Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2.9 Matrix of Supplier Brand Value Components Supplier Brand Value 1.To what extent does being associated with your strategic supplier's brand give you leverage with your customers? Component 2.How likely are you to repurchase from these suppliers? .744 3.How likely are you to tolerate a price increase by your strategic supplier? .583 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. KMO = 0.574, Chi-Square= 22.576, p
een monitored to make sure they gave the most accurate reply possible. However, since it was an Internet survey, we were able to look at whether informants rapidly clicked through a survey by examining the time it took them to complete the survey and whether they just choose one option as an answer throughout the survey. Hence, we removed those responses that had responses that had one response filled throughout the questionnaire. For example, if respondents just choose the option 1 for all the answers. This, as a result, reduces the potential CMV bias in our sample response. Two common survey procedures that were particularly prone to CMV are single-point format (i.e., using a five- or seven-point scale throughout the survey) and common scale anchors (for example, 1= strongly agree and 5= strongly disagree). For the first concern, we had to make a trade off and accept a single point format almost throughout the survey. There were two main reasons for our decision, such as time concerns (i.e., since we needed a number of questions answered in a limited amount of time and the use of a different point format would increase the amount of time required per survey filling) and the fact that our use of panel data would significantly increase the per response cost. For the common scale anchors, we decided to use different terminology throughout the survey, hence reducing the error caused by these anchors (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Marketing has lower CMV error than other social science disciplines (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). CMV is a cause for concern because it reduces the researchers’ ability to correctly critically infer information from the data (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Specifically, it increases the probability of type I and type II errors. One important way in which common method variance increases is as the level of construct abstraction increases (Rindfleisch et al., 2009). Some scholars have suggested a three-level taxonomy for categorizing the level of construct abstraction (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Rindfleisch et al., 2009). The first and least abstract levels of constructs are those that can be externally verified, for example, advertising expenditure. The second and middle level of abstraction are the outer expression of internal states. For example, firm experience in high technology markets. The third and most abstract level is an internal state, such as customer satisfaction. Based on this taxonomy, we have one variable that is at the most abstract level (i.e., buyer satisfaction); we have two variables that are moderately abstract (i.e., market orientation and IdRR), and two variables that are at the least abstract level (i.e., supplier brand value and buyer firm value). Therefore, we tried to find existing scales wherever possible, as they have been tried and tested, and help minimize any fears of CMV error in our study. 2.4.2 Sample Table 2.12 provides a description of the sample. Our sample was collected by using the GMI online panel and we received a response rate of 6% in the United States. Firms were chosen on the basis of whether they were situated in the United States. Whenever possible we tried to collect firms that were publically listed. Although the firms in our sample have a variety of products and have had relationships that range from transactional to strategic in nature, we only investigated their strategic relationships. The sample frame was comprised of 164 purchasing managers of strategic products. We sent out the questionnaire via email to the GMI panel in three waves according to Donney and Canon’s (1997) recommendations. Specifically, the entire list (N=2800) was mailed a questionnaire and a letter requesting their participation and one week later, a reminder was sent via email to those participants who had not responded. A total of 194 responses were received; of that total, 164 were finally used in our analysis. Thirty were discarded because they were incomplete or incorrectly filled. For instance, 55
Page 2 and 3:
ISBN 978-90-8980-055-8 © M. Abrahi
Page 4 and 5: Examination Committee Supervisor: P
Page 6 and 7: 2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL M
Page 8 and 9: 5.1 RESEARCH FINDINGS 114 5.2 OVERA
Page 10 and 11: List of Tables Table 2.1 Representa
Page 12 and 13: PREFACE Oscar Wilde once said, “I
Page 14 and 15: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Thesi
Page 16 and 17: Figure 1.1 Mckinsey Survey Results
Page 18 and 19: 1.4 Scope PhD thesis This thesis fo
Page 20 and 21: Netherlands. We used the maximum li
Page 22 and 23: 2.1 Introduction A central tenant o
Page 24 and 25: only provide an assessment of the s
Page 26 and 27: Table 2.1 highlights several promin
Page 28 and 29: other hand, they later argue that m
Page 30 and 31: Therefore, there is a convergence i
Page 32 and 33: usiness performance, firms need to
Page 34 and 35: means is that the more better a str
Page 36 and 37: Supplier responsiveness or market o
Page 38 and 39: Naryandas, 1995). Further, idiosync
Page 40 and 41: They might also include the ease wi
Page 42 and 43: they ask about intimate supplier in
Page 44 and 45: Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 46: Table 2.2 Modified Items of the MAR
Page 49 and 50: market intelligence, offering flexi
Page 51 and 52: We considered several scales before
Page 53: Table 2.7 Component Matrix Buyer Sa
Page 57 and 58: satisfaction and strategic supplier
Page 59 and 60: 2.5 Measurement Model For creating
Page 61 and 62: In the third step, we used maximum
Page 63 and 64: incremental fit index (IFI) is one
Page 65 and 66: ange of 100-150 (Hair et al., 2006,
Page 67 and 68: indicator that has a link to custom
Page 69 and 70: and strengths and their stock marke
Page 71 and 72: accompanies any innovation, accordi
Page 73 and 74: important finding because it provid
Page 75 and 76: 3.1 Introduction The Netherlands, d
Page 77 and 78: possibility that firm size may infl
Page 79 and 80: Figure 3.1 The Netherlands and Unit
Page 81 and 82: comprehensive agreement on each oth
Page 83 and 84: Why do we pay more for an orange wi
Page 85 and 86: constructs, for cross-cultural fact
Page 87 and 88: will discuss the SEM analysis of th
Page 89 and 90: BFV Hypothesis 4 IdRR->SBV Hypothes
Page 91 and 92: products. Overall, the effects of s
Page 93 and 94: more diverse comparison. China is a
Page 95 and 96: Chapter 4 The Quest for Performance
Page 97 and 98: insurance premiums. Hence, perceptu
Page 99 and 100: theoretical contribution regarding
Page 101 and 102: should reinforce objective measures
Page 103 and 104: Table 4.2 Standardized Regression W
Page 105 and 106:
Table 4.5 SEM Results Construct Dir
Page 107 and 108:
4.7 Discussion We start this discus
Page 109 and 110:
Jaowrski and Kohli (1993) provided
Page 111 and 112:
Using the findings of our current s
Page 113 and 114:
iii) iv) Indeed, there may not be m
Page 115 and 116:
uyer firm performance through a ser
Page 117 and 118:
specifically highlighted the import
Page 119 and 120:
5.5 Practical Implications From a m
Page 121 and 122:
Summary in English This dissertatio
Page 123 and 124:
is that, when developing marketing
Page 125 and 126:
isk by 0.98 standard deviations. Su
Page 127 and 128:
collectivist culture and a Confucia
Page 129 and 130:
Overwegende dat Verhoef en Leeflang
Page 131 and 132:
van de waarde te communiceren dat d
Page 133 and 134:
erkennen dat dit niet altijd een mo
Page 135 and 136:
ij de vraag of cultureel risico voo
Page 137 and 138:
Businessweek. (2012). S&P/BusinessW
Page 139 and 140:
-industry-09012011.html Grewal, R.,
Page 141 and 142:
Langerak, F. (2001). Effects of mar
Page 143 and 144:
Quelch, J. (2007). How to brand an
Page 145 and 146:
Verhoef, P. C., & Leeflang, P. S. H
Page 147 and 148:
1. The name of the company where yo
Page 149 and 150:
9.The supplier seems to have good i
Page 151 and 152:
17. The supplier takes a very long
Page 153 and 154:
25. If the supplier were to find ou
Page 155 and 156:
33.Does your strategic supplier als
Page 157 and 158:
41.To what degree do those specific
Page 159 and 160:
Supplier Brand Value 51.How likely
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix B Scatter Plot Diagrams fo
Page 163 and 164:
163
show all

Essays on supplier responsiveness and buyer firm value - Nyenrode ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?