B2B services branding in the logistics service industry

B2B services branding in the logisticsservices industry

Adam J. Marquardt

Department of Marketing, Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Susan L. GolicicDepartment of Management, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, and

Donna F. DavisDepartment of Marketing, Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to conduct an exploratory study of the branding of business-to-business (B2B) services, specifically examiningthe commodity-like logistics services industry.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is of a multiple-methods research design.Findings – Managers should first strive to develop compelling and differentiated value propositions associated with their B2B service brands. Theyshould then invest in communicating their brands’ value to internal and external audiences. Finally, they should commit resources to ensure consistentand favorable customer experiences with the brand. These three steps influence the strength of the brand, which comprises brand awareness and brandmeaning.Practical implications – B2B service firms in commodity-like industries such as the logistics service industry cannot rely on differences in productattributes to develop brand meaning. Rather, they should focus on developing distinctive customer experiences with the brand by encouragingmeaningful employee-customer interactions. Such differentiated value propositions based on superior customer experiences build brand awareness andenhance the brand’s meaning with current and prospective customers, thereby increasing brand equity.Originality/value – Knowledge of branding practices in B2B service contexts is limited. This research addresses this knowledge gap.

Keywords Brand management, Business-to-business marketing, Distribution management

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

I. Introduction

A strong brand is comprised of positive, consistent customer

perceptions about a product that differentiate it from

competitive offerings (Armstrong and Kotler, 2007;

McDonald et al., 2001). The brand acts as a guarantee of

quality, increasing customers’ confidence in their expectations

being met (Dall’Olmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000). Thus,

strong brands reduce the buyer’s decision-making uncertainty

and help selling firms attain an advantage over their

competitors (Keller, 2008, 1993). This is critical for firms

offering products that have experience attributes that can be

discerned only after consumption (e.g., banking services) or

credence attributes that are difficult to evaluate even after

consumption (e.g., legal services) (Blankson and Caliphates,

1999; Kamakura and Russell, 1989; Park et al., 1986).

Business-to-business (B2B) services are high on experience

and credence attributes, making such purchases less tangible,

more complicated, and more risky when compared to the

purchase of goods (Armstrong and Kotler, 2007; Berry, 2000;

Krishnan and Hartline, 2001). Under such conditions,

effective brand management is crucial to firm success

(Zeithaml, 1981).

The vast majority of existing brand knowledge derives from,

and relates directly to, the branding practices utilized in

business-to-consumer (B2C) contexts (Webster and Keller,

2004). Although B2B brands share some common

characteristics with B2C brands, fundamental differences in

their respective target audiences suggest the need for a more

developed understanding of branding in B2B contexts.

Similarly, studies of branding more often examine brands

associated with physical goods, compared to service brands.

Branding is “just as relevant to services” as it is to goods,

given the difficulty in differentiating products that lack

physical differences and the intense competition inherent

within service markets (Berry, 2000, p. 128). However,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0887-6045.htm

Journal of Services Marketing

25/1 (2011) 47–57

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]

[DOI 10.1108/08876041111107050]

Received September 2008Revised March 2009Accepted April 2009The authors contributed equally to this work.The authors are grateful to the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech

University for providing financial assistance that aided in the completionof this research.

47

differences in the nature of goods and services lead to

differences in branding. For example, the locus of a physical

goods brand is the product itself (e.g., Oreo cookies), while

the locus of a service brand is the company, rather than the

service (e.g., H&R Block).

Furthermore, goods and services in B2B exchanges tend to

become highly standardized across firms within an industry,

which can lead to commoditization. Hence brand managers in

B2B markets must relentlessly concentrate on developing and

communicating points of difference, such as the firm’s

technical competence or the strength of the company’s

reputation, as the basis for creating differentiation and

providing superior value (Webster and Keller, 2004). Levitt

(1980, p. 83) is perhaps the earliest author to urge B2B

marketers in commodity markets to establish brand identities

associated with superior service in order to differentiate their

offers. He noted that in commodity exchanges, what dealers

sell is the distinction of their execution: “the efficiency of their

transactions in their clients’ behalf, their responsiveness to

inquiries, the clarity and speed of their confirmations, and the

like.”

This paper explores the branding of B2B services,

specifically examining this phenomenon in the context of

the commodity-like industry of logistics services. We use a

multiple-methods research design to answer two research

questions: “Do logistics service providers brand?” and “If so,

how do logistics service providers manage their brands?” The

following sections overview: brand management with specific

discussions of B2B and services branding, the logistics

services context; the research methods, findings and synthesis;

and managerial implications.

II. Brand management

A brand is defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design,

or combination of them which is intended to identify the

goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to

differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler, 1991,

p. 442). Branding is a long-term process with the goal of

increasing brand knowledge, favorability and sales over time

(Keller, 2008, 1993). A strong brand symbolizes the promise

of not only what a product will deliver, but also the type of

experience that will be delivered when consumers use the

branded product. Because a brand communicates a

commitment to provide a certain experience, it is critical

that the firm assure consistent performance that matches

customer expectations (Gombeski et al., 2002; Webster and

Keller, 2004).

In order for a brand to be effective, brand messages must be

credible and resonate with customers (Harris, 2002; Herbig

and Milewicz, 1993). For example, FedEx has branded itself

as “the reliable provider of overnight shipping services”. This

brand message is believed by and is salient to customers,

benefiting both FedEx and its customers. When managed

correctly, branding positively affects the value perceptions and

subsequent actions of current and prospective customers

(Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Park et al., 1996).

B2B branding

Webster and Keller (2004, p. 388) assert that while “virtually

all discussions of branding are framed in a consumer

marketing context,” it is wrong to conclude that branding is

not equally important and valuable in business-to-business

contexts. While differences between B2B and B2C branding

clearly exist, there are also similarities, as “industrial markets

are characterized by their buyers, not their products”

(Webster and Keller, 2004, p. 391). As such, a number of

branding strategies and tactics are likely to apply in both B2B

and B2C contexts.

Although research examining business-to-business

branding is limited (Webster and Keller, 2004), a growing

number of studies examine branding in B2B contexts. In a

survey of industrial goods manufacturers, 98 percent of

respondents report brand names to be important for achieving

successful company performance (Shipley and Howard,

1993). In their investigation of the buying process for

industrial precision bearings, Mudambi et al. (1997) find that

risk and performance play critical roles in the buying decision,

both of which are cues signaled by a firm’s brand. They also

conclude that developing relationships with individuals within

supplier firms is critical, because the final decision often

“comes down to personal preference” (Mudambi et al., 1997,

p. 442). Sinclair and Seward (1988) conclude that, while the

majority of structural wood panel customers identify price and

availability as their key purchase factors, customers who

associate a brand name with the product perceive the quality

of the product to be more consistent than do those that do

not.

Services branding

As is the case with most of the existing brand literature, the

literature base for services branding is primarily derived from

B2C contexts. According to this research, multiple factors

comprise the service brand, including customer perceptions of

service quality, the people standing behind the service, and

the quality of the supplier/customer relationship (Berry, 2000;

Gordon et al., 1993; McDonald et al., 2001; Dall’Olmo Riley

and de Chernatony, 2000). Berry (2000, p. 128) argues that,

“Brand development is crucial in services given the inherent

difficulty in differentiating products that lack physical

differences”. He adds, “In packaged goods, the product is

the primary brand. However, with services, the company is

the primary brand” (Berry, 2000, p. 128). Berry uses this

foundation to develop his service-branding model (Figure 1).

Berry identifies six principal components within his service-

branding model. The company’s presented brand is the

company’s controlled communication of its brand identity.

External brand communications refer to the uncontrolled

information customers absorb about the company and its

services. Customer experience with the company refers to the

customer’s interaction with the company. Brand awareness

references the customer’s ability to recognize and recall the

brand when provided a cue. Brand meaning refers to the

customer’s dominant perceptions of the brand. Finally, brand

equity is the combined differential effect that brand awareness

and brand meaning have on customer response to the

marketing of the brand. Berry calls attention to the role of the

customer service experience at the core of the service firm

brand, emphasizing the primary impact that the customer

service experience has on brand meaning, which in turn

serves as the primary impact on brand equity.

Berry puts forth four primary strategies by which service

firms cultivate brand equity:

B2B services branding in the logistics services industry

Adam J. Marquardt et al.


Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

48

1 dare to be different;

2 determine your own fame;

3 make an emotional connection; and

4 internalize the brand.

Berry conceptualizes these strategies in the following ways.

First, firms need to make “a conscious effort to be different, a

conscious effort to carve out a distinct brand personality” and

a willingness to be “mavericks that defy convention and forge

new paths to reach and please customers” (Berry, 2000,

p. 131). Second, firms need to stand “for something that is

important to targeted customers,” making sure their brand

“captures and communicates what the company wishes to be

famous for with customers” (Berry, 2000, p. 132). Third,

“Great brands always make an emotional connection with the

intended audience. . . . They reach beyond the purely rational

and purely economic level to spark feelings of closeness,

affection, and trust” (Berry, 2000, p. 134). Finally, firms need

to avoid thinking that brands “are strictly for external

purposes,” and they need to understand the value of

“involving employees in the care and nurturing of the

brand” (Berry, 2000, p. 135). We next discuss the B2B service

context used to explore our research questions, the logistics

services industry.

III. Logistics services context

Peter Drucker prophesied the future importance of logistic

services when he suggested distribution was “one of the most

sadly neglected, and most promising areas of American

business” (Drucker, 1962, p. 3). Since Drucker’s

prognostication, the logistics services industry has indeed

evolved into a foundational component of the global

economy. Its relative importance can be captured

economically, where 2007 US logistics costs totaled nearly

$1.4 trillion and represented more than 10 percent of the total

US gross domestic product (GDP( (Wilson, 2008).

During the latter part of the 1980s and the early part of the

1990s, firms across a number of industries began strategically

refocusing on their core competencies to better compete in

their respective markets. This strategic refocusing increased

the outsourcing of distribution functions. The surge in the

number of customers shifted supply and demand, and

thousands of firms began offering logistics services, creating

a large and highly competitive marketplace (Fuller et al.,

1993).

Logistics services can be considered a commodity offering,

with hundreds of thousands of logistics companies (i.e.

carriers, warehousing firms, and third party providers)

competing to provide similar services to many of the same

customers; however, studies show that most firms typically

use a small number of providers for logistics services, and

there is little justification for using providers that are unknown

(Baker, 1984; Fuller et al., 1993; Gordon, 2003). As

customers search for potential suppliers in this highly

competitive marketplace, companies must find ways to

differentiate themselves and their service offerings in order

to avoid fierce price competition. In the following section, we

discuss the research methods used to explore our research

questions.

IV. Research methods, findings, and synthesis

We adopted a multiple-methods research design to explore

B2B services branding, specifically examining the logistics

services industry. The purpose of Study 1 was to initiate the

research. The data were gathered through depth interviews

with five industry experts. Study 1 findings were used to

create exploratory open-ended questions. In Study 2, these

questions were sent in a mail survey to a sample of logistics

service providers.

Figure 1 A service-branding model)




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

49

Study 1

Logistics industry experts were purposefully selected using a

stratified sampling approach to represent the constituent

bases of logistics services providers and customers. The

informants (also referred to as interviewees) represented two

carriers, two third-party service providers, and one customer

of these services. Interviewees were assured of confidentiality,

and the interviews averaged just under an hour. We used

existing literature to develop and refine a semi-structured

interview protocol that included an introduction to the study,

demographic questions, and general questions such as “Do

you feel your company has a brand?” and “What is your

perception of branding in the logistics services industry?”

Prompts were used as necessary to elicit rich descriptions of

branding in the logistics services industry. Two trained

interviewers took detailed notes that were independently

coded to identify themes. Emergent theme coding agreement

between the interviewers exceeded 90 percent, and

discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The

resulting themes were reviewed by a third researcher to

assess their appropriateness.

Data quality was assessed by evaluating the trustworthiness

of the data (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). The four components

of the trustworthiness approach that are used with qualitative

methods (credibility, transferability, dependability, and

confirmability) correspond to the objective measures of rigor

used with quantitative methods (internal validity, external

validity, reliability, and objectivity). The four components are

described in Table I along with the actions taken to address

each component for both studies.

Study 1 findings

Three themes emerged from the depth interviews with the

logistics industry informants. The first theme – the

importance of branding – addressed the research question

of whether or not logistics service providers brand. The

second and third themes – the allocation of resources

dedicated to brand communications and the role of the

customer relationship in brand management – addressed the

second research question of how logistics service providers

manage their brands.

The first and most evident theme that emerged from the

interviews was the importance service providers placed on

actively creating, developing and managing their brands, with

all emphasizing, “Branding is critical.” A strong, recognizable

brand was considered very important in aiding customer

decision making. One executive commented that customers

“want to see more [branding] – it helps them justify their

choice of provider to management when the chosen company

has recognition.” Another interviewee stressed the importance

of establishing a continuous, internal educational process for

brand management, adding that branding has to be part of

the company’s culture because “you brand every day, whether

you think you are or not.”

We asked interviewees about the state of branding in the

logistics services industry. The executives reported that

although many within the industry see the importance of

branding, most logistics service providers do not actively

manage their brands. They attributed this in part to a lack of

understanding of fundamental marketing concepts, and in

part to a lack of financial resources. They all agreed that the

logistics firms with the strongest brands were also the firms

that were the most committed to building their brands. All

five interviewees mentioned FedEx and/or UPS as examples

of logistics service providers that were successful at

developing and managing their brands, stating these two

companies “have money, name recognition and presence.”

One executive added that although these logistics services

providers serve as exemplars, there are other providers that

are also “good at [developing] name recognition.”

The need to dedicate human, monetary, and temporal

resources to brand management in order to generate favorable

brand outcomes was the second theme that emerged from the

interviews. One interviewee repeatedly touched on his

company’s commitment to invest “substantial” firm

Table I Trustworthiness of the research data

Component Description Actions taken

Credibility (internal

validity)

Degree of “match” between the respondent’s

constructions and researchers’ descriptions

Survey questions were examined and confirmed by those interviewed

Conclusions from the interviews and the surveys converged

Transferability (external

validity)

Extent to which the study is able to make

conclusions that can be applied to other

contexts

Data were collected from respondents in various positions (analyst through

senior executive level) representing different sized companies

The scope and boundaries of generalization are discussed in the paper

Dependability (reliability) Extent to which the data are stable over time The interviews (introduction and questions) and the survey administration

followed written protocols

The research questions were explained in the interviews to avoid confusion

All survey respondents received identical instructions

A third researcher reviewed all data interpretations

Confirmability (objectivity) Extent to which the findings represent the

results of the inquiry and not the researchers’

biases

The methodology was documented for the research team to follow at each

stage

Written protocols exist

Multiple researchers were used at each stage of the research to minimize any

bias




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

50

resources in the development and promotion of its brand

through employee training, advertising, and the creation of

internal and external marketing materials. Although each

interviewee said that branding is important for logistics

service providers, they all indicated that logistics firms’

willingness to invest resources in shaping their brands varied

markedly across the industry. One executive pointed out that

many companies believe “it is important, but not important

enough to spend money on.” Another provider emphasized, it

is “expensive to do it [branding] right, but if you don’t spend,

you could still brand yourself and it may not be the brand you

want.”

The third emergent theme from the depth interviews

concerned the critical role of buyer-seller relationships within

the brand management process. Interviewees reported that

the development of strong customer relationships is central in

building logistics services brands, as relationships drive

customers’ expectations, trust, and overall experience with

the brand. One executive stated that branding “is a dynamic

give-and-take process where customer relationships are

critical.” Another executive emphasized that customers need

to trust that the provider will listen to their wants and needs

and consistently deliver on their promises to meet customer

expectations.

The three emergent themes revealed in Study 1 align well

with Berry’s (2000) service-branding model. The first theme

centers on the importance of developing the firm’s brand

through an active brand-building program, with the intent of

building brand awareness and brand meaning. The second

theme focuses on the role of committing resources to brand

communications in order to increase brand awareness and

shape brand meaning. The final theme recognizes the central

role of customers’ experiences with the brand in a firm’s

efforts to develop brand awareness and brand meaning.

Study 2

In Study 2, we developed a set of open-ended questions based

on informants’ comments and the themes derived in Study 1

(see the Appendix). A pretest survey was administered to a

group of 50 logistics industry managers and executives to

further refine the survey instrument. The final open-ended

questions were included as part of a larger study of logistics

service providers. The questionnaire was mailed to 630

logistics service firms that comprised the carrier database of

Transplace, a third-party logistics firm. The survey followed

Dillman’s (2000) recommended mail survey protocol:

1 survey pre-notification;

2 first wave of survey mailings;

3 postcard reminder of survey due date to non-respondents;

and

4 second wave of survey mailings to non-respondents.

Target respondents were managers who regularly interfaced

with customers and had knowledge of their firms’ marketing

programs and branding strategies. Complete survey responses

were received from 144 firms, yielding a response rate of 23.0

percent. The respondents provided approximately 600 open-

ended responses, and the responses were coded and evaluated

for quality following the method used in Study 1.

Study 2 findings

Survey respondents primarily represented national (52

percent) and regional (38 percent) service firms with annual

revenues between $1 million and $100 million. The majority

of respondents held management positions with their firms

(67 percent), with an additional 23 percent at the executive

level and 9 percent at the analyst or supervisor level. All

respondents had at least one year in the industry, with 93

percent having at least five years of experience. The majority

(89 percent) reported a high level of knowledge of their firms’

branding strategies, with the remaining (11 percent) claiming

at least moderate knowledge.

Survey respondents reported their firms associate their

brands with a service (76 percent), firm name (59 percent)

and/or a person or logo (30 percent). Most (61 percent)

claimed that their greatest strength is in providing flexible,

reliable, timely and responsive service and that service is the

cornerstone of their value proposition. Three-quarters of the

respondents desire their brand to have an identity, with 63

percent saying the desired identity is quality service. Despite

this, only 31 percent responded that they actively manage

their brands. Therefore, in response to our first research

question, it appears that while some logistics service providers

brand, brand management is not a common practice in this

B2B services industry.

Among the respondents who actively manage their brands,

only 22 percent (7 percent of the total) do so through external

marketing programs. The remaining 78 percent (25 percent of

the total) said they manage their brands almost exclusively

through internal marketing efforts. Training employees on

aspects of the brand was reported as an effective means of

promoting the brand, with 32 percent saying that they do this.

However, only 59 percent of these (19 percent of the total)

described using any type of formal training program. Of the

respondents who actively manage their brands, 73 percent (23

percent of the total) claimed their firms realize a return on

their brand management investments, as reflected through

measures such as the creation of new sales opportunities,

increased brand awareness (particularly better name

recognition), and the attraction of talented employees.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, only two respondents stated

that they realize a price premium as a result of branding.

Synthesis discussion

Figure 2 synthesizes Study 2 findings with Berry’s (2000)

service-branding model in a process map of B2B services

branding. Findings suggest that B2B services branding is

comprised of three brand management components:

1 developing a compelling brand value proposition;

2 internal and external communications about the brand;

and

3 customers’ experiences with the brand.

Brand management influences brand equity, which is

comprised of brand awareness and brand meaning.

Brand management

Brand management reflects the firm’s efforts to build and

perpetuate a strong brand. Three components of brand

management were described by B2B service providers as

influences on brand awareness and brand meaning:




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

51

1 developing a compelling value proposition associated with

the brand;

2 managing internal and external brand communications;

and

3 assuring positive customer experiences with the brand.

As one logistics provider pointed out:

Everybody in the trucking business does the same thing. It is important for

us to differentiate ourselves from the rest by delivering on-time,

communicating with customers, and presenting them with what they

perceive as a high-value product.

. Brand value proposition. A strong brand symbolizes the

promise of what a product (good or service) will deliver.

Because a brand communicates a commitment to provide

a certain set of benefits, it is critical for the firm to create

and communicate a distinct value proposition, and

everyone in the organization must understand the

importance of consistently delivering upon that promise

(Keller, 2008; Webster and Keller, 2004). Respondents

routinely pointed out the importance of dedicating

resources to creating a compelling value proposition,

advising that a brand’s positioning should reflect the

unique benefits it provides.

One provider reported, “There are thousands of

logistics providers out there. It’s what you do

consistently to rise above the pack that sets you apart.”

The provider stressed that his company was able to deliver

value to customers and create competitive differentiation

by always “listening to our customers’ needs and fitting

our service to exceed those needs.” Another service

provider added that, in an industrial context where

reliability and consistency are so important, competitive

differentiation can be attained by going above and beyond

what customers have come to expect: “Our biggest

strengths are our ability to pick up and deliver consistently

on time, or earlier, which has led our customers to greatly

depend on us.” A third service provider articulated not

only how reliable service creates immediate value for

customers, but also how this value grows over time:

“Customers [will actually] plan their business based on

our high level of service.”

A number of respondents suggested that while

important, providing high quality service to customers is

not enough, and that firms need to have other areas of

customer-desired value built into their value propositions.

Several respondents emphasized the importance of

understanding the firm’s core competencies when

developing their value propositions. For example, one

respondent described the central role that his firm’s

distinctive core competence plays within their marketing

program, saying: “We continue to market our ability to

haul long loads and heavy loads.”

Responsiveness to customer needs was described as a

key component of several firms’ value propositions. One

service provider stated, “We would like to be thought of as

a highly successful truckload carrier that is sensitive to our

customers’ changing environments and has the ability to

adapt to meet new challenges presented by these changing

environments.” Another service provider stated that four

elements comprised his firm’s value proposition:. delivery on the company promise;. customer service;. superior equipment, and. responsiveness to customer needs.

Therefore, for logistics service providers, creating a

compelling value proposition is an important part of

managing their brands.. Brand communications. The second component of

managing a logistics service brand is communication of

the brand. Brand communications include a firm’s

controlled communications, as well as information

shared through informal communication networks.

Respondents recognized that brand messages are

communicated whether or not the service provider

controls those communications. The reputations of

logistics providers are well known throughout the

industry, and it is not uncommon for customers to share

their opinions of provider performance, good or bad:

“Word-of-mouth in our industry goes a long way.” This

makes controlled brand communications all the more

important, as they serve as the foundation for service

providers to build the brand identities they prefer. One

Figure 2 B2B services-branding process




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

52

informant summed up this point particularly well, saying,

“Perception in the marketplace is important. Perception is

reality in our business and if you are perceived as a seat-of-

the-pants organization, your business will suffer because

of it.”

Brand messages are communicated to both internal and

external audiences through the company’s name, logo,

marketing, advertising, promotions and everyday activities.

Firms in this study reported a significantly heavier reliance

on internal communications such as employee training,

compared to external communications such as advertising

and public relations efforts (25 percent vs 7 percent).

Respondents strongly supported the role of training

employees to understand their role as champions of the

firm and its brand communication efforts. One respondent

emphasized his commitment to instructing employees on

how to be capable representatives of the firm, while another

emphasized the importance of his firm’s employees as

valuable interfirm liaisons, saying, “We train them to always

talk up the company’s ability to haul long and heavy loads

and [that] all the trucks are the same for loading.”. Customer experience. Customer experience with the brand

is based on the customer’s encounters with the service

provider and is typically the primary influence on brand

meaning for service brands (Berry, 2000). The customer

experience incorporates the quality of the provider’s

performance, as well as the quality of the relationship

between the provider and customer. Building strong

customer relationships and nurturing customer trust are

effective branding strategies in competitive industries, as

these serve to influence customer perceptions of a brand’s

meaning and of overall service quality (Berry, 2000;

Keller, 2008; Dall’Olmo Riley and de Chernatony, 2000).

One service provider stressed his firm’s commitment to

develop meaningful experiences for their customers

through the “service and performance we provide to

customers,” their strength of “relationship[s] with

customers,” and their efforts to develop the “pride of

employees.” Another executive also emphasized this

connection, pointing out that “If our service declines, so

does our value proposition.”

Respondents listed numerous ways to assure positive

customer experiences, including focusing on: customer

service, service quality, service reliability, service

predictability, trustworthiness, honesty, dependability,

loyalty toward the customer, effective communications,

good employees, technology, and ethics. As one service

provider pointed out, providers in the logistics services

industry should never feel secure, and it is important for

providers to “prove ourselves each day in the market, thus

creating more opportunity.” Several other respondents

emphasized that providing a superior customer experience

improves the firm’s chances of generating repeat business

by shaping brand meaning in a favorable way. Thus for

those providers that manage their brands, assuring

positive customer experiences is a very important

element to building a strong brand.

Brand equity

Brand equity is defined as the differential effect that brand

knowledge has on customer response to the marketing of a

brand (Keller, 1993). The differential effect arises from

everything a customer takes into account when looking to

purchase a good or service (Aaker, 1996m 1991; Farquhar,

1989; Keller, 2008m 1993). Brand equity in B2B contexts,

and more specifically B2B service contexts, results from

customer value assessments of the product, the firm offering

the product, and other aspects attached to the purchase and

consumption of the product (Gordon et al., 1993). Following

Berry’s (2000) conceptualization, service brand equity is

comprised of brand awareness and brand meaning:. Brand awareness. Brand awareness involves the customer’s

ability to recognize and recall the brand under different

conditions (Keller, 2008). Although some respondents

said their firms make conscious efforts to build brand

awareness, the data show that most logistics firms invest

only sparingly in building brand awareness with external

stakeholders. Instead, the preponderance of resources to

build brand awareness are dedicated to internal efforts,

with 78 percent of the respondents who invest resources in

branding indicating that they rely on internal versus

external brand communications. Such investments were

reported to be effective in helping to shape customer

perceptions of the brand’s meaning.

Respondents supported the idea that logistics service

firms can strengthen brand awareness by developing and

promoting a brand name that provides customers with

meaning. One provider emphasized his firm’s efforts to

develop “name recognition that says quality,” while

another wrote “our name is recognized in the industry

for [providing] excellent service to our customers.” A third

executive argued that his firm has found that a “strong

business name [. . .] brings business on board,” while a

fourth noted that her firm “is a well known name – known

for quality.” These sentiments were reiterated by a number

of respondents who suggested that conditions in the

logistics services industry make it necessary to separate the

firm from competitors, and as one respondent articulated,

that “a [strong] brand name will sell itself.”

Respondents also listed a number of external

communication media used to create brand awareness,

including television, radio, billboards, websites, direct

mail, hands-on operations, trade shows, community

involvement, volunteer activities, charitable donations/

work, and regular visits to current and prospective

customers. Respondents routinely identified the firm’s

trucks and equipment as effective channels with which to

build brand awareness: “Being a transportation provider,

our ‘brand’ is our name and logo design on each truck.

Constant visibility across the country causes potential

customers to call us for information or service.” Another

respondent wrote, “[Truck] visibility on the highways and

cities and towns brings with it great recognition, even

among companies who do not do business with us.” Some

respondents also stressed that visual aesthetics and

attention to detail can serve as valuable complements in

attracting the attention of potential customers and

employees. This sentiment was supported by one

respondent’s affirmation of this strategy, saying, “[Our

firm strives to have the] best looking and performing

equipment on the road.”. Brand meaning. Brand meaning refers to the customer’s

dominant perceptions of the brand (Aaker, 1996; Berry,




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

53

2000; Keller, 2008). Service providers conveyed that the

meaning customers attribute to the brand is the decisive

factor in reducing perceived risk and uncertainty, increasing

trust and loyalty, and building an attractive and compelling

brand. Most of the respondents stressed the importance of

adhering to a simple branding strategy, with the customer at

the focal point of their brand’s meaning. This was a theme

that was articulated particularly well by one executive who

stated, “We never forget that people, relationships and

service make us succeed.”

Respondents repeatedly touched on the importance of

personalizing the brand and the exchange. As one service

provider pointed out, in the logistics services industry, “you

are dealing with people, not with trucks. We try to

personalize the business to our account’s needs.” The

personalization of the firm’s business activities to fit

customer needs was touted by dozens of respondents,

virtually all of whom stressed the central role employees

have in shaping brand meaning. One service provider noted,

“When customers see new employees and comment ‘how

you get these people to all work the same company line and

commitment is awesome,’ you can’t buy that!” Another

affirmed this viewpoint, saying, “We work hard at hiring the

right people, even if it means waiting longer than we want.”

Still another reinforced the people-driven nature of building

brand meaning, stressing: “Our brand name is our

employees, therefore we give to our customers relative

personnel [i.e. dedicated service representatives] to help

their account[s].”

Many respondents reported the important role their

firms’ credentials and/or reputations played in building their

brands, particularly within the communication of their

firms’ core competencies. One respondent pointed out that

reputational resources in the form of firm experience and

capacity are critical, as “quality on-time service is what our

industry is about, so the better our service, the stronger our

company can be.” Another executive wrote, “We sell

ourselves. We tell [prospective] new accounts about our

long-term, happy customers.” This is critical, as it reinforces

brand awareness, while also shaping brand meaning and

customer expectations. One respondent discussed this,

saying, “[Current and prospective customers recognize our

brand in a favorable way, which is a] large benefit to our

company – people have expectations and we know how to

satisfy them.”

Brand-building efforts are important both internally and

externally. “We promote quality on-time service to all

employees and our customers,” put forth one executive,

while another said that his firm strives to promote the

message that his firm is a “dependable carrier with good

people, [who] care[s] about both customers and

employees.” Such actions help to personalize the service

experience, thereby creating and reinforcing competitive

differentiation, which is essential in building strong, vibrant

brands within the competitive, commodity-like logistics

services industry.

V. Managerial implications

Findings in this study hold several interesting insights for B2B

service providers and, more specifically, for managers in

commodity-like industries such as logistics services. First, as

these managers strive to develop compelling and

differentiated value propositions, they should recognize that

differentiation in the service itself is not a promising source of

meaningful separation in commodity-like industries. When

attributes of the service do not support differentiable facets of

brand value propositions, managers are advised to view these

as points of parity (i.e. points that customers expect from all

brands within the given frame of reference) and not points of

difference (i.e. strong, favorable, and unique brand

associations that distinguish the brand from competitors).

Consequently, B2B service providers should beware of

herding toward indistinguishable brand value propositions.

Nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents in this study

indicated their desired brand identity to be “quality” service,

and more than three-quarters associated their brands with

service quality. It is nearly impossible to build strong brand

meaning on a point of parity, such as quality service. Quality

service is likely the price of admission for B2B service

providers; therefore, it is not a meaningful point of

differentiation. A brand must achieve meaningful

differentiation in order to be truly useful in a highly

competitive, commoditized service industry, such as the

logistics services industry. According to findings in this study,

this is best achieved by focusing on distinctive customer

experiences with the brand.

As reported by respondents in this study, the most effective

means of building brand meaning for B2B services is to

promote superior, deeper, and richer customer experiences.

Logistics service providers appear to be cognizant of the need

to build responsive relationships, as evidenced by 63 percent

of survey respondents reporting that their desired brand

identity would focus on responding to customer wants and

needs. These responses provide support for Berry’s (2000)

contention that within service and service-based contexts, the

customer experience is the primary driver of brand meaning.

Respondents juxtaposed this belief with numerous

comments that emphasized the central role employees have

in shaping the brand’s meaning with customers, repeatedly

saying that employees must develop meaningful relationships

with customers in order for the brand itself to have meaning.

Closely related, survey respondents who managed their

brands indicated that they committed the vast majority of

their brand building resources internally, largely to employee

recruitment and training. Managers recognized that their

employees’ interactions with customers are the primary

vehicle for delivering on the promise of the brand, as well as

a tool that serves to raise brand awareness.

Many respondents also recommended building brand

awareness through external communications. A number of

the strategies they suggested revolved around leveraging

existing resources to build visibility. The active promotion of

the company brand name and logo was described as an

important first step, particularly as it relates to the consistent

integration of these elements across the physical evidence of the

firm’s service offer, such as equipment, signage, and

correspondence. Respondents also listed a variety of

communication media as effective channels for brand

communications to build awareness. These include:

television, radio, billboards, web sites, direct mail, hands-on

operations, trade shows, community involvement, volunteering




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

54

activities, and charitable donations/work. Managers are advised

to pay close attention to the execution of the brand name, logo,

and supporting aesthetics within the brand messages in each of

these channels. Maintaining consistency across brand messages

and channels can build brand awareness with external

constituencies, which can then be leveraged in shaping brand

meaning.

This research supports the premise that the meaning a

brand holds for customers can be a powerful source of

competitive advantage for a B2B services firm, even within

commodity-like industries such as the crowded and highly

competitive logistics services industry. Effective brand

management not only generates brand differentiation, brand

loyalty, and improved customer retention levels, but also

spurs demand in the form of new customers.

Further, this exploratory investigation of logistics services

branding offers insight into B2B service brands and brand

management in commodity-like industries and provides

guidance for B2B service providers who want to build their

brands. Our findings suggest that B2B service providers

should first pay attention to developing a compelling and

differentiated value proposition that focuses on customers’

experiences. They should then commit resources to

consistently communicate the brand to internal and external

stakeholders, with the goal of building brand awareness and

shaping brand meaning. Finally, they should ensure favorable

customer experiences with the brand with the goal of

enhancing the brand’s meaning with customers. Following

these three steps will help B2B service providers to build

strong, differentiated brands, thereby increasing brand equity.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing onthe Value of a Brand Name, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, The Free Press,

New York, NY.Armstrong, G. and Kotler, P. (2007), Marketing:

An Introduction, 8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle

River, NJ.Baker, G.H. (1984), “The carrier elimination decision:

implications for motor carrier marketing”, TransportationJournal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 20-9.

Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28,

Winter, pp. 128-37.Blankson, C. and Caliphates, S.P. (1999), “Issues and

challenges in the positioning of service brands: a review”,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,

pp. 106-18.Dall’Olmo Riley, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2000), “The

service brand as relationships builder”, British Journal ofManagement, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 137-50.

Dillman, D. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The TailoredDesign Method, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Drucker, P. (1962), “The economy’s dark continent”,

Fortune, April, pp. 3-7, (reprint).Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing

Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 24-33.Fuller, J.B., O’Conor, J. and Rawlinson, R. (1993), “Tailored

logistics: the next advantage”, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 87-98.

Gombeski, W. Jr, Kantor, D. and Klein, R. (2002),

“Physician-based branding strategies”, Marketing HealthServices, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 28-34.

Gordon, B.H. (2003), “The changing face of third-partylogistics”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2,

pp. 50-7.Gordon, G.L., Calantone, R.J. and di Benedetto, C.A.

(1993), “Brand equity in the business-to-business sector:

an exploratory study”, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 4-16.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989), Fourth GenerationEvaluation, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Harris, G. (2002), “Brand strategy in the retail banking

sector: adapting to the financial services revolution”, BrandManagement, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 430-6.

Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1993), “The relationship of

reputation and credibility to brand success”, Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 18-24.

Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), “The comparative

advantage theory of competition”, Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 59, April, pp. 1-15.Kamakura, W.A. and Russell, G.J. (1989), “A probabilistic

choice model for market segmentation and elasticity

structure”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26,November, pp. 379-90.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and

managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building,Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice-

Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Kotler, P. (1991), Marketing Management, 7th ed., Prentice-

Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Krishnan, B.C. and Hartline, M.D. (2001), “Brand equity:

is it more important in services?”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 328-42.

Levitt, T. (1980), “Marketing success through differentiation

– of anything”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58, January-

February, pp. 83-91.McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. and Harris, F.

(2001), “Corporate marketing and service brands: moving

beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 335-52.

Mudambi, S.M., Doyle, P. and Wong, V. (1997),

“An exploration of branding in industrial markets”,

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, September,

pp. 433-46.Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986),

“Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 50, October, pp. 135-45.

Park, C.W., Jun, S.Y. and Shocker, A.D. (1996), “Composite

branding alliances: an investigation of extension and

feedback effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33

No. 4, pp. 453-66.Shipley, D. and Howard, P. (1993), “Brand-naming industrial

products”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 22,

February, pp. 59-66.Sinclair, S.A. and Seward, K.E. (1988), “Branding a

commodity product”, Industrial Marketing Management,Vol. 17, February, pp. 23-33.

Webster, F.E. Jr and Keller, K.L. (2004), “A roadmap for

branding in industrial markets”, Brand Management, Vol. 11

No. 5, pp. 388-402.




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

55

Wilson, R. (2008), “19th Annual State of Logistics Report.

Sponsored by Council of Logistics Management”, availableat: www.cscmp.org

Zeithaml, V.A. (1981), “How consumer evaluation processes

differ between goods and services”, in Donnelly, J.H. andGeorge, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 186-9.

Appendix. Open-ended survey questions

1 Does your firm actively manage your brand? If so, please

briefly describe how that is done.

2 Does your firm train employees on the aspects of your

brand? If so, please briefly describe how that is done.

3 What are your firm’s biggest strengths?

4 What is the value proposition of your service offering?

5 What identity do you want your brand to have?

6 Is your firm’s brand associated with: (check all that apply)

a. a service? ______

b. a firm name? ______

c. a person? ______

d. a symbol? ______

e. a logo? ______

f. a slogan? ______

7 How does your brand benefit your company?

8 Does your company realize a return on investments made

in building the brand? Why or why not?

About the authors

Adam J. Marquardt is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in

the Robins School of Business at the University of Richmond,

where he teaches Strategic Brand Management, Sports

Marketing, and Entrepreneurial Marketing. He received his

PhD from the University of Oregon and his MBA from the

University of Tennessee. His research interests include

building and managing brands in sports, entertainment,

entrepreneurial, and service contexts. He has published in

Industrial Marketing Management, The International Journal of

Logistics Management, co-authored multiple book chapters,

and has presented at several marketing and entrepreneurship

conferences. Adam J. Marquardt is the corresponding author

for this manuscript, and can be contacted at

[email protected]

Susan L. Golicic is an Assistant Professor in the College of

Business at Colorado State University. She earned her PhD in

logistics at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her

research interests include supply chain management,

interorganizational relationships, and reverse logistics. She

has published research in the Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of

Business Logistics, International Journal of Physical Distribution

and Logistics Management, Transportation Journal, and Supply

Chain Management Review, co-authored book chapters on

supply chain management, and has presented at numerous

conferences and business forums.

Donna F. Davis is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the

Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University. Before

joining the faculty at Tech, she earned her PhD in marketing

and information management from the University of

Tennessee, Knoxville. Her research interests are in supply

chain relationships, brand management, and e-business. She

has published research in the Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of

Supply Chain Management, International Journal of Forecasting,

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management, and the Journal of Business Forecasting. She has

presented her research at several national and international

conferences and business forums.

Executive summary for managers and exectives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of the 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 benefit of the

material present.

The importance of differentiating your brand from the

competition is well-known and understood, yet there’s a

danger in seeking this differentiation to end up emphasizing

what customers expect to take for granted from whomever

they buy the service, you or your competitors. For instance,

when managers of logistics services providers were surveyed

an overwhelming majority indicated their desired brand

identity to be “quality” service, and more than three-quarters

of them associated their brands with service quality.

As Adam J. Marquardt et al. point out in “B2B services

branding in the logistics services industry” it is nearly

impossible to build strong brand meaning on a point of parity,

such as quality service. Quality service is likely the price of

admission for B2B service providers; therefore, it is not a

meaningful point of differentiation. A brand must achieve

meaningful differentiation in order to be truly useful in a

highly competitive, commoditized service industry, such as

logistics. This is best achieved by focusing on distinctive

customer experiences with the brand.

B2B marketers must relentlessly concentrate on developing

and communicating points of difference, such as the firm’s

technical competence or the strength of the company’s

reputation, as the basis for creating differentiation and

providing superior value.

B2B service providers should first pay attention to

developing a compelling and differentiated value proposition

that focuses on customers’ experiences. They should then

commit resources to consistently communicate the brand to

internal and external stakeholders, with the goal of building

brand awareness and shaping brand meaning. Finally, they

should ensure favorable customer experiences with the brand

with the goal of enhancing the brand’s meaning with

customers. Following these three steps will help B2B service

providers to build strong, differentiated brands, thereby

increasing brand equity.

Asking “Do logistics service providers brand?” and “If so,

how do they manage their brands?” the authors note that

during the latter part of the 1980s and the early part of the

1990s, firms across a number of industries began strategically

refocusing on their core competencies to better compete in

their respective markets. This led to an increased outsourcing

of distribution functions. The surge in the number of

customers shifted supply and demand, and thousands of




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

56

firms began offering logistics services, creating a large and

highly competitive marketplace.

Logistics services can be considered a commodity offering,

with hundreds of thousands of logistics companies (i.e.

carriers, warehousing firms, and third party providers)

competing to provide similar services to many of the same

customers. However, studies show that most firms typically

use a small number of providers for logistics services, and

there is little justification for using providers that are

unknown. As customers search for potential suppliers in this

highly competitive marketplace, companies must find ways to

differentiate themselves and their service offerings in order to

avoid fierce price competition.

The most effective means of building brand meaning for

B2B services is to promote superior, deeper, and richer

customer experiences. Logistics service providers appear to be

cognizant of the need to build responsive relationships, as

evidenced by 63 percent of survey respondents reporting that

their desired brand identity would focus on responding to

customer wants and needs. Respondents juxtaposed this belief

with numerous comments that emphasized the central role

employees have in shaping the brand’s meaning with

customers, repeatedly saying that employees must develop

meaningful relationships with customers in order for the

brand itself to have meaning.

Closely related, survey respondents who managed their

brands indicated that they committed the vast majority of

their brand-building resources internally, largely to employee

recruitment and training. Managers recognized that their

employees’ interactions with customers are the primary

vehicle for delivering on the promise of the brand, as well as

a tool that serves to raise brand awareness.

Many respondents also recommended building brand

awareness through external communications. A number of

the strategies they suggested revolved around leveraging

existing resources to build visibility. The active promotion of

the company brand name and logo was described as an

important first step, particularly as it relates to the consistent

integration of these elements across the physical evidence of

the firm’s service offer, such as equipment, signage, and

correspondence. Respondents also listed a variety of

communication media as effective channels for brand

communications to build awareness. These include:

television, radio, billboards, web sites, direct mail, hands-on

operations, trade shows, community involvement,

volunteering activities, and charitable donations/work.

Managers are advised to pay close attention to the execution

of the brand name, logo, and supporting aesthetics within the

brand messages in each of these channels. Maintaining

consistency across brand messages and channels can build

brand awareness with external constituencies, which can then

be leveraged in shaping brand meaning.

(A precis of the article “B2B services branding in the logistics

services industry”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for

Emerald.)




Volume 25 · Number 1 · 2011 · 47–57

57

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

B2B services branding in the logistics service industry

Documents

Transcript of B2B services branding in the logistics service industry