Linking account portfolio management to customer information:Using customer satisfaction metrics for portfolio analysis
Osman Gök ⁎
Yasar University,Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,Department of Marketing,Turkey
A B S T R A C T
A R T I C L E I N F O Article history:
Received 6December 2006
Received in revid form 18January 2008Accepted 18February 2008Available online 25April 2008Keywords:
Account portfolio management Customer satisfaction
Key account management Inter firm relationships
When appropriate variables are ud,account portfolio analys engender a convenient framework f
or the relationship composition of companies and allow management to reconsider which customers and relationship dimensions need attention.Bad on an industrial company's key account relationships,the portfolio approach considered in this study employs Customer Satisfaction (CS)metrics as a portfolio dimension and suggests a new and more customer oriented approach to account portfolio analysis.Propod portfolio matrices provide insights into the strength and stability of customer relationships.Furthermore,the matrices force managers to adopt a future perspective on customer relationships by evaluating the business potential of customers along with CS information and allow prioritization with respect to resource allocation.The study attempts to put forward customer heterogeneity in industrial markets and offers a managerial guideline embracing customer speci fic marketing actions.In addition,the paper propos a new u for CS information in strategic decision making.
©2008Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.
1.Introduction
Increasing competition,technological change and many well known environmental factors have encouraged companies to move away from fragile relationships between salesperson and buyer and
to pursue customer retention and long term customer relations.Thus,many companies hope to gain competitive advantage by forming stronger relationships with fewer customers and suppliers.However,Zolkiewski and Turnbull (2002)argue that the successful adoption of the lective relations can be problematic and this is where portfolio analysis makes a major contribution to management.
Following Markowitz's (1952)portfolio theory,portfolio models have been ud for strategic planning for decades (Ansoff &Leontiades,1976;Wind &Douglas,1981).Recently,newer portfolio models have been studied in business domains related to customer relationships (Campbell &Cunningham,1983;Fiocca,1982;Johnson &Seines,2004;Krapfel,Salmond,&Spekman,1991;Yorke,1984),supplier relations (Cunningham,1982;Kraljic,1983;Wagner &Johnson,2004),technology (Capon &Glazer,1987)and new product development (Cooper,Edgett,and Kleinschmidt,1999).
Account portfolio analysis deals with grouping customers and developing meaningful strategies for each group incorporated into resource allocation decisions to meet marketing objectives.Portfolio analysis and management can be applied from multiple perspectives,
at various levels of aggregation,and with different strategic variables or portfolio components,depending upon the company's objectives and speci fic situations (Turnbull,1990).Portfolio management tools have the potential to help business fine-tune their customer offerings and develop competitive advantage,in addition to aiding in strategic planning (Dibb &Wensley,2002).The purpo of the study is to develop customer portfolios using variables that were deter-mined to be important in previous studies along with the customer satisfaction (CS)metrics and to prent the implications for marketing strategies and future resource allocation for key account portfolio.Directly integrating the CS dimension to account portfolio analysis,a concept that has not been studied previously,might prent signi ficant rewards to marketing academics and practitioners.Compared to other account portfolio dimensions,CS scores are customer-bad,factual,numerical and convenient sources of infor-mation.The propod framework extends the existing account portfolio approach by exploring an alternative strategic variable for customer portfolio development and arches for a junction to a signi ficant customer orientation.
Although the CS literature propos that firms employ CS informa-tion in almost all management decisions across all functional areas (Jaworski &Kohli,1993;Piercy,1996),Morgan,Anderson,and Mittal (2005)found that most firms u CS information as an input in only a limited number of decisio
ns.Although CS is measured by many firms as part of quality systems standards,new studies and propositions are required for the ef ficient and convenient u of CS information in strategic decision making and management control systems.
Industrial Marketing Management 38(2009)433–439
⁎Kazim Dirik M.,364S.,No:5,35500,Bornova,Izmir-Turkey.Tel.:+902324614111.E-mail k@
.0019-8501/$–e front matter ©2008Elvier Inc.All rights rerved.doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
Therefore,this study attempts to make a twofold contribution. First,the u of CS metrics for account portfolio analysis is discusd in terms of more customer-oriented account portfolio models.Second, CS information is considered as a strategic input for the management of account relationship portfolios and a new u for CS information in strategic decision making is propod.The may reveal the actions necessary for the necessary relationships and may streamline the decision making process for suppliers'account portfolio management. Two portfolio matrices are propod for this purpo including satisfaction scores of customers as a portfolio dimension and discussion turns on how a supplier can utilize the information gained from customers'positions on the portfolio grids.Since each relation-ship requires different types and degrees of investment and produces different outcomes(Cannon&Perreault,1999),the study arrives at sound evaluations of individual customers.
2.Customer portfolio models
In line with the ascent of relational approaches in marketing, studies in dealing with the customer por
tfolio have been conducted for a couple of decades(Campbell&Cunningham,1983;Dubinsky& Ingram,1984;Eng,2004;Fiocca,1982;Johnson&Seines,2004;Yorke &Droussiotis,1994).The studies address company's account portfolio and group its customers to make the relationship portfolio efficient and balanced.Fiocca(1982)suggests a two-step customer portfolio analysis.First,all customers were classified according to their strategic importance and the difficulty of managing the account. Then,key accounts were analyzed using a cond portfolio,including the dimensions of customer attractiveness and strength of the buyer–supplier relationship.Campbell and Cunningham(1983)classified customers into four life cycle gments as“Yesterday's customers”,“Today's regular customers”,“Today's special customers”and“Tomor-row's customers”.Dubinsky and Ingram(1984)put forward a profitability perspective and developed a portfolio that considered the prent and potential profit contribution of customers.In addition, Krapfel et al.(1991)suggested a path to operationalize the constructs of relationship value and interest commonality and then offer classifications for relationship types and management modes in a theoretically grounded structure.
Yorke and Droussiotis(1994)bad their portfolio dimensions on Fiocca's analysis,but also including the factor of customer profitability and offering a convenient portfolio approach using a ca study. Z
olkiewski and Turnbull(2002)evaluated the relationship portfolios in the context of network theory and propod that such portfolios might be a key factor in successful relationship management. Recently,Johnson and Seines(2004)introduced a model that links value creation within individual customer relationships with overall value creation for afirm and classified customers as acquaintances, friends,and partners.
Recent changes in interfirm management approaches,increas in pressure for competitive advantage,and increasingly turbulent global environments are harbingers for a revamping of portfolio thinking (Wagner&Johnson,2004).Although the portfolio approach is a well established area of business studies,Eng(2004)argues that the guiding principle of different customer portfolio dimensions is often bad on the notion that environmental arket growth, competition,technological factors)are uncontrollable or strategic decisions are bad on adapting the company to its environment. Despite the wide recognition of customer and market oriented approaches in the marketing domain,account portfolio models have not adequately involved in real customer information and analysis have mostly been designed as supplier-centric.The logic lying behind the account portfolio approach is an asssment of customer composition and development of relevant strategies for different groups of accounts.Even though the logic ems to address a sign
ificant customer orientation,the methodology ud contains virtually no customer involvement.Such a vital process should not be bad solely on independent evaluations from customers and lling companies'own asssments about relationships.Integrating custo-mer information to account portfolio analysis may provide a more customer-focud evaluation process and tailored strategy for account relations.
2.1.Key account management
不要抱怨As an extension of the portfolio approach,Key Account Manage-ment(KAM)is regarded as one of the significant marketing trends over the last few years(Abratt&Kelly,2002).Key accounts are customers in a business to business market identified by lling companies as of strategic importance(McDonald,Millman,&Rogers, 1997).Hence,KAM means identifying the customers and giving them specific and personalized treatment(Pardo,1999).Key accounts between themlves,even within the same industry,may well display heterogeneity,either in structure,operations or in strategy(Spencer, 1999).Thus,an understanding of the different types of accounts and the importance they have for the supplier company is important.The position that the key account will have within the supplier's portfolio is a major consideration when implementing the KAM program (Abratt&Kelly,2002).Millman and Wilson(1995)point out that each key account should
be considered a gment,requiring a different allocation of resources to the relational mix.In this n,this paper tries to develop a diagnostic tool that can be ud to support customer analysis involved in the KAM process and propos bespoke relation-ship strategies through a convenient managerial approach.
Many KAM applications are established and managed without investigating what the customer wants or needs in rvice,product, delivery or information(Dishman&Nit,1998).Millman and Wilson (1999)suggest that there is widespread acceptance of developing customer-facing KAM process.Defining and implementing such process,however,has proved problematic,even for tho compa-nies acknowledged to be clo to best-practicing KAM.Since this study attempts to link customer information to account portfolio manage-ment,it may contribute to the design of more customer-facing KAM process.
智猪博弈
3.Customer satisfaction
The concept of CS has gained increasing attention in business studies.In this n,satisfaction metrics have been accepted as one of the most valued elements of customer information(Homburg& Rudolph,2001;Sanzo,Santos,Vasquez,&Alvarez,2003;Sharma, Niedrich,&Dobbins,1999;Tikkanen,Al
ajoutsijärvi,&Tahtinen,2000). The concept has been studied in various contexts with many aspects, mostly in association with or referring to the Oliver's(1980) disconfirmation of expectations theory(Anderson&Sullivan,1993; Fornell,1992;Gustafsson,Johnson,&Roos,2005;Szymanski& Henard,2001;Tikkanen&Alajoutsijärvi,2002).Industrial customer satisfaction can be defined as an outcome of the complex information processing that is operated by the buying unit of the customer organization regarding both economic and social performance of the supplier in an interactive environment.Morgan et al.(2005)suggest that CS is a central concept in marketing and a core strategic objective for anyfirm.Thus,the creation and successful management of CS information usage systems that enables thefirm to achieve a superior understanding of customer needs and respond more effectively and efficiently than its competitors,is an important way that marketing can make a significant contribution to the success of thefirm.
Inevitably,maintaining and enhancing CS is an investment in relationship and resource allocation.Resource allocation to a relation-ship can be included in many cost considerations,both direct and indirect.Yorke and Droussiotis(1994)classify the costs as a product mix related to that specific customer,lling costs,special trade terms
434O.Gök/Industrial Marketing Management38(2009)433–439
applied to the customer,administration costs,working capital and indirect costs.Product adaptations for customers,production of low cost product lines for the specific needs of a customer,time and expens required for sales calls,special discounts and credits applied, stocking of products for the customer and various marketing related expens,are some examples of resource allocation and investment to customer relationships.
3.1.Cs metrics as a dimension of portfolio analysis
Morgan et al.(2005)point out that CS information and its usage may be an important component of afirm's management control system that aids in monitoring performance,implementing strategy and directing attention and resources towards satisfying the target customers needs to develop and protect this relational source of competitive advantage.Sanzo et al.(2003)state that industrial CS involves two major dimensions:economic(technical and economical productivity measures e.g.volume,profits,product and process quality)and non-economic(social and psychological).CS metrics contain nsitive information of key dimensions in customer relation-ships such as products,technical process,quality,order processing, delivery,customer rvices,complaint handling and relational dimensions.As control systems theory asrts(Green&Welsh, 1988),negative deviations from desired standards require corrective actions in the key aspects of relationships.Ho
wever,simultaneously considering the CS metrics and the other dimensions offered in relationship portfolio studies may alter a supplier's decisions and orientations regarding corrective actions and other relationship-specific investments in satisfaction.
Theflexibility of the portfolio concept for u in the different levels of management and with different levels of sophistication,illustrates its ufulness as a powerful management tool(Turnbull,1990). Account portfolio approaches pursue sound portfolio dimensions and significant indicators in order to provide a convenient and strategic framework for a company's customer relationships.Yorke (1984)suggests that if objectives are to be met in both the short and the longer term,dimensions for a strategic portfolio should be market-or customer-oriented and not bad solely on the supplier's own management thinking.This approach may be more appropriate for the interdependent nature of business relationships.
4.Methodology
Ford et al.(1998)suggest that relationship management is the most critical marketing challenge,particularly in a business-to-business situation wherefirms often rely on a small number of customers and suppliers,where markets are relatively static and where maintaining relationships is o
ften esntial to ongoing business success.In such circumstances,portfolio analysis can act as a very uful tool by identifying key strategic relationships(Zolkiewski& Turnbull,2002).
Using a Turkish battery supplier's CS scores in the automotive industry,this study tries to explore the u of CS metrics for managing customer relationships in the context of portfolio approach.Consider-ing the purpo of the study,the automotive industry could be a more suitable rearch area becau it is global in scale,is a major contributor to national economies and with its network of suppliers, provides leading examples of relationship development and practice (Lindgreen,Palmer,Vanhamme,&Wouters,2006).Original Equip-ment Manufacturers(OEM)customers usually have a great amount of purcha volume and significant referral value for an automotive supplier.The ca company has twelve OEM customers,ten of which are the local manufacturer branches of global manufacturers and the OEM's are often treated as key accounts in the industry.Yorke(1986) suggested that customer portfolio theory was more appropriate and uful where the product purchad was of low technology,continuously supplied,the perceived risk was relatively low and where the data available on customers and competitors were more complete.Therefore,the ca company and the industry-specific situations can be regarded as a consistent rearch site for the rearch objectives.Ca company studies on portfolio analysis have
the potential to produce valuable outcomes and were ud by authors (Campbell&Cunningham,1985;Yorke&Droussiotis,1994;Wagner& Johnson,2004).
As the purpo of the study is interested in the overall performance of thefirm,considerations focus on CS as an overall evaluation of a firm's offering,rather than a single evaluation of a specific transaction. Overall CS should be a more fundamental indicator of thefirm's performance due to its links to behavioral and economic con-quences for thefirm(Anderson,Fornell,&Lehmann,1994).The satisfaction scores of the key accounts are bad on the weighted averages counted from importance versus performance ratings measured on a7point Likert scale.The CS questionnaire ud by the ca company consists of35items andfive dimensions:products and prices,quality and technical process,sales personnel,order handling and rvices,and customer relationships.The items and dimensions ud cover the key aspects of CS in industrial relationships and the literature(Homburg&Rudolph,2001;Sanzo et al.,2003; Sharma et al.,1999;Singh&Ranchhod,2004).
4.1.The construction of the portfolio models
The strategic variable or customer portfolio dimension may correspond to an independent variable or form part of a composite dimension(Pardo&Salle,1995).Oln and Ellram(1997)point out the importa
nce of complexity of the dimensions ud to categorize the elements in the portfolio.If the dimensions are very complex,a company can focus on developing measures that do not utilize the full potential of the portfolio approach in terms of improved resource allocation and communication.On the other hand,if the dimensions are too simple,important variables can be overlooked.CS score is a composite variable involving key aspects of the relationship and suggested as a relevant dimension for portfolio analysis.
华清温泉The models developed by Fiocca(1982)and Yorke and Droussiotis (1994)are ud in this study as a point of departure in the development of portfolio models.Fiocca and Yorke and Droussiotis u the“strength of the relationship”dimension and Fiocca employs “customer's business attractiveness”in analyzing the key account portfolio of the company.Since the dimension of customer's business attractiveness is heavily associated with the future business expecta-tions from a customer,this study will u the term“business potential”to refer to the dimension.Becau CS metrics convey cumulative evaluations of customers up to the survey and also involve future related clues of their relationship with the supplier,it could be more significant to combine the metrics with the two relevant dimensions of previous portfolio studies.Hence,customers are positioned on grids with respect to the“strength of the relationships”and their“business potential”along with the CS score
s.The two matrices may uncover the current stability of the relationships and also provide meaningful signals in terms of strategic reallocation of resources to enhance specific relationships to achieve future growth.
4.1.1.Relationship strength—CS
The best-known account portfolio studies ud the strength of the relationship as a portfolio dimension.Several indicators were propod for measuring this dimension,they included customer share,length of the relationship,magnitude of purchas,frequency of contact,trust,cooperation and friendship(Campbell&Cunningham, 1983;Fiocca,1982;Yorke&Droussiotis,1994).Information sharing is cited as an indicator of relationship strength and quality in industrial supply relationships(Brennan,1997;O'Toole&Donaldson,2002; Perez&Sanchez,2001;Purdy&Safayeni,2000)and included as a
435
O.Gök/Industrial Marketing Management38(2009)433–439
measure of strength.In a recent study,Stanko,Bonner,and Calantone (2007)analyzed the strength of i
nterfirm ties and offered relationship length,mutual confiding(knowledge/information exchange),recipro-cal rvices(solidarity–reciprocity)and emotional intensity in this evaluation of buyer–ller ties.Hence,the variables ud for the measurement of relationship strength(Table1)here are consistent and in balance with the variables propod by previous studies.
The data related to thefirst three variables of relationship strength were collected from the marketing department reports and the customers were categorized along afive point scale.The remaining five variables were independently rated out offive by four managers in the company before the annual CS survey starts and the averages of managers'ratings were ud for analysis.The managers are key decision makers for managing customer relationships and involve the company's key account manager,sales manager,assistant general manager and general manager.The variables listed in Table1were weighted collectively by the four managers.It should be emphasized that this part of the implementation process is very subjective and ud by previous portfolio Oln&Ellram,1997;
Yorke&Droussiotis,1994).Although weighting the scores of indicators is a subjective and context-dependent issue,it is a more justifiable way of determining the constructs and it provides more preci evaluations.Oln and Ellram(1997)suggest that in order to u the portfolio model,the decisi
on-makers in the company must come to agreement on the relative importance of each factor.
The matrix in Fig.1.shows that Cell1of the grid includes Customers B,C and F,who have high relative strength and low CS levels.Although the customers have established relationships with the supplier,they are relatively dissatisfied with the relationship and they can be considered“open to competitors'offerings”.They might not be involved in a persistent arch of alternative suppliers but it would be over optimistic to expect a significant increa in customer share for the customers in the near future.Customers A,H and I, located in Cell2of the grid,reprent low relationship strength and low CS.Hence,the customers might be evaluated as less committed to the relationship and therefore as“competitors'customers”.It could be posited that their positions in the grid reflect an arm's length relationship between parties and are a sign of possible disloyalty behaviors in forthcoming years.
However,Cell3of the grid includes Customers D,E,L and K,all of whom have high CS levels but low relative strength.The notable characteristics of the customers are that their length of relationships with the supplier,business volume and customer share are all still low but the non-economic,social indicators of strength are perceived and evaluated as high by company managers.The satisfaction levels of the customers with relational aspects are relatively high and verify the evaluations of supSPINS
plier's managers.Hence,the fresh accounts of relatively new relationships of the company can be named“tomor-row's loyal”customers along with their high satisfaction levels.Since Customers G and J in the fourth quadrant of the grid have both high CS and strength scores,they can be evaluated as“today's loyal”customers,reprenting established and progresd relationships perceived by both parties.4.1.2.Customer's business potential—CS
Understanding both the short-term industry factors and long-term positioning value of the customer mix is important for the manage-ment of customer portfolios(Eng,2004).As Campbell and Cunning-ham(1985)asrt,such an analysis is designed to give prominence to customers to whom the company is allocating strategic funds in the hope of developing future business and to emphasize tho on which the company is dependent.Business potential refers to the status/ position of the customer's business in light of future orientations.The competitors'share of customer's purchas reprents a portion of the available business for the supplier and could be considered to be captured in future.Obviously,if a customer has weak export links, high capacity utilization,no expansion plans,and low growth rate,the business potential of the customer is likely to be relatively low.If a low potential customer has a high CS score,the lling company may not prefer to spend additional resources on the customer and may even consider withdrawal of its key account status.O
n the other hand,if a high potential customer has a low satisfaction score,the lling company should pay immediate attention to the reasons and take corrective actions.Hence,the business potential-CS matrix might prioritize investment and resource allocation decisions in order to improve CS elements of account relationships.
Variables ud for measurement of customer's business potential (Table2)were lected from the account portfolio studies of Fiocca (1982)and Yorke and Droussiotis(1994)regarding the context under examination.Thefigures related to competitors'customer share and customer purcha amounts were obtained using last year's sales data and industry statistics.The growth rate of customers'purchas was calculated as an average of thefigures of last3years.Information on capacity utilization,export sales,investment and expansion plans of customers are externally gathered from the statistics issued by authoritative ctoral bodies,governmental institutions and
Table1
Variables ud for measurement of relationship strength.
Variable Weighting
牛轧糖图片Customer share0.20 Length of the relationship0.15 Dollar value of purchas(sales volume of previous year)0.15 Management distance(Frequency of contact)0.10 Degree of cooperation0.10 Friendship0.10
Trust0.10 Information sharing
0.10
少先队队徽Fig.1.Relationship strength—CS matrix.
Table2
Variables ud for measurement of customer's business potential.
Variable Weighting
Competitors'share of customer's purchas0.15 Dollar value of customer's purchas0.15 Growth rate of customer's purchas(per year using dollars)0.15 Customer's capacity utilization(customer's unemployed capacity)0.10 Future capacity expansions(in volume terms)0.10
Links with export markets(%exports of total turnover)0.10 Contribution margins(contribution margins of products sold to customer)0.10 Account prestige(reputation)0.10 Sensitivity to price0.05
436O.Gök/Industrial Marketing Management38(2009)433–439
customers'annual reports for the previous year.Using the numerical inputs,customers were groupe
d into intervals reprenting a five point scale for each variable.Account prestige and price nsitivity are subjective measures here and the customers were independently rated on a scale of five by the four company managers.
prents the dispersion of the customers according to their business potential and CS scores.Customers B,C and I,located in Cell 1of the Business Potential-CS grid,reprents relatively high levels of business potential and low levels of CS.Satisfaction information of the customers needs to be examined with all details and corrective actions (resource allocations)should be taken for key problematic areas of the relationship (Cogitate).Cell 2includes Customers A,F and H,and since the customers have relatively low potential,manage-ment should not allocate additional resources for CS aspects of the accounts (Stop).Cell 3of the grid includes only Customer K which has the highest CS score and the lowest potential in the account portfolio.Management should not invest extra resources in this relationship,they might even consider withdrawing some resources that had been allocated to this account in the past (Retreat).Customers D,E,G,J and L,located in Cell 4of the matrix,reprent both high potential and CS score.The relevant strategy for this group of customers could be to defend and monitor current levels of satisfaction and if there are signi ficant gaps in key aspects of CS,some moderate corrective actions may have to be taken (Retouch).
5.Analyzing the portfolio matrices and developing marketing strategies
The propod two matrices offer signi ficant insights into customer relationships of the lling company and a basis for more customer-facing key account analysis.Furthermore,simultaneous consideration of both matrices may reveal the current situation of relationships and generate sound strategies for key customer relationships on an individual basis.Such a concurrent evaluation expos not only the strengths and weakness of the company's customer relationships,but also guides accurate directions to and investments in relation-ships,while improving the effectiveness of marketing decisions.Spencer (1999)puts forward that KAM does not translate as “building good,strong relationships at all costs ”.It translates rather as allowing each relationship the attention it merits.That might well mean reducing investment in certain cas.
The results suggest that customers B and C,positioned in Cell 1of both matrices where the customer has a high relative business potential and strength,but the CS score is relatively low.Since the customers may be open to competitors'offerings and have higher business potential,the relevant strategy for the relationships could
be to allocate resources among the most dissatis fied aspects of CS dimensions in order to increa
satisfaction.A detailed examination of CS information of the customers indicates that Customer B is dissatis fied primarily with product related technical issues whereas Customer C is dissatis fied with complaint handling,return policies,processing of urgent orders and information sharing.Since the efforts intended to enhance the CS of tho customers is likely to pay off,company managers should take corrective actions and monitor the results,especially of the most dissatis fied aspects of CS dimensions.For instance,lling company managers would enlarge the product related interaction with Customer B.This might come in the form of increasing technical personnel visits to the customer,providing more comprehensive product information and extending technical rvices.The relevant strategy for Customer C could be to enhance the scope of some customer rvice elements speci fic to this customer,such as expanding product return conditions,fast respon,timely feedback to its complaints,and keeping some extra inventory for the customer.猫咪掉毛
Customers A and H are positioned in Quadrant 2of both matrices.The customers are low committed accounts that have stronger relationships with the major competitor of the company.Besides,since the customers have relatively low business potential,the company should maintain the current levels of satisfaction and refrain from corrective action and additional investment in trying to satisfy the customers.Clor examination of the accounts'CS scores reve
als that the customers are particularly dissatis fied with price levels,frequency of customer visits and sharing nsitive information but the company may maintain current price ranges,communication and visit frequency.
Customer F has a longstanding relationship with the supplier but a relatively low business potential and CS score.Nevertheless,examina-tion reveals that the dissatisfaction is primarily with commercial issues and prices so the payoff from this relationship will likely remain constant.Besides,considering the low business potential of this price-nsitive account,the managers may decide not to take any corrective actions for CS dimensions of the relationship.However,if this customer's dissatisfaction was heavily connected to non-commercial factors,modest corrective efforts could have been considered in order to maintain current share of customer's purchas.
On the other hand,in the ca of Customer I,relationship strength is low,CS score is the lowest but business potential is relatively high.The situation of Customer I should be considered exclusively in terms of key dissatis fied subjects and allocate resources for corrective actions in order to gain future business from this potentially lucrative customer.The CS measures for this customer show greater gaps in the issues of products,quality,sales personnel and complaint handling.Managers'comments verify that there had been veral controversies on the aspects of satisfaction dimensions for this r
子宫痛elationship in recent years and the satisfaction score re flects this dissatisfaction.An advisable cour for the lling company is to increa technical interaction with the customer and apply some exclusive procedures for the handling the complaints and orders in top management levels for a reasonable period.
Customers D,E and L have relatively low strength scores,but high business potential and CS levels.The high-potential accounts can be labeled as “Tomorrow's loyal ”customers and they have no major complaints about the technical or economical aspects of the relation-ships.Since the relationships are not established,the customers lack information about the lling company and perceive a high risk for the relationship.The fairly immature but promising relationships require more attention and tailor-made solutions to their product and rvice requirements.The strategy for the accounts could be to allocate resources to relational dimensions and trust-creating activ-ities such as information sharing,timely feedback,frequency of contact and friendship.The company should pursue all means of communica-tion with the customers through regular reports,customer visits,exclusive sales promotions and meetings involving top
management.
Fig.2.Account's business potential —CS matrix.
437
O.Gök /Industrial Marketing Management 38(2009)433–439
