested in the relationship with the supplier
(i.e., not just those who have ongoing discrete transactions with the
supplier) may have emotional, social, or idiosyncratic investments that
could elicit different effects on response behavior (Williamson, 1975).
Customers who are more emotionally involved in the transaction
relationship may respond differently from customers who are not
emotionally involved. Additionally, customer value, which Anderson
and Narus (1998) brought to research attention, may inuence response
behavior. Liu (2006) and Liu, Leach, and Bernhardt (2005) found that
126 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
customer value can impact customers' perceptions of switching costs
and ultimately repurchase and exit behaviors.
The dynamic between the response behaviors should be more fully
developed for the business-to-business context. Blois (2008) and
Hirschman (1970) suggested that in activating one response behavior,
a customer may also be more likely to partake in another response
behavior. For example, loyalty may cause more voicing (Blois, 2008).
Therefore, within a business-to-business context, the response
behaviors may be related to each other. Also, as Trawick and Swan
(1981) suggested, the supplier's response to complaining may
determine satisfaction. Similarly, the response behaviors (i.e., exiting
the relationship) may lead to (dis)satisfaction. For example, if Bob
Buyer exits the relationship with Suzie Supplier and contracts with
Sammy Supplier, Bob may feel satised with his decision if the
transition goes smoothly. But if Sammy surprises Bob with unexpect-
ed set-up costs, he may feel dissatised with his decision to exit. These
reciprocal relationships should be further explored.
Empirical studies are necessary to better understand customer
selection of who will be on the receiving end of voicing and negative
WOM. The nature of the buying center produces interesting prospects
as to how inter-rm complaining occurs. Also, the impact of negative
WOM within the buying rm, within and between buying centers, and
to third parties needs to be further examined. The impact of negative
WOM may be far more intense and detrimental to the supplier than
we conceptualize. Future research to explore the reach of negative
WOM, perhaps using communication-tracking software such as email
or blogs, could further our understanding of these important response
behaviors.
7. Managerial implications
When selling products or conducting services in the business-to-
business segment, suppliers must be prepared to handle situations
when customers are dissatised. Suppliers should have follow-up
services and procedures for dealing with complaints. They must be
prepared for undesirable responses to dissatisfaction such as exit,
loyalty, and negative WOM.
Exit translates to loss of current sales plus additional sales that may
have come in the future. While loyalty may keep the customer in the
transactional relationship temporarily, undesirable consequences
may emerge later. If the customer engages in loyalty without voice,
the supplier may retain the business for the present but will remain
oblivious to the danger lying in wait. Without knowing to correct the
problem (i.e., bring restitution), the supplier will repeat the mistakes
that cause not only the current customer to be dissatised but will
similarly affect other customers. Negative WOM could damage a
rm's reputation and evaporate future sales.
Although complaint handling may be arduous and costly, suppliers
should want their customers to voice dissatisfactions. According to
Hansen et al. (1996a), voicing can alert suppliers and allow them to
correct problems; can bring better products, services, and processes;
or improve existing protocols. The optimal response behavior for all
parties involved is friendly complaint behavior (i.e., Hansen et al.,
1996a), or constructive voicing, which involves alerting the supplier
of dissatisfaction and allowing the supplier to take appropriate action
to rectify the situation. Customers may bypass the supplier and voice
to a third-party, such as a legal outlet, seeking to legally restore their
satisfaction and costing the supplier nes and legal fees. Thus,
suppliers have a vested interest in encouraging their customers to
engage in complaint behavior with the supplying rm when it is
needed. They could encourage their customers to report dissatisfac-
tion by communicating easy-to-follow complaining procedures and
by offering superior support services with well-trained staff.
To reduce undesirable response behaviors (e.g., exit and negative
WOM) and to encourage loyalty paired with voicing behaviors (e.g.,
friendly complaining), suppliers must look to inuence the
moderators of the dissatisfactionresponse behavior relationship.
First, if the number of alternative suppliers brings about more exiting
and spreading of negative WOM, then the supplier should strive to
position itself as a superior supplier to alternatives, thereby lessening
the appeal of switching to another supplier. Second, suppliers can
control their response to customer complaints in efforts to encourage
more voicing and less exit and negative WOM. Implementing an
aggressive response plan to customer complaints, such as faster
turnaround, could inuence a dissatised customer's decision to issue
future complaints, knowing that the supplier handled previous
complaints satisfactorily. Also, if length of the relationship can reduce
exit and negative WOM, suppliers should entice customers to reorder
and sign extended purchase agreements to increase the time a
customer transacts with the supplier. The supplier may entice the
customer by offering discount prices for future purchases and
providing services to lessen customer burdens. Finally, suppliers can
reduce the inuence of type of purchase on response behavior,
thereby reducing exit and negative WOM by modifying the customer's
perception of the type of purchase. For example, if the purchase is a
novelty, the supplier could provide the customer with plenty of
information designed to thoroughly explain the purchase procedure
for that product or service. If the purchase is highly important, the
supplier could provide satised customer testimonials to demonstrate
successful completion of purchases of similar magnitude. If the
purchase is highly complex, the supplier could provide easy-to-
understand information and personally assist customers as they
specify their orders.
Dissatisfactory experiences in business purchase situations are an
unwanted but undeniable facet of business-to-business transactions.
By understanding and attempting to manipulate the inuences of
dissatisfaction response behaviors, managers can strive to reduce
unwanted response behaviors such as exit and negative WOM and
encourage desired response behaviors such as voicing (e.g., friendly
complaining) and loyalty.
References
Anderson, J., & Narus, J. (1998). Business marketing: Understanding what customers
value. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 5365.
Backhaus, K., & Bauer, M. (2000). The impact of critical incidents on customer
satisfaction in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 8(1), 2554.
Barksdale, H., Jr., Powell, T., & Hargrove, E. (1984). Complaint voicing by industrial
buyers. Industrial Marketing Management, 13, 9399.
Blois, K. (2008). Exit, voice and loyalty in business to business markets. The IMP
Journal, 2(1), 212.
Bonoma, T., Zaltman, G., & Johnston, W. (1977). Industrial buying behavior. Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Day, G. (2000). Managing market relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 2430.
Dwyer, F., Schurr, P., & Oh, S. (1987, April). Developing buyerseller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 51, 1127.
Emerson, C., & Grimm, C. (1999). Buyerseller customer satisfaction: The inuence of
the environment and customer service. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
14, 403.
Giller, C., & Matear, S. (2001). The termination of inter-rm relationships. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 16(2), 94.
Hansen, H., Samuelsen, B. M., & Silseth, P. R. (2008). Customer perceived value in B-t-B
service relationships: Investigating the importance of corporate reputation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 34(4), 206217.
Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). Encouraging friendly complaint behavior in
industrial markets: Preventing a loss of customers and reputation. Industrial
Marketing Management., 25, 271281.
Hansen, S., Swan, J., & Powers, T. (1996). The perceived effectiveness of marketer
responses to industrial buyer complaints: Suggestions for improved vendor
performance and customer loyalty. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
11(1), 7789.
Heide, J., & Weiss, A. (1995, July). Vendor consideration and switching behavior for
buyers in high-technology markets. Journal of Marketing, 59, 3043.
Hibbard, J., Kumar, N., & Stern, L. (2001, February). Examining the impact of destructive
acts in marketing channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 4561.
Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in rms, organizations
and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnston, W., & Bonoma, T. (1981). The buying center: Structure and interaction
patterns.Journal of Marketing, 45, 143156 (Summer).
 J. L. Ferguson, W. J. Johnston / Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2011) 118127
Jones, M., Mothersbaugh, D., & Beatty, S. (2002). Why customers stay: Measuring the
underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential
strategic outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 55, 441450.
Liu, A. (2006). Customer value and switching costs in business services: Developing exit
barriers through strategic value management. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 21(1), 3037.
Liu, A., Leach, M., & Bernhardt, K. (2005). Examining customer value perceptions of
organizational buyers when sourcing from multiple vendors. Journal of Business
Research, 58, 559568.
McQuiston, D. (1989, April). Novelty, complexity, and importance as causal determi-
nants of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 53, 6679.
Money, B., Gilly, M., & Graham, J. (1998, October). Explorations of national culture and
word-of-mouth referral behavior in the purchase of industrial services in the
United States and Japan. Journal of Marketing, 62, 7687.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460469.
Patterson, P., Johnson, W., & Spreng, R. (1997). Modeling the determinants of customer
satisfaction for business-to-business professional services. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 25(1), 417.
Perkins, W. (1993). Measuring customer satisfaction. Industrial Marketing Management,
22, 247254.
Ping, R., Jr. (1993). The effects of satisfaction and structural constraints on retailer exiting,
voice, loyalty, opportunism, and neglect. Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 320352.
Ping, R., Jr. (1994). Does satisfaction moderate the association between alternative
attractiveness and exit intention in a marketing channel? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 22(4), 364371.
Ping, R., Jr. (1997). Voice in business-to-business relationships: Cost-of-exit and
demographic antecedents. Journal of Retailing, 73(2), 261281.
Richins, M. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatised consumers: A pilot study.
Journal of Marketing, 47, 2431 (Winter).
Robey, D., & Johnston, W. (1977). Lateral inuences and vertical authority in
organizational buying. Industrial Marketing Management, 6, 451462.
Schellhase, R., Hardock, P., & Ohlwein, M. (1999). Customer satisfaction in business-to-
business marketing: the case of retail organizations and their suppliers. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 14(5/6), 416.
Sharma, A. (2006). Success factors in key accounts. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 21(3), 141150.
127
Sheth, J. (1973, October). A model of industrial buyer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 37,
5056.
Singh, J. (1990). Voice, exit, and negative word-of-mouth behaviors: An investigation
across three service categories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(1),
115.
Singh, J. (1991). Industry characteristics and consumer dissatisfaction. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 25(1), 1955.
Tahtinen, J., & Vaaland, T. I. (2006). Business relationships facing the end: Why restore
them? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 21(1), 1423.
Tikkanen, H., & Alajoutsijarvi, K. (2002). Customer satisfaction in industrial markets:
Opening up the concept. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17(1), 2542.
Tikkanen, H., Alajoutsijarvi, K., & Tahtinen, J. (2000). The concept of satisfaction in
industrial markets: A contextual perspective and a case study from the software
industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(4), 373386.
Trawick, F., & Swan, J. (1981). A model of industrial satisfaction/complaining behavior.
Industrial Marketing Management, 10(1), 2330.
Webster, F., Jr., & Wind, Y. (1972, April). A general model for understanding
organizational buying behavior. Journal of Marketing, 36, 1219.
Williams, A., & Rao, C. (1980). Industrial buyer complaining behavior. Industrial
Marketing Management, 9, 299304.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and anti-trust implications. New
York: The Free Press.
Jodie L. Ferguson is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the School of Business,
Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. Professor Ferguson's
research interests include customer and consumer response to rms' decisions in
the marketplace.
Wesley J. Johnston is the CBIM RoundTable Professor of Marketing and director of the
Center for Business and Industrial Marketing in the Robinson College of Business at the
Georgia State University. He is currently the editor of the Journal of Business and
Industrial Marketing. Professor Johnston's research interests include application of the
behavioral sciences to marketing in the areas of business-to-business marketing and
customer relationship management. His research has been published in the Journal of
Marketing, the Journal of Consumer Research, the Journal of International Business Studies
and numerous other publications.