Dilara Fulya Egesoy

Oğuzhan Bilgili

Building Brand Equity in B2B

Service Industry

Examination of the Servbrand Framework in Logistics Industry

Business Administration

Master’s Thesis 30 ECTS

Term: Spring 2021

Supervisor: Bo Rundh

3

Preface

We would like to begin with greeting respectfully our parents who have put all

their efforts into supporting us in every moment of our lives. Following this, we

would like to thank every participant who made this achievement possible

through their contribution with their time and knowledge.

Also, we present our deep gratitude to our supervisor Bo Rundh for his

guidance throughout the research process and everyone who contributed by

giving feedback during the research seminars.

This study was conducted with the equal contribution of the authors throughout

the entire research period.

Karlstad, June 2021

____________________ ____________________

Dilara Fulya Egesoy Oğuzhan Bilgili

4

Abstract

This study investigates a debatable subject of branding; building brand equity in

industrial service markets, particularly within the logistics service industry. The

extant literature provided many brand equity models, the brand resonance

pyramid being the most predominant one. However, the literature suggests the

model should be amended for the B2B service markets as the industry has

numerous different characteristics to consider. Servbrand Framework is one of

the undergoing efforts to provide a brand equity framework applicable within

the B2B service industry as an amended version of the brand resonance

pyramid. Nevertheless, the model is based on a single empirical context. This

research assesses the transferability of the model to the logistics service industry

and therefore provides a guideline to build a strong brand in the logistics service

industry.

The research took an interpretivist approach with an exploratory qualitative

research design to apply the Servbrand Framework within the logistics industry.

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with the decision-makers in

purchasing logistics services within the automotive industry in Germany, who

were subject to the non-probability sampling process.

The results indicated that the Servbrand Framework is transferable to the

logistics service industry with minor changes. Two new subdimensions are

proposed as ‘service experience’ and ‘consideration’ to be part of the client-

brand opinions block within the framework. Also, the ‘servicescape’ and

‘personableness’ subdimensions were not relevant for the context of the study.

Logistics service providers can build strong brands by initially creating salience

among the customers by using corporate naming strategies attached to core

competencies. Service providers also need to develop good performance and

people attributes connected to their brand, which will create positive brand

opinions and, therefore, long-term relationships and partnerships. The people

aspect was a key element to build strong brands and facilitate the brand's

meaning to the customers.

Keywords: brand equity, logistics branding, industrial branding, service branding

5

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 9

1.1. Background .................................................................................................. 9

1.2. Problem Statement ................................................................................... 10

1.3. Aim and Research Questions .................................................................. 11

2. Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 12

2.1. Branding ..................................................................................................... 12

2.1.1. Industrial Branding ........................................................................... 12

2.1.2. Brand Architecture in Industrial Markets ...................................... 15

2.1.3. Service Branding ................................................................................ 16

2.2. Brand Equity ............................................................................................. 16

2.2.1. Brand Equity in Industrial Markets ................................................ 19

2.3. Logistics Services Branding ..................................................................... 23

3. Research Method .............................................................................. 25

3.1. Research Design ........................................................................................ 25

3.2. Data Collection ......................................................................................... 26

3.2.1. Conducting the Interviews ............................................................... 27

3.2.2. Sampling ............................................................................................. 28

3.2.3. Interview Guide ................................................................................. 29

3.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 30

3.4. Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 31

3.4.1. Credibility ........................................................................................... 31

3.4.2. Transferability .................................................................................... 32

3.4.3. Dependability ..................................................................................... 32

3.4.4. Confirmability .................................................................................... 32

3.5. Ethical Issues ............................................................................................. 32

4. Findings & Analysis ......................................................................... 34

4.1. Participant Profile ..................................................................................... 34

4.2. Company Classification............................................................................ 34

4.3. Transferability of the Servbrand Framework ........................................ 35

4.4. Feedback on Interviews ........................................................................... 41

5. Discussion ........................................................................................ 42

5.1. Brand Salience ........................................................................................... 43

5.2. Brand Performance .................................................................................. 44

6

5.3. Brand Personification............................................................................... 46

5.4. Brand Opinions ........................................................................................ 46

5.5. Brand Relationships ................................................................................. 48

6. Conclusion ....................................................................................... 50

6.1. Managerial Implications ........................................................................... 50

6.2. Limitations and Further Research .......................................................... 51

References ............................................................................................... 52

Appendix ................................................................................................. 57

Appendix 1: Further Branding Models ............................................................. 57

1.1. Service Branding Model ....................................................................... 57

1.2. Aaker’s Brand Equity Model ............................................................... 57

Appendix 2: Interview Guide ............................................................................. 58

Appendix 3: Interview Questions Linked to Servbrand Framework ........... 68

Appendix 4: Brand Considerations ................................................................... 69

4.1. Logistics Service Providers Portfolio ................................................. 69

4.2. Unaided Brand Recall of Participants ................................................ 70

4.3. Aided Brand Recognition of Participants .......................................... 71

4.4. Associations Towards the Brands ...................................................... 72

4.5. Performance Criteria in Purchasing Process ..................................... 80

Appendix 5: Consent Form ................................................................................ 81

Appendix 6: Information Letter ........................................................................ 82

7

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Brand Resonance Pyramid (Customer-Based Brand Equity Model) 17

Figure 2: Servbrand Framework ............................................................................ 21

Figure 3: Amended Servbrand Framework for Logistics Services .................... 43

List of Tables

Table 1: Benefits of Branding for Industrial Buyers and Suppliers ................... 14

Table 2: The Clusters of the Decision-makers in Industrial Purchasing .......... 15

Table 3: Participant Profile of the Study ............................................................... 29

8

9

1. Introduction

This chapter introduces the subject through the background of the study and problematization

discussion and proceeds with the study's aim and the research questions.

1.1. Background

Branding is a powerful tool to differentiate and influence customers' buying

behaviors as strong brands positively change the customers' perceptions and

lead to higher buying decisions (Kuhn et al., 2008). Stronger brands are

beneficial to have higher financial results (Keller, 2001), and building brand

equity is the foundation for competitiveness (Seyedghorban et al., 2016;

Steenkamp et al., 2020).

The concept of branding is mainly developed within the consumer markets

(Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and primarily was conceptualized with the

physical preferences of the offerings (Steenkamp et al., 2020). According to

Berry (2000), branding for services is crucial just as for products because the

intangible nature of the service makes customers harder to trust. Branding

reduces the uncertainty for customers in their purchasing considerations for

services (Berry, 2000). However, branding was perceived as emotional in

industrial markets, providing little benefits to the rational business-to-business

(B2B) processes (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Still,

branding increasingly becomes relevant for the B2B market (Seyedghorban et

al., 2016) as brands affect the purchasing choice of industrial buyers (Kuhn et

al., 2008). The increasing similarity of the quality within B2B markets further

enhances the importance of branding (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011).

As branding becomes significant for the B2B and service industry, brand equity

is also a growing concept, which is the extracted value from branding activities

for the company and its customers (Aaker, 1991; Kotler, 1991). Brand equity

within the customer perspective results from positioning the brand in

customers' minds and creating value for the company and its customers (Aaker,

1991; Davis et al., 2008; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 2013). According to Keller

(1993), brand knowledge of the customers is the primary tool for developing

strong brands and differentiating the products or services.

The logistics industry is a competitive market in which the service providers

must differentiate their offerings besides pricing and quality efforts (Davis et al.,

2008, 2009). Building strong brands is a way for logistics companies to

10

differentiate themselves, but many companies had not prioritized branding

compared to their operational and pricing efforts (Davis et al., 2008, 2009). The

studies have shown that brand equity exists in the logistics market (Davis et al.,

2008), and creating brand awareness and the image is crucial to build brand

equity for logistics companies (Davis et al., 2008, 2009; Juntunen et al., 2011;

Marquardt et al., 2011).

1.2. Problem Statement

Although the industrial markets are price and quality-oriented, the experience

the customers have with the company and the perceptions developed towards

the brand is essential to build long-term business relationships and to

differentiate in the market (Bendixen et al., 2004; Jensen & Klastrup, 2008;

Sarin, 2014). Nevertheless, the B2B service industry lacks a confirmed brand

equity framework that can consistently evaluate the added value.

The B2B brand equity concept has been a turbulent subject whether Keller’s

(1993) Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) framework, primarily built for

the consumer market, is applicable within the B2B setting (Seyedghorban et al.,

2016). The framework is often used to investigate B2B industries and adapted

in different empirical contexts to enhance the framework's applicability

(Seyedghorban et al., 2016). This made B2B brand equity literature based on the

knowledge derived from the business-to-consumer (B2C) markets

(Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the extant literature remarks its

doubts whether the framework should be applicable for the B2B and service

markets, as noted by Kuhn et al. (2008), O’Cass and Grace (2004), and

Steenkamp et al. (2020). Despite Keller (2001) stating that the framework can

be amended in different needs, to what extent the amended model would fit the

overall B2B service industry is not evident (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Therefore,

Steenkamp et al. (2020) had examined the subdimensions of Keller’s CBBE

framework for the B2B service industry and determined which ones are

transferable for the B2B service industry and which are not. The study also built

new blocks and sub-dimensions valid for the B2B service industry (Steenkamp

et al., 2020). Therefore, the Servbrand Framework was developed to contribute

to the lowly researched body of the B2B service branding. However, the study

is based on a specific empirical context and needs investigation in other

countries or markets.

The logistics professionals acknowledge the importance of branding, but the

existing branding studies within the logistics service context are fragmented,

11

often contradictory, and consist of overlooked aspects of branding. Although

Davis et al. (2008, 2009) partially supported the extendibility of Keller’s CBBE

framework, the researchers noted that there are excluded aspects of the brand

equity within the studies, and there is a need for further explorations of the

antecedents of brand awareness and the image. The study of Świtała et al. (2018)

found weak correlations between the dimensions of Keller’s framework within

the logistics service providers setting. Similarly, Juntunen et al. (2011) stated that

brand equity for the industrial logistics service providers needs further

investigation. None of the studies had provided a complete picture of brand

equity within the logistics service industry. Therefore, there is a gap in the extant

literature for a comprehensive brand equity framework to guide logistics service

providers on building strong brands and brand equity. As previously stated,

Servbrand Framework is proposed to be applicable for the B2B service setting

(Steenkamp et al., 2020). However, the framework's applicability is questioned

for other contexts considering the study's limitations and has not yet been

applied within the logistics service industry context.

1.3. Aim and Research Questions

The present study undertakes a disunited body of the B2B service branding

literature and the gap of a validated brand equity framework for B2B service

companies, particularly for logistics service providers. Therefore, the aim of the

research is to explore how logistics service providers can build their brand equity

by adopting the newly developed Servbrand Framework. Also, the study aims

to identify which blocks and dimensions of the Servbrand Framework are

relevant for the logistics service providers and explore which further blocks or

dimensions can be added. To that end, the research develops the following

research questions:

• How can logistics service providers manage their branding activities to build their

brand equity?

• How transferable is the Servbrand Framework for building brand equity in the

logistics service industry?

12

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter provides the theoretical framework, introducing the branding concept, its benefits,

and its characteristics in B2B and the service context. This is followed by the concept of brand

architecture. Consequently, the brand equity concept is defined and discussed, including an in-

depth screening of industrial brand equity and the Servbrand Framework. Lastly, the chapter

addresses the logistics services branding from the literature.

2.1. Branding

A brand is defined as “a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies

one seller’s goods or service as distinct from those of other sellers” (American Marketing

Association, n.d., Branding section), which is the definition commonly used. A

brand represents the promise of practical and sentimental benefits when chosen

(Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Lynch & de Chernatony, 2007). Brands provide

tangible and intangible differentiation points, either with performance

attributions or more symbolic perceptions towards the product (Keller, 2013).

Branding activities from the firm perspective observe the cash generated from

the brand, whereas customer-based branding consists of exercises to build

awareness, perceptions, and bonds with the customers (Kapferer, 2008).

However, financial value is derived from customer value (Kapferer, 2008)

because the value for customers in return leads to enhanced financial

performance through the ability to charge higher prices and benefit from loyalty

(Keller, 2013).

2.1.1. Industrial Branding

The concept of branding was considered unsuitable for rational B2B relations

(Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Rosenbröijer, 2001).

Purchasing considerations are more of the performance indications of a product

or service, yet this belief was insufficient to explain the purchasing decisions

within industrial markets (Bendixen et al., 2004; Mudambi, 2002). Many

industrial companies do not focus on branding due to the high number of

products that cannot be branded individually (Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek &

Christodoulides, 2011). Branding is also considered as a long-term investment

with an uncertain return (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Therefore, industrial

markets find branding complex and confusing (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011),

highlighting the need for an extensive branding understanding within this

context (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Branding in industrial markets differs in many

13

aspects, such as the brand architecture, decision-making processes, and involved

actors.

The majority of the B2B marketing literature recognizes the importance of

brands in industrial markets and provides implications (Leek & Christodoulides,

2011). From the sellers’ perspective, building a solid brand is a way for

companies to expand into other markets, retain talents in the company, and deal

with influential customers (Wise & Zednickova, 2009). Branding can ease the

decision-making process by helping to reach a consensus (Leek &

Christodoulides, 2011; Wise & Zednickova, 2009), eliminating communication

barriers between the firm and the customers (Ohnemus, 2009). Branding also

provides a higher probability of being on the bidding list of buyers, the

possibility to charge a premium price (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Michell et

al., 2001; Ohnemus, 2009), and having higher referrals from the buyers

(Bendixen et al., 2004; Hutton, 1997; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Cretu and

Brodie (2007) found that brand image in business markets affects customer

perceptions, and company reputation widely affects customers’ evaluation of

value and loyalty. Branding extends the positive associations of a product or

service to the company's other products (Hutton, 1997; Leek & Christodoulides,

2011). Ohnemus (2009) urged B2B companies to focus on branding as it derives

more return of the investment to the shareholders. Companies can also enjoy

having higher bargaining power within the supply chain through branding (Leek

& Christodoulides, 2011; Ohnemus, 2009) and entry barriers for the external

actors (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Michell et al., 2001).

From industrial buyers’ perspective, there are numerous intangible benefits,

such as higher confidence in the buying process (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011;

Michell et al., 2001), a more heightened sense of satisfaction from the

transaction (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Low & Blois, 2002), comfort, and

good feeling (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002). Lowering risks is

an essential benefit of branding for buyers (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011;

Mudambi, 2002; Ohnemus, 2009; Seyedghorban et al., 2016). Besides, being

associated with a prestigious brand can make buyers’ products more accepted

in the market (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Overall, Leek and

Christodoulides (2011, p. 831) summarized the benefits of branding for

industrial sellers and buyers as in Table 1.

14

Table 1: Benefits of Branding for Industrial Buyers and Suppliers (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011, p. 831)

Benefits for Buyers Benefits for Suppliers Higher confidence Quality Risk/uncertainty reduction Differentiation Increased satisfaction Higher demand Greater comfort Premium price Identification with a strong brand Brand extensions Distribution power

Barrier to entry Goodwill Loyal customers Customer satisfaction Referrals

The organizational buying process has many tangible and intangible factors, as

noted in the pinwheel of Mudambi et al. (1997). The study found the price and

quality very important, but also many intangible elements are considered

substantial for the customers, such as the risks, personal preferences,

communication, reputation, and reliability (Mudambi et al., 1997). Bendixen et

al. (2004) also emphasized price and delivery as critical factors of the decisions,

especially delivery is the most important attribute. The brand name follows this

as an important factor in industrial buying decisions (Bendixen et al., 2004). The

findings of Zablah et al. (2010) confirm that brand affects the decision-making

process, yet the effect is limited and assistant to the primary impact from price,

service, and logistics.

Each criterion discussed has different importance for each actor within the

industrial purchasing process (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011). Actors who need

specific product knowledge are the most sensible decision-making units to

brand differences (Bendixen et al., 2004; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011).

Mudambi (2002) proposed three clusters of customers as “highly tangible,”

“branding receptive,” and “low interest” (p. 531), who had different perceptions

of the importance of branding. The cluster of highly tangible customers was

described as traditional and objective, being more tangible information-oriented

with a structured way of decision-making (Mudambi, 2002). The cluster of

branding receptive customers was identified as open-minded but complicated,

an essential group for the brands as highly brand-sensitive (Mudambi, 2002).

Finally, the low-interest cluster consists of low brand sensitive and risk avoidant

customers (Mudambi, 2002). The groups are summarized in Table 2.

Strong B2B

Brand

15

Table 2: The Clusters of the Decision-makers in Industrial Purchasing (Mudambi, 2002, p. 531)

No. % of

sample

Cluster

descriptor

Buyer

descriptor

Purchase

descriptor

Process

descriptor

1 49% Highly tangible Traditional,

moderate,

objective

Typical,

product-

oriented

Textbook,

structured

2 37% Branding

receptive

Large

volume,

sophisticated

Highly

important,

risky

Open-

minded,

thorough

3 14% Low interest Low

relevancy,

indifferent

Routine,

low risk

Convenience,

low

involvement

To facilitate all efforts to gain customers from each cluster, salespeople are

crucial (Mudambi, 2002). The effective use of salespeople connected to the

brand touches the buyers' rational and sentimental minds (Lynch & de

Chernatony, 2007). Thereby, a customer relationship may be managed

successfully by building trust and dedication (Mudambi, 2002).

2.1.2. Brand Architecture in Industrial Markets

The understanding of branding has shifted from a brand as a product to a brand

as a corporate (Bendixen et al., 2004; Mottram, 1998). The corporate brand

represents the company in industrial markets (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek &

Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002). It carries particular importance in

industrial markets and is a significant differentiation factor for the

competitiveness of companies (Balmer, 1995; Bendixen et al., 2004). The

corporate brand provides the overall direction for managers to administer the

value creation (Ackerman, 1998; Bendixen et al., 2004). Besides, the corporate

brand represents many seller attributes for trade relations (Kuhn et al., 2008;

Mudambi, 2002).

Sinclair and Seward (1988) found the brand naming strategies helpful to

differentiate, be recognizable, and have more protection against the

competitors. Shipley and Howard (1993) also highlighted the brand name

representing a promise of quality and communicating the advantages to the

customers. Gordon et al. (1993) referred to the company name as the main

differentiator that brings loyalty to the whole products or services of the

company. Good attributes connected to the corporate brand differentiates the

firm from competitors (Davis et al., 2009). Therefore, the corporate brand is

16

the most prominent branding architecture within B2B markets (Davis et al.,

2008; Kuhn et al., 2008; Steenkamp et al., 2020).

2.1.3. Service Branding

Branding is vital for services, just as for products. The value creation shifts from

product to service as the experiences through delivering the service are the

primary source of value (Berry, 2000). This perspective aligns with the growing

view of the service-dominant logic in which services are the core offerings of

companies and the source of value creation (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2017). The

service offerings are more sophisticated and involving multi-processes (O’Cass

& Grace, 2004). For this, brands let service companies differentiate and lower

the complexity of deciding which service to choose for customers (Berry, 2000;

Davis et al., 2008). The brand is also the corporate name for services (Berry,

2000; O’Cass & Grace, 2004).

A service can be branded within the relationship of different components;

through the “company’s presented brand, external brand communications, customer

experience with company, brand awareness, brand meaning, and brand equity” (Berry, 2000,

p. 130) (Berry’s Service-Branding Model: Appendix 1.1). Service branding

should also have further vital considerations such as the place of rendering the

service, people who deliver the service, an efficient process, and the experiences

of the customers with the service (O’Cass & Grace, 2004).

2.2. Brand Equity

Brand equity is a significant term widely used throughout the literature. Aaker

(1991) defines brand equity as the “set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand,

its name, and symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service

to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (p. 15). The strategic perspective of brand

equity is from the customer perspective, mainly through positioning the brand

with the awareness and image perceptions of customers to create a long-term

return from marketing efforts (Aaker, 1991; Davis et al., 2008; Kapferer, 2008;

Keller, 1993). Keller (1993) defines customer-based brand equity as “the

differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p.

2).

The brand equity concept was initially undertaken thoroughly by Aaker (1991)

and Keller (1993), who had provided the predominant branding models to the

literature (Steenkamp et al., 2020; O'Cass & Grace, 2004). According to Aaker’s

(1991) brand equity model, the value from brand equity is based on five different

17

categories. These are “brand loyalty,” “name awareness,” “perceived quality,”

“brand associations in addition to perceived quality,” and “other proprietary

brand assets – patents, trademarks, channel relationships, etc.” (Aaker, 1991, p.

15) (Aaker’s Brand Equity Model: Appendix 1.2). These dimensions build the

brand equity that provides value to customers and the firm, such as satisfaction,

confidence, and information processing for the buyers (Aaker, 1991). The value

for the firms consists of more significant marketing results, loyalty, higher profit,

extended brands, and eventually competitive advantage (Aaker, 1991).

Keller (1993) underlined the brand knowledge of the customers developed

through marketing efforts as the main asset to improve the efficiency of

marketing. Based on the brand knowledge, Keller’s (1993) customer-based

brand equity (CBBE) concept, later called as brand resonance model (Keller,

2013), proposed how to build a strong brand by taking consequential stages that

are dependent on the success of each other (Figure 1).

Salience Category Identification

Needs Satisfied

Imagery User Profiles

Purchase and Usage Situations

Personality and Values History, Heritage, and

Experiences

Performance Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features

Product Reliability, Durability, Serviceability

Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Empathy

Style and Design Price

Feelings Warmth

Fun Excitement

Security Social Approval

Self-Respect

Resonance Loyalty

Attachment Community Engagement

Judgments Quality

Credibility Consideration

Superiority

Figure 1: Brand Resonance Pyramid (Customer-Based Brand Equity Model) (Keller, 2013, p. 108)

18

“Brand salience” is the easiness of brand recall and recognition, being aware of

the product or service category of the brand and which needs it would satisfy

(Keller, 2013, p. 108).

“Brand performance” is the indication of the performance features of the brand,

to what extent the brand would meet the customers' operational needs (Keller,

2013, p. 112).

• “Primary ingredients and supplementary features” are the customers’

notions of the characteristics that give functionality to the product and

individualize the use (Keller, 2013, p. 113). In terms of “product reliability,

durability, and serviceability,” reliability is the consistency of performance,

durability is the lifetime of the product, and serviceability is the ease of fixing

in need (Keller, 2013, p. 113). “Service effectiveness, efficiency, and

empathy” indicate consequently the level of satisfaction the brand provides

to customers, the service speed and responsiveness, and the level of care and

customer orientation (Keller, 2013, p. 113). “Style and design” is the

product's appearance, form, used items, and color (Keller, 2013, p. 113).

“Price” is evaluating the brand whether it is expensive or not (Keller, 2013, p.

113).

“Brand image” is an abstract thought of a brand considering the psychological

and social demands fulfilled (Keller, 2013, p. 113).

• “User profiles” remark the associations of the type of people or organizations

that use the brand based on their demographic or psychiatric information

(Keller, 2013, p. 113-114). “Purchase and usage imagery” explains the

circumstances in which the brand is used, such as the channel used, location,

or the activity performed (Keller, 2013, p. 114-115). “Brand personality and

values” consist of personal characteristics and values involving “sincerity,”

“excitement,” “competence,” “sophistication,” and “ruggedness” (Keller,

2013, p. 115). “History, heritage, and experiences” are the perceptions of

the brand regarding its history and the notions of past experiences with the

brand (Keller, 2013, p. 116).

“Brand judgments” are the overall evaluations of the brand as a cumulation of

performance and image perceptions (Keller, 2013, p. 117).

• “Brand quality” indicates the quality perceptions of customers as an essential

element of brand equity (Keller, 2013, p. 117). “Brand credibility” indicates

the sense of “expertise,” “trustworthiness,” and “likability” of the brand

(Keller, 2013, p. 117). “Brand consideration” highlights the suitability of the

offering to the customers' needs so that the brand can be part of the purchasing

19

considerations (Keller, 2013, p. 118). “Brand superiority” is the perceptions

towards the brand being different compared to others (Keller, 2013, p. 118).

“Brand Feelings” are the sentimental inferences of the customers towards the

brand (Keller, 2013, p. 118).

• “Warmth” indicates the level of “calm” and “peacefulness” (Keller, 2013, p.

119). “Fun” means the customers being “amused,” “joyous,” and “cheerful”

(Keller, 2013, p. 119). “Excitement” expresses the feelings of exclusiveness,

hype, and dynamism (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Security” includes the feelings of

“safety” and “comfort” (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Social approval” is the feeling

of being more convenient among the people associated with a brand (Keller,

2013, p. 120). “Self-respect” is the sense of “pride,” “accomplishment,” and

“fulfillment” (Keller, 2013, p. 120).

“Brand Resonance” is the final phase of building a solid brand, portraying the

relationship between the customer and the brand and how they fit each other

(Keller, 2013, p. 120).

• “Loyalty” indicates the customers’ purchasing density and amount from the

brand (Keller, 2013, p. 120). “Attachment” is about a greater willingness to

buy from the brand and view the brand as special (Keller, 2013, p. 120).

“Community” is customers’ feeling of being alike and in connection with

other people who are in touch with the brand (Keller, 2013, p. 121).

“Engagement” is the customers’ alacrity to “invest time, energy, money, or

other resources” to learn more about the brand (Keller, 2013, p. 121).

According to the model, building brand equity needs each block and

subdimensions to be carefully examined and realized (Keller, 2013).

2.2.1. Brand Equity in Industrial Markets

Brand equity is a growing subject within the B2B context, with shreds of

evidence that strong and valuable brands can be created. Authors such as

Bendixen et al. (2004) and Gordon et al. (1993) provided empirical evidence that

brand equity exists in industrial markets.

Keller’s CBBE model was primarily used within the industrial setting, yet it was

criticized by Kuhn et al. (2008) regarding the applicability within the B2B

context. According to Kuhn et al. (2008), industrial markets differ by many

aspects, such as their decision-making processes, involved actors in purchasing,

and the brand architecture. Therefore, Kuhn et al. (2008) revised Keller’s (1993)

CBBE model and proposed that salience, performance, imagery, and judgments

20

blocks of the CBBE model apply for the B2B markets, but there was no

evidence for feelings. According to the study, performance dimensions are more

relevant for industrial buyers than the outlook (Kuhn et al., 2008). In addition,

technology was a significant performance consideration (Kuhn et al., 2008).

Credibility as part of the brand judgment block also had considerable

importance (Kuhn et al., 2008). In regards to resonance, dimensions of loyalty,

attachment, community, and engagement were not considered relevant; instead,

partnerships were highlighted (Kuhn et al., 2008). The study counted reputation

as a significant consideration of the buyers, and the use of salespeople is

essential to build brand equity (Kuhn et al., 2008).

Steenkamp et al. (2020) aimed to provide a B2B service brand equity framework,

an amended version of Keller’s CBBE model. The study considered brand

salience, performance, and judgment blocks relevant for the B2B service

industry (Steenkamp et al., 2020). However, minor changes were present in the

performance block, feelings were not considered relevant, and the image block

was replaced with people aspects (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Judgments block was

renamed as opinions, including a particular emphasis on trustworthiness and

overall satisfaction (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Lastly, brand resonance was

changed to brand relationships consisting of personal and partnership aspects

as the critical element of value creation (Steenkamp et al., 2020) (Figure 2). The

majority of these changes were also discussed by the study of Kuhn et al. (2008)

in the B2B context.

21

In addition to the remained sub-dimensions of the CBBE model (as previously

elaborated), the study added new subdimensions as described (Steenkamp et al.,

2020):

• As part of the service brand performance block, “processes” are critical alone

with the supporting factors that shape the way of delivering the service

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Distribution” describes the place, specifying

the channel of delivery (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Servicescape” is the

atmosphere in which the service is provided (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).

• Regarding the service brand personification block, “attitudes” are the

thoughts and feelings of the service provider shaping the way of dealing with

the customers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Demeanor” is the actual

behavior of the service provider with the customers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p.

65). “Personality” describes the character traits of the service provider,

whereas “values” are the doctrines that shape the behavior (Steenkamp et al.,

2020, p. 65). “Personableness” indicates the “appearance” and “manner”

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Product knowledge” relates to the

Salience Category Identification

Needs Satisfied

Service Brand Personification

Attitude and Demeanour

Personality and Values Personableness

Product Knowledge Client Knowledge

Service Brand Performance

Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features

Service Reliability, Service Effectiveness,

Efficiency, and Empathy Processes

Price Distribution and

Servicescape

Client-Brand Relationships Interpersonal Partnerships

Client-Brand Opinions Service Quality

Credibility and Trust Satisfaction

Figure 2: Servbrand Framework (Steenkamp, et al., 2020, p. 66)

22

conception of the proposition of the service, whereas “client knowledge” is

the understanding of the customers’ business and its requirements (Steenkamp

et al., 2020, p. 65).

• Client-brand opinions block consists of “credibility and trust” that indicate

to what extent customers find the service provider reliable and trustful

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65). “Satisfaction” is the judgment of the service

whether it is effective and derives appreciation (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).

• As for the client-brand relationships, “interpersonal” implies the relationship

and interaction between the customer and the brand’s representatives, whereas

“partnerships” are the collaborative efforts to reach a common target

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 65).

However, the Servbrand Framework has not yet been applied in different

locations or industries. Steenkamp et al. (2020) also stated that the framework's

applicability should be extended to other sectors to show the model's usefulness

within different B2B service contexts.

Many other authors also contributed to the B2B brand equity concept by

providing various implications. According to Biedenbach and Marell (2010),

customer experience positively affects brand equity dimensions of awareness,

associations, quality perceptions, and loyalty. Bendixen et al. (2004) argued that

quality is the leading brand equity dimension, and it is a must to build a perceived

quality among customers. Sarin (2014) proposed the pillars of building brand

equity within two dimensions, namely, “performance” and “behavior” (p. 99).

The pillar of performance includes “quality,” “delivery,” “price,” and “service”

aspects, whereas the behavior pillar includes “attitude,” “relationship,”

“integrity,” “abiding by promises,” and “responsiveness” (Sarin, 2014, p. 99).

The study of Jensen and Klastrup (2008) suggested that B2B branding is mainly

rational, but emotional aspects such as credibility and trust are crucial for brand

equity. Biong and Silkoset (2014) highlighted that the customers’ sensitiveness

to quality affects the ability to charge a premium price of sellers. Kim and Hyun

(2011) provided evidence that brand equity is affected by “channel

performance,” “price,” “promotion,” and “after-sales services” (p. 435). The

research found that brand awareness, perceived quality, and loyalty derive brand

equity, and personal selling was considered the critical promotion channel for

brand equity (Kim & Hyun, 2011). Ryan and Silvanto (2013) emphasized the

importance of long-term relationships that value technical information,

innovation, quality, and customer support in building B2B brand equity.

Intangible attributes such as the attitude, knowledge, and specialty of

23

salespeople were also considered necessary, bringing professionalism and trust

(Ryan & Silvanto, 2013).

2.3. Logistics Services Branding

The executives in the logistics market acknowledged branding as important but

mainly used pricing efforts to differentiate in the market (Davis et al., 2008).

Davis et al. (2008; 2009) used Keller’s CBBE model and proposed that the brand

is an essential factor for logistics service providers, and the brand equity appears

within the industry. Two brand equity dimensions, “brand awareness” and

“brand image,” were considered relevant for the logistics industry (Davis et al.,

2008, p. 224). Also, the brand's name represents the corporate name in the

market (Davis et al., 2008). Customers found brand image more important than

brand awareness in creating brand equity; therefore, the study advised

companies to invest in employee training to provide a positive brand image

(Davis et al., 2008). On the contrary, the study of Świtała et al. (2018) stated that

there is an indication for a positive influence of brand awareness and brand

image on brand equity, but it is too weak to support these implications.

Juntunen et al. (2011) investigated the corporate brand equity for logistics

service providers and tested a conceptual model (brand awareness and brand

image resulting in brand equity and consequently loyalty) created from the brand

equity literature (based on Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). The findings asserted that

brand awareness and image impact brand equity, but corporate brand loyalty did

not relate to corporate brand equity (Juntunen et al., 2011). On the other hand,

Grant et al. (2014) provided evidence that service quality, satisfaction, and

loyalty in tandem build corporate brand equity for third-party logistics service

providers.

Marquardt et al. (2011) asserted that to build brand equity (composed of

awareness and image) in the logistics industry, companies need to provide a

unique value proposition, communicate the brand with the customers, and

provide positive experiences. To provide a unique value proposition, companies

must exceed the quality expectations, be reliable, responsive, customer-oriented,

have outstanding technology, equipment, and delivery (Marquardt et al., 2011).

As for the brand's communication, reputation plays a vital role as customers

share their opinions (Marquardt et al., 2011). Besides, employee training is

crucial to communicate the values and the brand to customers (Marquardt et al.,

2011). Customer experience also takes a central role in brand meaning for the

service providers (Berry, 2000; Marquardt et al., 2011). Several ways of assuring

24

a positive experience are “customer service, service quality, service reliability,

service predictability, trustworthiness, honesty, dependability, loyalty toward the

customer, effective communications, good employees, technology, and ethics”

(Marquardt et al., 2011, p. 53).

Abdul Rahman et al. (2014) took a different perspective by investigating the

relationship between the logistics partnerships within the supply chain and

industrial branding, focusing on dyadic relationships to create thriving brands.

The results indicated that partnerships provide benefits for parties to make their

branding, enhance loyalty to each other, and build long-term relationships

(Abdul Rahman et al., 2014). If logistics companies provide good delivery

performance, manufacturers can benefit from a better brand image through

increased reputation and prestige (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014). At the same time,

the logistics companies can enjoy long-term relationships, trust, and loyalty

(Abdul Rahman et al., 2014).

The importance of brand awareness and meaning are highlighted by the majority

(Davis et al., 2008, 2009; Juntunen et al., 2011), yet with the exception that the

connection is weak (Świtała et al., 2018). There is a contradiction with the

findings that loyalty is an antecedent (Grant et al., 2014), an outcome (Ryan &

Silvanto, 2013), or no relevance (Juntunen et al., 2011) to brand equity.

Servbrand Framework, which is a guideline to build brand equity within the B2B

service industry (Steenkamp et al., 2020), has provided several implications that

were also discussed within the logistics brand equity literature. These include;

quality (Grant et al., 2014; Marquardt et al., 2011), reliability, responsiveness,

customer orientation, effective delivery (Marquardt et al., 2011), trust, and

credibility (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014; Marquardt et al., 2011), satisfaction

(Grant et al., 2014), the importance of people (Davis et al., 2008, 2009;

Marquardt et al., 2011; Ryan & Silvanto, 2013), attitude, business knowledge,

innovation (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013), and partnerships (Abdul Rahman et al.,

2014). However, Servbrand Framework consists of tangible and intangible

aspects of building brand equity that are not yet discussed within the logistics

industry setting. As also Davis et al. (2008) stated, the implications within the

industry could be augmented by the further investigation of “functional,

experiential, and attitudinal dimensions” (p. 225). Touching upon these aspects

can contribute to the overall picture for the logistics industry and enhance the

transferability of Servbrand Framework to another B2B service context.

25

3. Research Method

This chapter provides the methodological discussion of the paper by explaining the research

strategy, the data collection methods, the way of sampling for the participants, the process of the

data analysis, the trustworthiness, and ethical aspects.

3.1. Research Design

Brands are highly dependent on awareness and the meaning customers develop

for a brand. Such attempts to investigate the brand and its value must be in-

depth and experience-oriented. Therefore, the current research takes the

interpretivist approach to explore the brand equity model based on customer-

based implications. This perspective is placed within the spectrum of two

considerations of reality, whether the existence is independent of the observer

or subjective and based on perceptions (Bell et al., 2019). Within this spectrum,

the interpretivist approach includes understanding the social world of

participants by the researcher (King et al., 2019). The researcher's interpretation

is needed to explore which brand equity dimensions are relevant for logistics

service providers and explore further aspects.

Brand equity has a considerable amount of research in the literature yet is limited

within the context of this study. The so far provided implications on brand

equity, especially the Servbrand Framework proposed to be applicable within

the B2B service industry, needs investigation within the logistics context. The

study is informed by the model yet also explores further aspects of building

brand equity within the industry, which can be utilized by working

synchronously with the arisen data and theory (Bell et al., 2019). For this

purpose, the research takes an abductive approach in which both the data and

the theory is considered together in the analysis process (Bell et al., 2019).

Abductive is an “approach to theory development involving the collection of

data to explore a phenomenon, identify themes and explain patterns, to generate

a new – or modify an existing – theory which is subsequently tested” (Saunders

et al., 2019, p. 796). This approach involves inductive and deductive

characteristics, yet it suppresses their limitations as there is limited data to

develop a theory or provide accurate results by strictly following a theory (Bell

et al., 2019). As also mentioned by Saunders (2019), both inductive and

deductive approaches result in being abductive.

This study was considered exploratory by aiming at exploring how logistics

service providers can build their brand equity. Exploratory analyses intend to

26

discover an uncovered subject and gain deep insights to understand an issue

(Gray, 2017; Saunders et al., 2019). These efforts are mainly linked to answering

the questions of “what” and “how” to clarify the unclear phenomenon

(Saunders et al., 2019, p. 187). The current research was derived from a need for

a comprehensive brand equity model that can guide logistics service providers

to build strong brands based on empirical data. Hence, the study was positioned

as applied research, which is the investigation of a practical business issue and

the efforts of providing a solution that can be applied by the practitioners

(Easterby-Smith et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2019).

As another consideration of the research design, the timeframe of this research

was set as cross-sectional due to the specific given time and aiming the data

would not be affected by the time it had been collected. This timeframe reflects

the collection of data at a certain point in time (Gray, 2017; Saunders et al., 2019)

on multiple units of analysis and therefore building relevant themes from the

data (Ghauri et al., 2020).

This study considered the qualitative approach appropriate, as it is taken to

gain in-depth insights and build a comprehensive picture of the subject within

the contextual setting (Gray, 2017). This choice was also reflected in brand

equity being a sophisticated multidimensional concept (Steenkamp et al., 2020).

The present research not only aims to see which brand equity building

dimensions exist but also to understand the importance of them in the market.

Such qualitative investigations were also made by Kuhn et al. (2008) and

Steenkamp et al. (2020) with a similar purpose. This study adopted a general

qualitative methodology.

3.2. Data Collection

The study used semi-structured interviews as the primary data source to

explore how logistics service providers can build their brand equity. Semi-

structured interviews had a particular sequence of questions and provided the

ability to probe further information with open-ended questions, which fit the

exploratory nature of the research and allowed participants to describe the

subject or situation as implied by Saunders et al. (2019). The abductive reasoning

of the study also led to choosing semi-structured interviews as the questions

were connected to a theoretical framework but allowed further discussions that

can emerge further implications (Saunders et al., 2019). Since the study aimed

to gather customer-based substances on building brand equity, direct

information from the customers was needed regarding their brand knowledge.

27

Interviews served this purpose by providing qualified information from the

customers through their recognition of the logistics brands and their thoughts

and associations.

The interview questions were priorly discussed with the research supervisor and

tested initially with an expert from the logistics market to observe the interview's

sequence, wording, and duration. Pilot tests are helpful to observe how the

interviews are compelling, how the questions are understood by the participants

(Ghauri et al., 2020), and what to be improved or changed (Bell et al., 2019).

After the interview trial, the researchers made the necessary changes to enhance

the understandability and flow of the interviews, such as changing some

wordings and the structure of the sentences. Also, the interviewees were able to

give feedback and recommendations regarding the interview structure and

content.

3.2.1. Conducting the Interviews

Online interviews (with MS Teams) were considered appropriate due to the

Covid-19 pandemic, avoiding personal contact, and the ease of use. As also Bell

et al. (2019) and Saunders et al. (2019) asserted, online tools also allowed the

researchers to use integrated solutions, scheduling meetings in a more flexible

manner (place and time), conducting interactive interviews, and recording them

at once. Such tools also allow both parties to stay in their preferred comfortable

location (Saunders et al., 2019). All participants were comfortable using MS

Teams, which enhanced the research processes. As King et al. (2019) stated, the

participant's familiarity with the online solutions is vital in the research process

and can otherwise cause the participants to cancel participation. The use of the

tools also helped the researchers facilitate and organize the data.

The interviews were conducted within March-April 2021 and took in English, a

commonly practiced language across the companies and the researchers.

Interviews took place after the participants were informed about the aim, the

data processing and confidentiality regulations of the study, and the interview

duration. This initial process of informing the participants is an important step

that affects the course of the interviews as the interviewees need to be satisfied

with the confidentiality concerns and the aim of the study (Ghauri et al., 2020).

Both researchers held the interviews, having the same person as the speaker and

the same notetaker to take records during the interviews. The interviews were

also video/audio recorded after the taken consent to check the interview notes'

accuracy. The interview duration was set to 30-40 minutes, yet a few took

28

around 40-60 minutes, depending on the depth of the answers. The duration

was ideal as it was not exhaustive, which was also argued by Ghauri et al. (2020)

that a one-hour interview duration is appropriate.

3.2.2. Sampling

Non-probability sampling is commonly used for qualitative studies, as was

the case with this study. Particularly, purposive sampling allows finding the

specific point that can provide rich information and be subject to a

comprehensive investigation (Gray, 2017). The study has a predetermined

research focus that implies a particular participant profile and therefore needs

purposive sampling to reach the correct target (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018).

Such a specific case for this study was gathering information from the decision-

makers in purchasing, renewing, or changing logistics services selected from the

automotive suppliers in Germany. Therefore, judgmental sampling was used

based on the considerations followingly stated.

The study chose Germany initially because of the accessibility, but also due to

being an important logistics hub of Europe, offering high logistics technology

and infrastructure, having advanced manufacturing, and being a leader in the

service sector within Europe (FAZIT Communication, 2018; GTAI, n.d.;

iXPOS, n.d.). The reasons for choosing automotive suppliers had the

considerations of the industry naturally representing the B2B industry, being

highly dependent on logistics operations, and having complex purchasing and

decision-making processes (Oliver Wyman, 2016).

The sampling of participants also had homogeneity concerns, choosing large

companies to have the consistency of characteristics. For this purpose, the top

100 automotive suppliers listed by Meyer Industry Research (2018) were used

to find the potential subject companies for the research. Only one company was

not chosen from the list but still considered fit for the aim of the study as the

company was a large automotive supplier.

Interviewees were determined based on their departments (operations, plants,

purchasing, procurement, supply chain, or logistics) and seniority (mid-to-senior

level) in the selected companies to ensure that they influenced the decision-

making process of logistics services purchasing. Participants were reached out

via emails and LinkedIn, and out of 350 requests, 16 interviews were conducted

(4.6% response rate) (listed in Table 3) from 14 different companies. Due to the

29

time and feasibility conditions of the research and consideration of theoretical

saturation, the number of interviews was considered satisfactory.

Table 3: Participant Profile of the Study

Role (as abstract) Seniority

PARTICIPANT01 Director Global Supply Chain Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT02 Director Operations Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT03 Director and Plant Manager Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT04 Director Global Purchasing Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT05 Vice President Logistics Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT06 Manager Logistics Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT07 Director Purchasing Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT08 Manager Supply Chain Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT09 Manager Corporate Supply Chain Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT10 Manager Logistics Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT11 Plant Manager Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT12 Manager Logistics Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT13 Specialist Purchasing Senior (10+ years)

PARTICIPANT14 Director Global Purchasing Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT15 Vice President Logistics Senior (20+ years)

PARTICIPANT16 Expert Logistics Senior (10+ years)

The participants provided their personal reflections throughout the interviews

and were the decision-makers or influenced the choice of the logistics service

providers for their companies. Although their influence on the purchasing

process varied and their perspective differed when putting importance to certain

aspects (logistics, purchasing, or division/plant), the answers provided rapport

to each other.

Lastly, to decide which logistics service brands to ask about within the

interviews, top large logistics brands were chosen based on their annual revenue

and whether they are in operation in Germany as listed by Marketline (2015).

Based on these criteria, 28 logistics service brands were mentioned within the

interviews while allowing the interviewees to name another logistics service

brand if not listed.

3.2.3. Interview Guide

The study adopted the interview questions from the study of Steenkamp et al.

(2020), which consisted of the potential brand equity measurements proposed

by Keller (2013), the implications discussed within the study of Kuhn et al.

(2008), and the literature (Steenkamp et al., 2020). The main author of the study

30

was contacted before using the questions within the purpose of this research.

The use of an existing interview guide contributes to the validity of the questions

as they were already evaluated by the other researchers (Bell et al., 2019). Using

existing questions also eased the assessment of transferability of the Servbrand

Framework, as the same questions were asked for the development of the model

by Steenkamp et al. (2020). The adopted questions of the interview were

structured within four categorizations (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 60) (detailed

in Steenkamp, 2016: Appendix 2):

• “Section A”: Four questions to evaluate the participants’ influence on the

company’s logistics service provider portfolio.

• “Section B”: Four questions to confirm the type of company, the market

position, number of employees, and years in operation.

• “Section C”: Twenty-eight questions to test the transferability of the

Servbrand Framework in the logistics service setting. The questions were

linked to the block and subdimensions of the framework (Appendix 3).

• “Section D”: Two questions to receive overall feedback from the interviewees

regarding their experience with the interview.

3.3. Data Analysis

Interviews were the primary source of data to be analyzed, which were initially

noted and transcribed. The transcriptions consisted of numerical labeling to

indicate the unit of analysis and participants to provide confidentiality, which is

necessary and suggested by Saunders et al. (2019). The transcription process

made the researchers familiar with the data and allowed them to have an abstract

view of the possible results. Becoming familiar with the data is an important

step that enables the researchers to find meaningful connections and themes

(Saunders et al., 2019). The transcribed interviews were subject to thematic

analysis, which seeks patterns for qualitative data (Gray, 2017). The thematic

analysis includes coding the data and building themes to be analyzed within the

research aim (Saunders et al., 2019). This process was supported by the

computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) called Atlas.ti9,

which allowed the researchers to organize the data, make coding, use notes and

categorize them. The use of CAQDAS helps the organization and the utilization

of the research process (Saunders et al., 2019) but leaves the analysis to the

researcher (Gray, 2017).

Initially, the transcription documents were grouped based on the participant

profile, representing either the purchasing, logistics, or the division perspective.

31

After that, the coding process began with open coding regarding the subject of

the answers and suggested coding derived from the predetermined connections

to the Servbrand Framework. As the researchers proceeded with the data

analysis, the codes were gathered under logical categories representing the

theme of the given answers. These categories were then connected to the

subdimensions of the Servbrand Framework if interrelated, otherwise

considered a new dimension. Lastly, the confirmed and emerged subdimensions

were linked to the relevant blocks of the Servbrand Framework. The process of

coding also consisted of rechecking and making amendments to codes if

necessary to keep consistency. This way of analysis complied with the abductive

reasoning and helped the coding be focused and related to the aim of the

research, which are the aspects typically referred to as the limitations of pure

inductive and deductive coding (Saunders et al., 2019).

3.4. Trustworthiness

The explanatory power of the study is typically discussed within the discussions

of validity and reliability, which are the common concerns of quantitative

researches (Bell et al., 2019). However, they may have limited relevance for

qualitative investigations (Bell et al., 2019), mainly due to the concerns of the

measurement and generalizability being not the central focus of qualitative

studies (Saunders et al., 2019). Therefore, new concepts are proposed to discuss

the rigor of qualitative studies within trustworthiness criteria (Bell et al., 2019).

Trustworthiness consists of four different criteria; “credibility,”

“transferability,” “dependability,” and “confirmability” (Bell et al., 2019, p.

363).

3.4.1. Credibility

The term credibility is used to describe the concern of the researcher

understanding the participants correctly (Bell et al., 2019). This concern of data

observation (Gray, 2017) can be dealt with the consistent use of data collection

methods and analysis. Within this context, the present study had a clear

guideline of conducting interviews, asking questions derived from a theoretical

background, having two researchers who reached a consensus on the

interpretation of data, and having interviews providing rapport to the findings.

Also, the interviewees were encouraged to express their true intentions and

opinions by assuring the confidentiality and protection of the data collected.

32

3.4.2. Transferability

Transferability is the degree to which the study's findings can be extended to

other contexts (Bell et al., 2019; Saunders et al., 2019). As previously stated,

qualitative studies investigate a particular subject in a small sample which makes

the findings of such study context-specific (Bell et al., 2019). Accordingly,

studies should carefully describe the research process (Saunders et al., 2019),

provide so-called “thick descriptions” (Bell et al., 2019, p. 365) to enable other

researchers to evaluate the transferability to different contexts. This research

sufficiently describes the research design, data collection and analysis procedure,

and the empirical context to ease research transferability. The findings are

encouraged to be investigated in different settings to enhance transferability.

3.4.3. Dependability

The dependability of qualitative research includes recording all steps taken

throughout the research (Bell et al., 2019) that others can observe (Saunders et

al., 2019). The present study documented all meetings and discussions with the

supervisor, tracked the research process, and recorded and transcribed the

interviews besides the notes taken throughout the interviews. The

documentation provided the adequate background to formulate the research

focus and analysis.

3.4.4. Confirmability

Confirmability is the efforts of objectiveness, having the results not affected by

the values and intentions of the researcher (Bell et al., 2019). Such concerns are

also related to the research documentation approving the researcher's

interpretation (Gray, 2017). Within this study, the interviewer effect was kept

minimal by having the same interviewer for all conducted interviews, following

the protocol developed, and providing neutrality when asking questions and

reacting to them. The research process was based on the documented procedure

of interviewing (interview guide), coding, and categorizing the interviews

(supported with a CAQDAS - Atlas.ti9). As previously stated, there were two

analyzers of the data interpreting the results in consensus.

3.5. Ethical Issues

Ethical issues are critical for any research, particularly for those done with

human participants (Saunders et al., 2019). The interview data were processed

following the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the

33

complementary Swedish regulations as a rule of Karlstad University. The

interviews were conducted after the participants were informed about the

study's aim, context, and data protection/processing. Written consent

(Appendix 5) to participate in the research was obtained (via email) after

providing the necessary information (Appendix 6) (via email). Audio/video

recording was taken after the oral consent at the beginning of each interview.

Also, the transcribed interview files were named in a coded way consisting of

no identification of company or participant and any other confidential

information. Therefore, participants were assured that the data is securely

processed. The researchers also had no history with the target companies or

participants of the research. All participants were subject to purposive sampling

based on their publicly available information such as their company and title,

which was found via platforms such as LinkedIn and Xing.

34

4. Findings & Analysis

This chapter describes the findings from the interviews conducted throughout the research,

starting with listing the participant and company characteristics, followed by the interpreted

answers to the questions regarding the blocks and dimensions of the Servbrand Framework for

the logistics industry.

4.1. Participant Profile

The interviewees were well aware of their companies' logistics service provider

portfolio (Appendix 4.1), although a few avoided naming them due to

confidentiality concerns (P1; P10; P14). Participants were able to categorize the

brand names based on their expertise or coverage (P2; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12;

P13; P14), their size and being global (P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P10; P15; P16),

and location of operation (P2; P4; P5; P6; P8; P10; P11; P12; P14; P15). The

logistics service providers were also separated based on their asset ownership,

whether they own their vehicles or outsource and manage their network,

typically referred to as integrators or forwarders (P2; P4; P5; P7; P8; P12; P13).

The use of brands was also referred to whether the purchase is complex, routine,

or for a specific business (P4; P6; P7). The answers provided a solid background

that the participants could identify, categorize and reflect the brands to their

needs.

All participants confirmed that they influence the decision-making. Some

participants mentioned that they have a strong influence over the decision (P4;

P5), or they have the last word either for a specific plant (P3) or the whole group

(P15). The influence, however, is referred to as limited as the purchasing was

systematized and executed through a request-for-quotation (RFQ) process

satisfying both selection criteria of the logistics and purchasing departments.

4.2. Company Classification

Most companies were publicly listed on the stock market (P1; P5-P9; P6; P7;

P8; P12; P13; P15). Two participants stated that their company is private, yet

the companies are also publicly listed (P10, P11). There were also three private

companies within the study (P3; P14; P16). Besides, one company was a

foundation (P2-P4) in which the company’s profit is retained within the

company and used for social and charity programs (P4).

The participants positioned their company at least among the top 20 in their

specific business within the tier 1, 2, or 3 automotive supplier business. The

35

companies were large, having employees around 5,000 to 150,000, and had a

good history, ranging from 20 to 150 years of operation. Therefore, the results

ensured that the sampling is appropriate for the aim of the study.

4.3. Transferability of the Servbrand Framework

This section presented the answers to the questions testing the subdimensions

of Servbrand Framework, which consists of different elements of building

brand equity (Appendix 3).

The answers revealed a complex but structured purchasing process that involves

various actors and consists of many criteria from different perspectives. These

perspectives consist of three parties: The purchasing department takes care of

the tendering process and deals with legal and pricing topics. The logistics or

supply chain department (corporate) determines criteria for the acceptable

service level and conditions. The divisions or plants approve whether the service

is adequate or fit to the needs considering past experiences. Ideally, all

participants think the influence over the decision should be equal from logistics

and purchasing perspectives. However, some stated that the plants approve or

give the last word (P3; P10), for some, the logistics department approve (P1; P8;

P11; P12; P15; P16), or purchasing has more influence in the decisions (P2; P4;

P5; P6; P9; P13). The purchasing department leads the tendering process and is

the initial point of contact, however, other actors are also involved in such a

committee that the service providers need to satisfy the expectations of all

parties.

Salience: The results regarding the ability to recall and recognize the brands

indicated that certain brands (named in Appendix 4.2-4.3) achieved a high level

of awareness. It was noted that the recalled brands were also mentioned as the

logistics service providers they worked with. Considering what the brands were

associated with, the participants drew the profile of companies around various

aspects (detailed in Appendix 4.4), such as;

• the expertise or coverage of companies (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9;

P10; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16),

• the size of companies (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P8; P9; P10; P12; P14; P16),

• being global/international or local (P2; P4; P5; P6; P7; P11; P13; P14; P15;

P16),

• the origin (P1; P5; P8; P10; P14; P16),

36

• company setup, whether it is centralized or fragmented, traditional or modern

(P4; P8; P9; P13; P14),

• asset ownership or subcontracting from the network (P1; P2; P3; P8),

• ownership and entity, whether they are owned by a particular name or private

entity, or were subject to any kind of merge & acquisition in the past (P1; P3;

P10; P15; P16).

The answers support both the subdimensions of identifying the operation

category and which needs would be satisfied within the salience block. Except

for two participants (P8; P9), the slogan was not known to the participants, thus

making it irrelevant to the context.

Performance: The participants pointed out several essential performance

indications within their brand associations (Appendix 4.5). The answers

highlighted the competitive price (derived from the cost pressure and the

industry's competitiveness) and effective service delivery are basic expectations

of the participants but not the differentiating factor as this is mainly given by

the market and is a common standard. Still, the price was given as the most

favorable aspect of their service provider by a few participants (P1; P3; P4; P7;

P13; P1). Incentives or rewards were under no circumstances appropriate for

the customers as it is controlled under strict compliance rules.

Being fast and responsive to situations was pointed out as one of the crucial

points in the automotive market; if not, this was the least favorable aspect for

the participants (P2; P3; P6; P7; P11; P13; P16). Most of the participants were

satisfied with the service, found their partner efficient, caring, and

understanding (P1; P2; P5; P6; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16).

Having a certain level of empathy towards the customers also affected the

perception that the service provider is reliable (P3; P11; P13; P14). The

participants mainly reflected the reliability of the service provider in the data

quality (P5; P6; P7; P9; P10; P11; P13; P15) and transparency (P1; P3; P8) as it

is vital to have accurate delivery tracking and real-time information of the

delivery process.

The participants stated various aspects that enhance the processes, such as

having enough and skilled people (P4; P8; P13), finance/legal people (P15),

specific terms and certifications (P3; P5; P13; P16), and data interchange

capabilities (P5; P12; P15). The participants expected many other qualifications

such as having enough network (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P12; P13; P14;

P15), the specialization in terms of the mode of transportation or the service

37

type (P2; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16), capacity (P5; P8; P9;

P15), and operational infrastructure (P5; P8; P15) which represented the

primary characteristics that need to be present by the service provider.

Numerous secondary features were also mentioned, mainly the ability to cope

with technology (P3; P5; P6; P9; P12; P15) and digitalization (P3; P5; P9; P15).

Participants also valued sustainability (P5; P7; P12; P14; P15) for their brand

considerations. The answers provided the necessary background that the

performance block is valid with almost all of its subdimensions (Appendix 4.5),

except for the servicescape. There was no indication of the atmosphere in which

the service is delivered.

Personification: The answers revealed that the people element is one of the

most important aspects as it affects the service processes, efficiency, level of

reliability, trust, and overall satisfaction. Relationships with people are the

driving force that shapes how the service is rendered and how the brand is

experienced. Participants highlighted people to differentiate the brand (P3; P5;

P6; P7; P10; P11; P13; P14), particularly, different locations having different

people meaning different experiences with the brand (P4; P5; P6; P7; P10; P12;

P13; P14; P15; P16).

Most of the participants highlighted the communication is done with the key

account managers of the service providers (P4; P5; P7; P14; P15; P16). The main

communication channels were with emails (P3; P6; P7; P9; P12; P13; P14; P16),

telephone (P3; P7; P9; P11; P13; P14; P15), and personal meetings (P2; P7; P11;

P12; P15; P16) although two participants stated that this was in case before the

Coronavirus (P7; P16). Moreover, the participants indicated conference calls

(P2; P7; P14; P15; P16), inquiries, and document exchange (P6; P14).

Key account management is an essential aspect for the participants (P1; P2; P3;

P4; P5; P7; P10; P13; P14; P15; P16), and the attitude and demeanor of the

people affect the perception towards the brand. Participants thought that the

size, market position, or the wide coverage of the service provider (P2; P5; P9;

P12; P14; P16) and categorizing the customers via their industry or revenue

(P12; P14; P15) affect their way of dealing with their customers. Participants

described the attitude and demeanor of their service provider in various ways;

• rigid (P9; P12; P14; P15; P16),

• in open communication (P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16),

• friendly (P8),

• professional (P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P13; P15),

38

• accessible (P9; P12; P13; P14; P15),

• open to learning (P1; P11; P12; P14; P16),

• detail-oriented (P9).

Most of the participants were able to describe the brand as a person either

thinking of the company origin (P3; P5; P13; P15; P16), its ownership (P4), or

thinking of past experiences with real people (P7; P8; P13; P15). Based on these

considerations, the participants addressed several personality traits and values;

• innovative (P1; P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P11; P12; P15) and techie (P9),

• dynamic (P2; P9; P14) and flexible (P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12),

• self-confident (P2), strong/solid (P3; P5; P14; P15), and equitable (P13),

• self-improving (P3; P9; P12; P14; P15), proactive (P7; P11; P12; P15),

• reputable (P3), superior (P5),

• confident (P2; P3; P5), competent (P15),

• conservative (P4),

• reliable (P6; P11), punctual (P16), trustful (P11; P13; P14),

• caring and understanding (P7; P14),

• cunning (translated from a local expression ‘bauernschlau’ )(P8; P14).

The answers also emphasized the knowledge of the people working in the

logistics service providers, that it is vital to know the industry (P4; P5; P7; P11;

P13; P14) and the specific need of the client (P1; P5; P7; P10; P11; P12; P13;

P14; P15; P16). Knowing the clients and their business enhances the processes

and the efficiency of the service for the clients.

It becomes evident that the personification block is valid and very important to

build a strong brand, and the involved subdimensions within the block are also

most favorable for the clients. Yet, the personableness aspect could not be

approved as there was no comment on the people's outlook.

Opinions: Service quality is a primary consideration in all of the customers’

minds regarding the brands. Participants mainly discussed the price is influenced

by the provider's service level (P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13), which is

sometimes referred to as more important than price (P4; P7; P11; P13). There

must be good quality as the industry is very competitive, and there is no place

for malfunctions. As all participants made clear, a competitive price without a

sufficient quality cannot be within the consideration of the participants.

Most of the participants considered their service providers having good service

quality (P5; P6; P8; P9; P11; P13; P15), however, not perfect by all means.

39

Participants expected a reliable, transparent, and trustful relationship (P1; P3;

P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15). In addition, participants valued a

credible partner who is innovative and with vision (P1; P2; P3; P5; P12; P15), is

a leader in the market (P1; P5; P15), and prestigious (P9).

The answers provided different levels of satisfaction by the participants. A few

participants stated that the service is good (P6; P8; P9; P14), and there is good

communication, reliable data, therefore, delivering results (P6). One participant

associated the good service with the price, having capacity under challenging

situations, and being flexible (P9). Two participants found their service provider

caring and willing to support (P14; P15). Another reflection in satisfaction was

that reasonable price and performance are always given. The service provider

must be reliable, open to discuss, learn and improve, and be reactive to

situations (P14). The answers revealed that service satisfaction is more than

effective delivery, so service providers must be responsive, flexible, open to

communication, and have the right attitude and demeanor.

The answers approve the opinions block and its subdimensions within the

logistics services context. Participants attached importance to the quality,

credibility, and trust influenced by both performance and people aspects of the

brand, designing the overall experience and leading to service satisfaction.

Relationships: Participants accentuated the business relationship as one of the

critical elements within the purchasing process. A few participants referred to

the relationship as more personal and integrated (P4; P8; P15). Participants also

reflected most of their judgments based on previous interactions with people

from the service providers and eventually differentiated the brands.

P5: They all have their strengths, so it's very... the… it's the small pieces, and then

it comes down, and that's ultimately, something that is valid since many years, it

comes down to the people. So, who do you trust most with good account

management

P6: You will always talk with the local market there, and there can be the... or will

be the person is different, and also the relationship will be different, and then,

yeah, it maybe doesn't work so smooth as here

P12: When you have experienced people, it's important in logistics

P13: All the companies are as good as the people that work there, and I believe

that good companies are created by very competent people in their field

40

The partnership was an expectation commonly addressed by the participants

(P1; P2; P3; P4; P7; P9; P11; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16). Participants expected

long-term relationships (P1; P2, P4; P14), with history and past experiences (P2;

P4), is caring (P7), having capabilities to cope with the future technologies (P9;

P15), and is reputable (P2; P9). However, this did not mean that they would not

change their service provider if they are not satisfied with the service level; the

participants did not have a sense of attachment to their service providers. The

logistics service providers still need to prove that they are better than the others

to keep the business relationship ongoing. Participants can discard and switch

to another supplier (P2; P3; P5; P13; P16) if all conditions are not met. Still,

knowing each other increases the trust level (P5; P14), collaboration, and

partnership (P6; P9; P12; P13; P15), thus future benefits for both parties.

The answers supported the relationships block and its subdimensions within the

given context.

Further Inferences: The answers also indicated some other inferences that

need to be addressed. Some participants valued having a history and previous

experiences that eased the brand getting into the tendering process (P1; P2; P3;

P16). A few participants also confirmed that they progressed together with their

service provider by sharing experiences, managing crises together, and

developing a bond and understanding (P7; P8; P11; P13; P14; P15; P16). Having

good past experiences was an essential criterion for the participants in their

consideration (P2; P4: P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P12; P13; P16). Having past

experiences was reflected by one participant in that understanding each other

diminishes the hidden costs in purchasing; therefore, it is helpful to know each

other (P11). The answers, although not being a sole factor, supported the

importance of experiences. This aspect shows the need for a separate dimension

to express the importance of the subject.

The participants found feelings unimportant (P1; P2; P3; P5; P6; P7; P10; P11;

P12). However, trust and experiences were the most referred aspects (P1; P4;

P5; P6; P8; P13; P14; P15). Also, except for one participant (P15), the

participants did not attach importance to their competitors’ logistics service

provider portfolio. Also, as previously stated, the participants did not have any

level of attachment towards the brands. Therefore, there could be no reflection

towards feelings, user image, and attachment in the brand equity framework.

Another aspect was the participants' level of engagement, their willingness to

invest their time, energy, or resources to get to know the brand. Participants

41

found no motivation or need to engage with the brand as they already know

each other (P2; P3; P5; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11, P14; P15), highlighting the

importance of past experiences. Participants were open to being part of

events/conferences/fairs to discuss the industry topics or share individual

experiences (P1; P3; P9; P10; P12; P13; P14; P15; P16). Participants found

websites irrelevant for their considerations as websites do not show the service

quality or experiences with the brand; instead, it is only helpful to see the brand’s

way of dealing with future trends, technology, and digitalization. The main

interaction channel was the discussions with the key account managers in case

of a new event or situation, but otherwise, the relationship was considered

standard. The responses revealed that there is no need for engagement for the

brand consideration of participants. Besides, since the activities with other

businesses are on an industry level, not for a specific brand, there was no sense

of community or kinship between the customers towards a particular brand.

Instead, participants valued industry developments and future trends.

Participants also noted their likelihood to recommend their service provider

mainly as ‘most definitely’ (P6; P7; P14) or ‘definitely’ (P2; P4; P5; P9; P11; P12;

P13; P15; P16). The responses indicated that loyalty exists for the participants,

yet not as an antecedent of brand equity but as an outcome. This was because

participants can easily switch to competitors if the dimensions of brand equity

do not exist.

Participants also made inferences of the brands being in operation in specific

locations (P7; P10; P12; P1; P16), being used under some issues (P9; P15), or

for complex premium deliveries (P12). Service providers need to have specific

service portfolios (P2; P6; P8; P15) or be in particular locations (P6; P8; P15) to

be within the customers' consideration set. This aspect is simply because the

service provider needs to be fit to the needs to be considered, which is beyond

being aware of the brand but a severe factor in the consideration. Therefore,

consideration should be a particular subdimension within the framework.

4.4. Feedback on Interviews

The participants found the interview structured and easy to follow. One

participant noted the importance of reciprocal perspective towards each other

as both customers and service providers, how to be a customer of choice for

the service providers (P9). Another participant also repeated the importance of

people in brand consideration (P13).

42

5. Discussion

This chapter links the interpretation made throughout the findings chapter to the theoretical

framework and answers the paper's research questions; which subdimensions of the Servbrand

Framework are transferable to the logistics industry and which further implications could be

done for the industry. Thereby, the research question of how logistics companies can build their

brand equity is answered.

The results indicated a complex but structured purchasing process for the

logistics services in which different actors have different roles and expectations,

as also referred by the industrial branding literature (Bendixen et al., 2004; Kuhn

et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and for services (O’Cass & Grace,

2004). The logistics service purchasing process involves three parties;

purchasing department, the logistics department, and divisions/plants. The

findings pointed out that purchasing department orchestrates the tendering

process for the company and mainly takes care of legal and pricing issues and is

the initial point of contact for the service providers. The different roles and

expectations were fit for the clusters of decision-makers proposed by Mudambi

(2002). Purchasing people could be considered as “highly tangible” (Mudambi,

2002, p. 531) with their objective and structured way of thinking. On the other

hand, logistics people can be clustered as “brand receptive” (Mudambi, 2002,

p. 531) with their sophisticated criteria on service acceptability and openness to

future trends and innovation. In addition, plants’ considerations are more of

past experiences, making them less sensitive to brand and risk-avoidant,

expressed as “low interest” by Mudambi (2002, p. 531). The logistics service

providers need to tackle each actor within the process to get into their

consideration.

43

The results showed that Servbrand Framework is transferable to the logistics

market as all of the blocks within the framework were found relevant but with

a few sub-dimensional changes (Figure 3: greyed out subdimensions; not

applicable, red subdimensions; newly added).

5.1. Brand Salience

The “salience” block of the Servbrand Framework is considered applicable

together with the subdimensions of “category identification” and “needs

satisfied” for the logistics service providers (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). It is

observed that the brand refers to the company name for the logistics companies,

supporting the literature that corporate brand represents the company in B2B

markets (Kuhn et al., 2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Mudambi, 2002).

Customers can categorize and reflect the brands to their needs widely and build

Salience Category Identification

Needs Satisfied

Service Brand Personification

Attitude and Demeanour

Personality and Values Personableness

Product Knowledge Client Knowledge

Service Brand Performance

Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features

Service Reliability, Service Effectiveness,

Efficiency, and Empathy Processes

Price Distribution and

Servicescape

Client-Brand Relationships Interpersonal Partnerships

Client-Brand Opinions Consideration Service Quality

Service Experience Credibility and Trust

Satisfaction

Figure 3: Amended Servbrand Framework for Logistics Services (Steenkamp et. al., 2020, p. 66; the present study’s authors)

44

different perceptions towards the brands. This state can highlight the

importance of the brand naming strategies to differentiate and build recognition

in the market (Davis et al., 2009; Gordon et al., 1993; Shipley & Howard, 1993;

Sinclair & Seward, 1988). The brand is also a decisive element for the industrial

buying process (Bendixen et al., 2004; Zablah et al., 2010), reducing the

complexity in decision-making (Berry, 2000; Davis et al., 2008). It is vital to

create awareness and to make customers be able to recall and recognize the

brand name in different circumstances to build brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Davis

et al., 2008; Juntunen et al., 2011; Kapferer, 2008; Keller, 1993; Kim & Hyun,

2011; Świtała et al., 2018).

5.2. Brand Performance

The “service brand performance” block of the Servbrand Framework is

considered applicable with its subdimensions, except for “servicescape,” as

there was no reference to the ambiance or atmosphere in which the service is

provided (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). The purchasing process consists of

many performance indications as ‘facts and figures’ that need to be readily

present by the logistics service providers. Performance indications are some of

the critical elements of the purchasing process (Kim & Hyun, 2011; Kuhn et al.,

2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). Kuhn

et al. (2008) considered the CBBE model’s performance block suitable to the

industrial market.

Customers fundamentally differentiate the logistics service providers based on

their primary characteristics such as their expertise, coverage, network, and

presence and build perceptions around these characteristics. Having features

like good technology, infrastructure, coping with digitalization, and

sustainability are important considerations for the customers of logistics service

providers. The capability of data interchange was one of the most highlighted

specific capabilities by the customers. Focusing on core competencies and

providing superior infrastructure and technology can differentiate and deliver

value propositions in the logistics market (Marquardt et al., 2011). Technology

was also found highly important in the industrial markets by Kuhn et al. (2008).

These findings confirm the importance of the subdimension of “primary

characteristics and secondary features” within the Servbrand Framework

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66).

“Service reliability” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) was another subdimension

that stood out from the results as a critical element in the decision-making

45

process, which is a widely referred expectation by industrial customers

(Marquardt et al., 2011; Mudambi et al., 1997; Steenkamp et al., 2020).

Reliability, especially having reliable data, is very important for the customers of

logistics service providers. Reliability is one of the necessary pillars of creating

brand equity, as discussed by Sarin (2014).

The results also highlighted the importance of effective delivery, which needs

to be efficient and adaptable to the customers' needs. Bendixen et al. (2004)

referred the delivery as the most critical factor in the industrial market. Effective

delivery was also discussed widely as an expectation in industrial markets and

the logistics market (Abdul Rahman et al., 2014; Bendixen et al., 2004;

Marquardt et al., 2011; Sarin, 2014). Besides, the speed and responsiveness of

the service are essential for the customers of the logistics service providers. The

literature addressed this aspect primarily as responsiveness (Marquardt et al.,

2011; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). The results also remarked the

importance of empathy towards the customers, providing individual and

adaptable solutions based on their needs. These implications provided the

necessary background to say that “service effectiveness, efficiency, and

empathy” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) is a subdimension required to build

brand equity in logistics markets.

Processes are important for the customers. It needs to be efficient (O’Cass &

Grace, 2004) and enforced by people and additional certifications and data

interchange capabilities. Services consist of multiple processes (O’Cass & Grace,

2004) that need to be enhanced and facilitated appropriately (Steenkamp et al.,

2020). Therefore, this study supports the implication that “processes”

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) subdimension is necessary.

Another key topic for the customers is the price, as there has to be a competitive

price considering the automotive market conditions and the cost pressure in the

supply chain. Price is a common fact within the purchasing process (Bendixen

et al., 2004; Kim & Hyun, 2011; Mudambi et al., 1997; Sarin, 2014) and could

be even superior to any other branding efforts (Zablah et al., 2010). Price is also

the primary differentiation tool commonly used by logistics service providers

(Davis et al., 2008). Therefore, the “price” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)

subdimension is highly relevant within this context.

As the last performance-relevant subdimension, “distribution” (Steenkamp et

al., 2020, p. 66) refers to the channel used within the tendering process, mainly

an existing customer database or an e-tender platform that is becoming

46

widespread across the customers. This aspect was indicated as “purchase and

usage situations” within the CBBE model (Keller, 2013, p. 108) and transferred

to Servbrand Framework as “distribution” to refer to the place where the service

is delivered (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66).

5.3. Brand Personification

The people element is one of the most often addressed subjects by the

customers. It affects how reliable, efficient, qualified the service provider is, and

it is the driver of positive experiences with the brand. The block of “service

brand personification” and all of the subdimensions except “personableness”

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) were considered relevant and important within

the logistics market. This exception was because the customers did not address

the outlook and manner besides attitude and demeanor.

The importance of people is well known in the industrial markets to build

meanings about the brand (Lynch & de Chernatony, 2007; Mudambi, 2002).

People enhance the delivery process (O’Cass & Grace, 2004) and are also

referred to as a dimension to build brand equity by Kuhn et al. (2008). Building

relationships enforce the level of trust towards the brand (Mudambi, 2002).

Attitude is also referred to by Ryan and Silvanto (2013) and Sarin (2014) as an

essential aspect to deliver a positive experience, bringing the perception of

professionalism (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013). The results also provided many

personality traits and values about the brands, such as being dynamic, open to

learn and communicate, and innovative. The aspects of personality and values

are included within the CBBE model by Keller (2013) and remained within the

Servbrand Framework. Besides, people’s knowledge of the customers' needs

and expectations and the industry requirements is fundamental, which

supported the two dimensions as “product knowledge” and “client knowledge”

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66). Davis et al. (2008) and Marquardt et al. (2011)

emphasized internal communication as an important way of building a positive

image which was considered more important in the logistics market.

5.4. Brand Opinions

Opinions, also referred to as judgments by Keller (2013), are necessary to build

brand equity. The results approved the subdimensions of “service quality,”

“credibility and trust,” and “service satisfaction” within the Servbrand

Framework (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66), but also pointed out that two new

subdimensions are necessary, which are ‘service experience’ and ‘consideration.’

47

The results showed that quality is a crucial element for logistics service

purchasing. Perceived quality is one of the most mentioned aspects within the

literature that it is necessary to build brand equity (Aaker, 1991; Bendixen et al.,

2004; Biong & Silkoset, 2014; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Grant et al., 2014; Keller,

2013; Kim & Hyun, 2011; Kuhn et al., 2008; Marquardt et al., 2011; Mudambi

et al., 1997; Sarin, 2014; Steenkamp et al., 2020). Perceived quality is informed

by many aspects such as the image of the brand (Bendixen et al., 2004; Cretu &

Brodie, 2007), the corporate naming strategies (Shipley & Howard, 1993), and

brand awareness (Kim & Hyun, 2011), which are the implications the findings

had supported. Service quality also leads to satisfaction (Grant et al., 2014;

Steenkamp et al., 2020), which the customers addressed as an aspect.

The results emphasized that customers care for reliability and trust, as included

within the “credibility and trust” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66) subdimension.

Trust is crucial for services as it is harder for customers to trust (Berry, 2000).

Being trustworthy derives positive experiences (Marquardt et al., 2011), which

was supported by the findings that the experience between the representatives

of the brand and the customers is crucial in building a trustful relationship.

Credibility and trust are vital within the purchasing process (Mudambi, 2002)

and build strong brands (Jensen & Klastrup, 2008; Ryan & Silvanto, 2013). The

customers’ perception of a credible partner known in the market with good

attributes is an essential factor in brand considerations. This is widely addressed

as reputation as an influential element of brand evaluations (Abdul Rahman et

al., 2014; Cretu & Brodie, 2007; Kuhn et al., 2008; Marquardt et al., 2011;

Mudambi et al., 1997).

The results indicated that satisfaction is necessary to build brand equity. The

performance and people elements of the brand derives positive quality

perceptions and experiences, and therefore the sense of satisfaction. Building

solid brands requires attaching good performance and other indications to

derive satisfaction (Leek & Christodoulides, 2011) and provide value (Aaker,

1991). Grant et al. (2014) also provided evidence that service quality derives

satisfaction, loyalty, and brand equity.

Two new subdimensions are proposed that are not independently addressed by

Servbrand Framework:

• Service experience: It is necessary to build positive experiences with the

brand, informed by the performance and people. Good experiences are at the

core of good service perceptions, and it is necessary to build a successful

48

service brand (Berry, 2000; Marquardt et al., 2011; O’Cass & Grace, 2004).

Biedenbach and Marell (2010) also provided the implication of customer

experience positively affecting brand equity.

• Consideration: Logistics companies need to fit the needs and market

conditions to be part of the customers' consideration. No matter how strong

the brand is regarding the other elements, the value is captured if the customers

actually use the brand's services. Consideration was a subdimension within

Keller’s CBBE model (2013) and was also found appropriate for the industrial

market by Kuhn et al. (2008).

5.5. Brand Relationships

The results approved the importance of the relationship block with its

dimensions of “interpersonal” and “partnerships” (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p.

66).

It is imperative to build a good relationship among people, as also highlighted

within the personification block. Having long-term relationships are one of the

ultimate goals for brands to differentiate in the market (Bendixen et al., 2004).

Through experiences and relationships, it is possible to achieve higher

performance (Steenkamp et al., 2020). Relationships are also addressed as

necessary to build brand equity (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013; Sarin, 2014) and are part

of the several brand equity building frameworks proposed so far (Keller, 2013;

Kuhn et al., 2008; Steenkamp et al., 2020).

Partnerships are significant for industrial markets, as was the case for logistics

services. The results indicated that partnerships are expected as there needs to

be a collaborative, innovative long-term relationship. The level of collaboration

is influenced by past experiences, the level of interaction, the level of trust, and

the capabilities to follow up future market conditions. It is necessary to note

that partnerships are long-term as long as the service provider provides value to

the customer and is competitive considering the market conditions. In this case,

partnerships enhance the loyalty level of the parties towards each other (Abdul

Rahman et al., 2014). The partnership is part of both the amended CBBE model

versions proposed by Kuhn et al. (2008) and Steenkamp et al. (2020).

Loyalty was found relevant within the context of the study but may be

considered not as an antecedent of brand equity but an outcome. This was

because loyalty depends on the conditions of building brand equity and is

possible thereafter. Loyalty is still an unclosed aspect of brand equity as it was

either considered as an antecedent (Aaker, 1991; Grant et al., 2014; Keller, 2013;

49

Kim & Hyun, 2011), as an outcome (Ryan & Silvanto, 2013; Steenkamp et al.,

2020) or could not be approved (Juntunen et al., 2011). The subject of loyalty

still needs further investigation.

The findings designated an amended version of the Servbrand Framework

(Figure 3) to guide logistics service providers on building brand equity, which

meets the study's objectives. As industrial branding is based on B2C

implications, there is a need for an amended brand equity model (Kuhn et al.,

2008; Leek & Christodoulides, 2011; Steenkamp et al., 2020), and service

branding needs further investigation (O’Cass & Grace, 2004; Steenkamp et al.,

2020). Hence, the study has a clear conceptual contribution with that the model

is transferable. The findings provided rapport that service providers must

achieve each discussed block and subdimensions to build brand equity within

the industry. Therefore, the study acts as a continuation of the previous efforts

on providing an adequate brand equity model within the B2B service industry,

as called out by Kuhn et al. (2008), O’Cass & Grace (2004), and Steenkamp et

al. (2020).

50

6. Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the research contribution, explains to what extent the research

objectives are met, and provides the managerial implications. In the end, the chapter reflects the

study’s limitations in terms of the methodological design and shows guidance on potential future

research.

This research investigates a framework that can guide industrial service

providers to manage their branding activities to ensure long-term success and

create equity. The study applies the newly proposed brand equity model,

Servbrand Framework, within the logistics service industry to assess the

framework's transferability and provide a guideline for logistics service

providers to build strong brands. Both of the objectives of exploring how

logistics service providers can manage their branding activities to build brand

equity and to what extent is the Servbrand Framework is transferable are met

with the findings.

The findings asserted that the model is transferable to the logistics services

context, but with several amendments. All of the blocks within the model were

found appropriate within the given context. Two subdimensions, ‘servicescape’

and ‘personableness’ that are part of the performance and personification

blocks, are not considered relevant for the logistics industry. Also, two new

subdimensions as part of the client-brand opinions block, ‘consideration’ and

‘service experience’ was utilized to be necessary. Accordingly, to build brand

equity, logistics brands need to create salience among the potential customers

and make brand meanings both within performance and people notion. This

needs to be followed by the opinions that the brand will fit the needs and

circumstances, and there is perceived quality and good experiences derived from

the brand. Therefore, the brand is credible and trustworthy, which will drive

satisfaction. Based on these brand opinions, there needs to be a collaborative

business relationship built by interpersonal interactions and a broad-visioned

partnership. In this way, the brand can be chosen and kept within the portfolio

of the customers long-term.

6.1. Managerial Implications

Logistics service marketers need to focus on delivering value by promoting the

brand's human factor and attaching attributes to the corporate name. It becomes

evident that price and quality is a basic expectation by the customers and is

readily given by the market. Thereby, companies need to highlight their

51

differentiation points: how reliable, transparent, responsive, caring, and

understanding the brand is for the customers. People deliver these attributes of

the brand because the main point of contact between the customers and the

logistics service provider is people, particularly the key account management.

One must note that purchasing is a complex process involving many actors

(purchasing, logistics, and divisions) with different expectations and influences,

and companies need to examine how to approach them carefully. The logistics

service provider needs to be within the RFQ process of the customers, initially

being competitive in terms of price and then promising good performance,

which means effective and efficient delivery in addition to a responsive and

caring key account management. Knowing the industry expectations and the

specific need of the client have primary importance. Therefore, competent

people are essential to delivering premium service. By keeping promises,

building positive experiences with good service quality and relationships, the

brand can enjoy price premiums and long-term partnerships.

6.2. Limitations and Further Research

Like all researches, this research also has limitations, mainly due to the nature

of being qualitative. The primary limitation is the study being within a specific

context, investigating the logistics service providers within the automotive

industry in Germany. Therefore, the results could be industry and country-

specific. Another qualitative research limitation is the results being based on the

interpretation of the researchers. However, the study has a particular conceptual

contribution to building brand equity within the logistics industry by pointing

out that the Servbrand Framework is transferable for the logistics industry. The

study gathered insightful information about what industrial service purchasers

value the most in their brand considerations. The results are expected to apply

to commodity-like services that are crucial inputs for industrial companies. The

implications could be further investigated within another sector or location to

enhance the transferability of the findings. The findings are also encouraged to

be tested quantitatively on a broader sample, contributing to transferability. In

addition, this research was part of an ongoing effort to build a brand equity

framework applicable in the B2B service setting. Similar efforts are needed in

other contextual frameworks to contribute to the industrial service brand equity

literature.

52

References

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalization on the value of a brand name. The Free Press.

Abdul Rahman, N. A., Melewar, T. C., & Sharif, A. M. (2014). The establishment of industrial branding through dyadic logistics partnership success (LPS): The case of the Malaysian automotive and logistics industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.09.003

Ackerman, L. (1998). Secrets of the corporate brand. Across the Board, 35(1), 33–37.

American Marketing Association. (n.d.). Branding. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://www.ama.org/topics/branding/

Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship. Journal of General Management, 21(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709502100102

Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equity in the business-to-business market. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.10.001

Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012

Biedenbach, G., & Marell, A. (2010). The impact of customer experience on brand equity in a business-to-business services setting. Journal of Brand Management, 17(6), 446–458. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2009.37

Biong, H., & Silkoset, R. (2014). The ineffectiveness of corporate brand investments in creating price premiums. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679220211

Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.08.013

Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. (2009). Measuring brand equity for logistics services. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910981297

Davis, D. F., Golicic, S. L., & Marquardt, A. J. (2008). Branding a B2B service:

53

Does a brand differentiate a logistics service provider? Industrial Marketing Management, 37(2), 218–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.02.003

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P. R., & Jaspersen, L. J. (2018). Management & Business Research (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

FAZIT Communication. (2018). Facts About Germany. https://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/files/2020-11/tatsachen_2018_eng.pdf

Ghauri, P., Grønhaug, K., & Strange, R. (2020). Research Methods in Business Studies (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, G. L., Calantone, R. J., & di Benedetto, C. A. (1993). Brand Equity in the Business-to-Business Sector: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2(3), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429310046689

Grant, D., Juntunen, J., Juga, J., & Juntunen, M. (2014). Investigating brand equity of third-party service providers. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2012-0104

Gray, D. E. (2017). Doing Research in the Business World (1st ed.). SAGE Publications.

GTAI. (n.d.). Logistics. Retrieved March 18, 2021, from https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/industries/logistics

Hutton, J. G. (1997). A study of brand equity in an organizational-buying context. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(6), 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429710190478

iXPOS. (n.d.). Service Industry. Retrieved March 18, 2021, from https://www.ixpos.de/IXPOS18/Navigation/EN/Home/Eu-service-market/service-industry.html

Jensen, M. B., & Klastrup, K. (2008). Towards a B2B customer-based brand equity model. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 16(2), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2008.4

Juntunen, M., Juntunen, J., & Juga, J. (2011). Corporate brand equity and loyalty in B2B markets: A study among logistics service purchasers. Journal of Brand Management, 18(4–5). https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.43

Kapferer, J.-N. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term (4th ed.). Kogan Page.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

54

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands (Report No. 01-107).

Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity (4th ed.). Pearson.

Kim, J. H., & Hyun, Y. J. (2011). A model to investigate the influence of marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on brand equity in the IT software sector. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.06.024

King, N., Horrocks, C., & Brooks, J. (2019). Interviews in Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Kuhn, K. A. L., Alpert, F., & Pope, N. K. L. (2008). An application of Keller’s brand equity model in a B2B context. Qualitative Market Research, 11(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750810845540

Leek, S., & Christodoulides, G. (2011). A literature review and future agenda for B2B branding: Challenges of branding in a B2B context. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(6), 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.006

Low, J., & Blois, K. (2002). The evolution of generic brands in industrial markets: The challenges to owners of brand equity. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00131-0

Lynch, J., & de Chernatony, L. (2007). Winning Hearts and Minds: Business-to-Business Branding and the Role of the Salesperson. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1–2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707x178594

Marketline. (2015). Global Transportation Services. https://store.marketline.com/report/ohip0631--global-transportation-services-5/#product-105768

Marquardt, A. J., Golicic, S. L., & Davis, D. F. (2011). B2B services branding in the logistics services industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111107050

Meyer Industry Research. (2018). Top 100 Automotive Suppliers in Germany. https://www.meyer-industryresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/180214_TOP100-Automotive-Suppliers-in-Germany_FINAL.pdf

Michell, P., King, J., & Reast, J. (2001). Brand Values Related to Industrial

55

Products. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(5), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00097-8

Mottram, S. (1998). Branding the Corporation. In S. Hart & J. Murphy (Eds.), Brands (pp. 63–71). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26070-6_7

Mudambi, S. (2002). Branding importance in business-to-business markets. Three buyer clusters. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(02)00184-0

Mudambi, S., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). An exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(5), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00151-4

O’Cass, A., & Grace, D. (2004). Exploring consumer experiences with a service brand. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 13(4), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420410546961

Ohnemus, L. (2009). B2B branding: A financial burden for shareholders? Business Horizons, 52(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.004

Oliver Wyman. (2016). Insights on Automotive Supplier Excellence: Sourcing in the Automotive Industry: How Can Suppliers Create More Value? https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2016/jan/OliverWyman_Sourcing_in_the_AutomotiveIndustry_web.pdf

Rosenbröijer, C. J. (2001). Industrial brand management: A distributor’s perspective in the UK fine-paper industry. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420110382795

Ryan, J., & Silvanto, S. (2013). The critical role of corporate brand equity in B2B marketing: An example and analysis. The Marketing Review, 13(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934713x13590250137745

Sarin, S. (2014). Relevance and creation of strong brands for B2B markets. Vikalpa, 39(4), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920140407

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

Seyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M. J., & LaPlaca, P. (2016). Advancing theory and knowledge in the business-to-business branding literature. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2664–2677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.002

Shipley, D., & Howard, P. (1993). Brand-naming industrial products. Industrial Marketing Management, 22(1), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-

56

8501(93)90021-X

Sinclair, S. A., & Seward, K. E. (1988). Effectiveness of branding a commodity product. Industrial Marketing Management, 17(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(88)90023-5

Steenkamp, P. (2016). Towards a client-based brand equity framework for selected business-to-business services (Issue March). Stellenbosch University.

Steenkamp, P., Jacobus Herbst, F., Christiaan De Villiers, J., Terblanche-Smit, M., & Schmidt, H. J. (2020). Servbrand Framework: A Business-To-Business Services Brand Equity Framework. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 27(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1713560

Świtała, M., Gamrot, W., Reformat, B., & Bilińska-Reformat, K. (2018). The influence of brand awareness and brand image on brand equity – an empirical study of logistic service providers. Journal of Economics and Management, 33(3), 96–119. https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2018.33.06

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001

Wise, R., & Zednickova, J. (2009). The rise and rise of the B2B brand. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660910926911

Zablah, A. R., Brown, B. P., & Donthu, N. (2010). The relative importance of brands in modified rebuy purchase situations. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.005

57

Appendix

Appendix 1: Further Branding Models

1.1. Service Branding Model

1.2. Aaker’s Brand Equity Model

Company’s Presented Brand

External Brand Communications

s

Customer Experience with Company

Brand Awareness

Brand Meaning

Brand Equity

BRAND EQUITY

Name

Symbol

Brand Loyalty

Name Awareness

Perceived Quality Brand

Associations

Other proprietary Brand Assets

Provides Value to Customer by Enhancing Customer’s:

• Interpretation/ Processing of Information

• Confidence in the Purchase Decision

• Use Satisfaction

Provides Value to Firm by Enhancing:

• Efficiency and Effectiveness of Marketing Programs

• Brand Loyalty

• Price/Margins

• Brand Extensions

• Trade Leverage

• Competitive Adventage

Service Branding Model (Berry, 2000, p. 130)

Aaker's Brand Equity Model (Aaker, 1991, p. 16)

58

Appendix 2: Interview Guide (adapted within the author’s knowledge) (Steenkamp, 2016, p. 266-278)

➔ To be completed by the interviewer.

➔ (*) INDICATE MULTIPLE ANSWERS

Dilara Fulya Egesoy & Oguzhan Bilgili – Master in Marketing – Karlstad University Name of the Interviewer:

SECTION A: Qualifying questions

Good day/morning/evening. My name is ……………………………… We are conducting a survey as part of our master thesis at Karlstad University.

➔ Locate unit of analysis/person in the automotive supplier, responsible for purchasing,

renewing, or amending logistics services – buyer, general manager, finance, operation,

manager, MD, CEO, and so on.

QQ.A Who is responsible for purchasing, renewing, or amending logistics services for your company? (To be filled out before the interview – for controlling purposes only)

Name: Surname:

Position of the participant in the automotive supplier:

Name of the automotive supplier:

The physical address of the automotive supplier:

Telephone numbers of participant

Office: Cell:

➔ Ask to speak to the person identified above and once located, continue with the

interview.

***The interview starts here*** Good day/ morning/ evening. My name is...........................

We are conducting a survey as part of a Master's study, at the Karlstad University, on business-to-business brand building and would like to ask you

a few questions. The interview will last approximately 30 to 45 minutes.

QQ.B Which logistics service provider does your company work

with? (*) → IF MORE THAN ONE LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER, CIRCLE THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.

59

________________________

If ‘Do not know’; the correct unit of analysis has not been identified. Locate an appropriate

person in the automotive supplier or REPLACE with the next automotive supplier. QQ.C To what extent can you influence the decision as to which

the logistics service provider your company use or reuse with?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

If the participant cannot influence the purchase or renewal process at all (if in an administrative capacity only/ only handles claims), then locate a person in the automotive supplier that can influence the purchase process to some extent. If not possible REPLACE with the next automotive supplier.

QQ.D How would you classify your position in your company?

Owner/partner/shareholder QQD-1

SECTION B: Classification questions

B.1. Is your company operated as a:

Partnership

B1-1 Private company

B1-2

Public Company

B1-3 Do not know

B1-4

B.2. What is the market position of your company?

…………………………………………………………………………

B.3. How many full-time employees does your company have?

…………………………………………………………………………

B.4. How many years has your company been in operation?

…………………………………………………………………………...

SECTION C: Applicability of the Servbrand model’s sub-dimensions

➔ Circle responses to QQ.B, Q.1, Q.2 and Q.3, and record answers to Q.4 in the table below.

➔ Q.1a to Q.1f is unaided and relates to logistics service provider brands only, with Q.1a (1st mention) to Q.1e (5th mention) and then Q.1f all

Do not know QQB-2

Employee QQD-2

60

other mentioned brands (if more than 5 mentioned). Hence, Q.1f could have multiple answers.

➔ If brands are mentioned that are not part of the list, then add it to the bottom of the list, next to other, in the table.

➔ Q.2 is aided. Interviewer to call out options. If participant is unaware of brand, leave blank/ uncircled.

Q.1a to Q.1f When you think of logistics service providers, which

brands can you recall/ are you aware of? Any other?

Q.1a

Q.1b

Q.1c

Q.1d

Q.1e

Q.1f

TRANSFER ANSWERS TO SUMMATIVE TABLE BELOW

Q.2 Which of the following OTHER logistics service providers do you recognize/are you aware of? (*) Participant to confirm options (Listed in the table below).

Q.3 Which logistics service providers do your competitors work with?(*)

…………………………………………………………………………....

Q.4a-Q4e What associations come to mind when you hear

……………. [brands mentioned in QQ.B, Q.1a, Q.1b, Q.1c, Q.1d, Q.1e]

→ DO NOT THINK OR SCREEN YOUR ANSWER, SIMPLY MENTION THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT COME TO MIND. [Prompt for further responses – any other associations?]

Q.1 to Q4 and QQ.B LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER BRANDS Q

.1a:

1st m

en

tio

n

Q.1

b:

2n

d m

en

tio

n

Q.1

c:

3rd

men

tio

n

Q.1

d:

4th

men

tio

n

Q.1

e:

5th

men

tio

n

Q.1

f: A

ll o

ther

men

tio

ns

(*)

Q.2

: R

eco

gn

itio

n (

aid

ed

)

QQ

.B:

Lo

gis

tics

sup

pli

ed

fro

m

Q.3

: C

om

peti

tors

‘lo

gis

tics

serv

ice p

rovi

ders

Q.4a – Q.4e Words association (only for the logistics service providers mentioned in QQ.B and Q.1a to Q.1e – 1st five brands mentioned (max) or less

1. DHL

2. Kuehne +Nagel

61

3. DB Schenker Logistics

4. XPO - Menlo Logistics

5. DSV - Panalpina Logistics

6. CEVA Logistics

7. Geodis

8. UPS

9. Dachser

10. Expeditors

11. Bolloré Logistics

12. Gefco Logistics

13. Agility Logistics

14. Hitachi Transport

15. Nippon Express

16. Maersk

17. KWE (Kintetsu World Express)

18. Kerry Logistics

19. Rhenus Logistics

20. Neovia Logistics

21. Toll Group

22. C.H. Robinson

23. Ryder

24. Hellmann

25. APL Logistics

26. FIEGE Logistics

27. Pantos Logistics

28. Yusen Logistics

Other: 29.

62

Other: 30.

Uncertain / Cannot tell

Q.5a and Q5.5b What is the slogan of ……… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B)? What does the slogan mean to you? IF PARTICIPANT DOES NOT KNOW OR IS UNSURE, THEN LEAVE BLANK

Q.5a SLOGAN Q.5b MEANING OF THE SLOGAN

Q.6 Could you please tell us about your experiences with your

logistics services purchasing process: Did you deal? (*) call out the options

Directly with the logistics service provider

Through a mediator Name of the mediator:

Through a center

Telephonically

Via website

Q.7 Who was involved from your company when you purchased,

renewed or amended your logistics services?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………..........................................

Q.8 How did you experience the logistics service purchase,

renewal or amendment process; any other details that you would like to mention regarding your experience?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.9a How much influence does your mediator have over which

logistics service provider brand you use and how much influence do you have?

Q.9b Did your mediator suggest a logistics service provider or a selection of them for you to choose from?

63

Q.9a………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.9b………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.10 How would you describe …………’s (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) brand

personality? If ……….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) were to come alive as a person, what would the person’s personality be like?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.11 To what extent do you feel you have grown together with

………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) What is your opinion regarding the history, heritage and

(years of) experience of ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.12 How satisfied are you with the service that you receive(d)

from …………(→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)? Please explain.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.13 How efficient is ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) in terms of speed, responsiveness, and so forth? Please explain.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.14 How trusting and caring is ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)? Do they focus on you individually as a client? Please explain.

64

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.15 What rewards/ incentives (if any) did, do or will you get for

using ..…………’s (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) logistics services? Please explain.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

No rewards/ incentives

Q.16 Do you think that price is important when deciding which

brand of logistics service provider to purchase from? Why? Why not?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.17 What is your overall opinion of ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) and its quality?

(If ‘no opinion’, probe. Why?)

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.18 What are your feelings towards ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.19 To what extent would you be willing to invest time, energy,

money or other resources to get to know ………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER PER QQ.B) better? For example, by investing time to learn more about the brand, visiting their web site and talking to others about them.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

65

Q.20 To what extent is ……………. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) part of you and who you are (as a company)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.21 How would you describe your relationship with other

businesses that also use logistics services from ………… (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.22 How would you describe your relationship with …………’s

(→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER AS PER QQ.B) mediator or representatives?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.23 What is most favorable about/ the best aspects of

…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Uncertain / cannot tell

Q.24 What is least favorable about/ the worst aspects

of…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Uncertain / cannot tell

Q.25 What is unique about …………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B)?

66

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Uncertain / cannot tell

Q.26 How likely are you to recommend…………….. (→ LOGISTICS SERVICE PROVIDER MENTIONED AS PER QQ.B) to another business?

→ Call out the options:

Most definitely ➔ Go to Q.28

Definitely ➔ Go to Q.28

Maybe ➔ Go to Q.28

Definitely not

Most definitely not

Uncertain / cannot tell ➔ Go to Q.28

Q.27 If participant answered ‘definitely not’ or ‘most definitely not’

in Q.26, then ask: why not?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.28 Which aspects of your relationship with mediators/ sales

people or other of the logistics service provider’s representatives are important? Why are they important?

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

SECTION D:

Q.29 How did you experience this interview? Would you recommend any changes? Please explain.

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

Q.30 Are there any other comments that you would like to make as

we conclude?

67

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………

➔ “This concludes the survey. Thank you for your participation and

contribution.

If we have any further questions, or require further advice, can we contact you again in the future?

Yes No

68

Appendix 3: Interview Questions Linked to Servbrand Framework

Client-Brand Relationships

(Q23, Q24, Q25) - Interpersonal

(Q22, Q28) - Partnerships

(Q11, Q20)

Service Brand Personification (Q22, Q28)

- Attitude and Demeanour

- Personality and Values (Q10)

- Personableness - Product

Knowledge - Client

Knowledge

Client-Brand Opinions (Q23, Q24, Q25)

- Service Quality (Q17) - Credibility and Trust (Q14) - Satisfaction (Q12)

Further links to Keller’s Resonance Pyramid (2013, p. 108): Feelings Block (Q18) Imagery Block - User profiles (Q3) - History, heritage &

experiences (Q11)

Resonance Block: - Attachment (Q20) - Loyalty (Q26, Q27) - Community (Q21) - Engagement (Q19)

Salience (QQB, Q2, Q4, Q5)

- Category Identification (Q1) - Needs Satisfied

Service Brand Performance

(Q23, Q24, Q25)

- Primary Characteristics and Secondary Features

- Service Reliability - Service Effectiveness

(Q12), Efficiency (Q13), and Empathy (Q14)

- Processes - Price (Q15, Q16) - Distribution (Q6,

Q7, Q8) and Servicescape

Further question to see the relevance of the mediators: (Q9) Servbrand Framework

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)

69

Appendix 4: Brand Considerations

4.1. Logistics Service Providers Portfolio

Logistics Service Providers Participants

Agility P3; P16

CS Cargo P7

Dachser P4; P5; P9; P16

DB Schenker P4; P5; P6; P7; P12; P15; P16 DHL P2; P3; P4; P5; P9; P11; P13; P15

DSV/Panalpina P3; P4; P5; P7; P9; P13; P15; P16

FedEx P5; P13; P15

Gefco P2; P4; P7

Geodis P7 Hartmann P13 Hartrodt P5; P9

Hellmann P5; P9 Honold P6 Kuehne+Nagel P2; P3; P4; P5; P15; P16

KWE P15

Logwin P6; P12

Maersk P4

MSC P4

Nippon Express P7; P15

One P4

TNT P13

UPS P13

XPO P7

Yousen P7

Local/regional companies P2; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P15; P16

70

4.2. Unaided Brand Recall of Participants

Brand 1st brand recall

2nd brand recall

3rd brand recall

4th brand recall

5th brand recall

Other brand recalls

Total recall

DHL P1; P2; P3; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12

P4; P5; P15

P13 P6 14

DB Schenker P6; P13; P14; P15

P8 P5; P10; P12

P4 P16 10

Kuehne+Nagel P4; P16

P1; P14

P8; P15

P2; P3; P10

P7 10

Dachser P6; P16

P4 P2; P3; P8

6

DSV P5 P3 P11 P9; P13

P4 6

FedEx P2 P1 P15 P5; P9; P13

6

Hellmann P9 P14; P16

P11 4

UPS P10; P13

P2 P4 4

Panalpina P8; P14

P1 3

Honold P6 P8 2

Expeditors P3 P1 2

Geodis P7 P8 2

TNT P12 1

Logwin P6 1

BLG Logistics P7 1

XPO P7 1

Nippon Express P15 1

Agility P16 1

Hartrodt P9 1

Duvenbeck P10 1

GLS P11 1

DPD P11 1

Andreas Schmid P8 1

Daher P8 1

HG Logistics P12 1

Ekol P12 1

Grupo Logico P14 1

71

4.3. Aided Brand Recognition of Participants

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8

P9

P10

P11

P12

P13

P14

P15

P16

Tota

l

DHL X X 2

Kuehne +Nagel

X X X X 4

DB Schenker Logistics

X X X X 4

XPO - Menlo Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X 11

DSV - Panalpina Logistics

X X X X X X X X 8

CEVA Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14

Geodis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14

UPS X X X X X X X X X X X X 10

Dachser X X X X X X X 7

Expeditors

X X X X X X X X X X X 11

Bolloré Logistics

X X X X X X X X X 9

Gefco Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X X 12

Agility Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X 11

Hitachi Transport

X X X X X X X X 8

Nippon Express

X X X X X X X X X X X 11

Maersk X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 16

KWE (Kintetsu World Express)

X X X X X X 6

Kerry Logistics

X X X X X X X X 8

Rhenus Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14

Neovia Logistics

X X X X 4

Toll Group

X X X X X X X X 8

C.H. Robinson

X X X X X X X X X X 10

Ryder X X X X X X X X X 9

Hellmann X X X X X X X X X X X X 12

APL Logistics

X X X X X X X 7

FIEGE Logistics

X X X X X X X X X X X 11

Pantos Logistics

X X X 3

Yusen Logistics

X X X X X X X 7

72

4.4. Associations Towards the Brands

Brand Associations Themes Subdimensions of the Servbrand Framework (Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)

DHL P1: Market leadership, big size, innovation… owned by the Deutsche Post….a private business... initially a government organization… own fleet…airplanes…

P2: Global company, distributing all kinds of goods… everything

P3: Innovation and price…digitalization

P4: Big… global presence. Not so much customer-oriented… Very fragmented…

P5: Yellow brand… global logistics provider covers everything…, post mail office or large company

P6: Express service… very global, present on many many markets… very strong network…

P8: Deutsche post, the guy who is ringing me out of my Home Office to bring me my parcel… yellow, and track and trace

P9: About brand equity, I would say that probably DHL is the more best in practice… digital, flexible… intermodal

P10: Parcel service… Deutsche Post… They have a lot of stuff running…

P11: Global player… international

➢ Standards/principles

− innovation/creativity

− flexibility

− vision

➢ Superiority-market leadership

➢ Profile

− size of company

− ownership & entity

− asset ownership

− global/international

− business setup/culture

− strength/solidity

➢ Price

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Capability

− digitalization

− network

− technology/automation

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ Visibility/design

➢ Service effectiveness/delivery

➢ Service quality

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Brand equity

➢ Awareness-marketing

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Service effectiveness, efficiency, and empathy

− Price

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

− Credibility

73

transport… container ship transport…

P12: Work with them on the customer side… the big customers they work with DHL. … you see always the DHL trucks in your warehouses...

P13: Very good quality, nice presentations, nice service level but very expensive…

P15: One of the best marketing companies…. Technology development… future… a consulting company… and on operational side they are very strong… stronger… in regards to 4PL… global development, probably one of the strongest

Kuehne+ Nagel

P1: Market leader… sea freight… big… no assets

P2: Big freight forwarder with a lot of boats, global company, containers

P3: Solid company… lot of good stuff… very good in container transport… good capabilities

P4: global presence, very very very big. Traditional business setup… usually reliable… very customer-oriented

P5: global leading brand, blue, anchor.. interesting in terms of marketing… single men around the world, there was Kuehne+Nagel strong financial promoter… more present in the market

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Superiority-market leadership

➢ Profile

− asset ownership

− size of company

− strength/solidity

− global/international

− business setup/culture

− origin

➢ Consideration

− location

➢ Price

➢ Reliability

➢ Capability

− network

− technology/automation

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ Awareness-marketing

➢ Visibility/design

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Promotion

− sponsorship

➢ Attitude

− bargaining power

➢ Demeanor

− rigidness

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Reliability

− Service empathy

− Price

➢ Personification

− Attitude and Demeanor

− Personality & values

74

P7: very competitive in regards to sea freight

P8: Very Hanseatic, focus on sea freight, used to have their own airplanes

P9: Big one we have

P10: They do all the same… airfreight… that's the business is similar for all the big ones

P14: good overseas suppliers… become more interesting… changes in their organization and a setup… became more reactive… large organization… always try to find a good leverage to be interesting… have the right attitude… attitude change

P15: Extremely strong… they are number 3... ocean freight... very very good business in regards to logistics operations… very good technology competency… On the airfreight they're catching up… extend … in Asia

P16: big player, global. A lot of different branches or special fields… good in LTL business in Europe

DB Schenker P4: very big… very fragmented… a full-service provider… very big product or service portfolio

P5: Rail business… strong over land, complete capacity… global brand

P6: Professionals… know-how… global

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Consideration

− location

➢ Profile

− business setup/culture

− size of company

− global/international

− origin

− ownership & entity

➢ Capability

− goodwill/know-how

− good employer

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Price

➢ Personification

− Attitude

− Personality & values

75

P7: Best groupage network in Europe…A competitive supplier for contract logistics, airfreight, and sea freight. Good employer. Global coverage

P8: German Rail. Traditional. Big in air freight

P10: An overland service provider

P13: Extended network… railroad… all spectrum of logistics, but they come from railroad and there is still this pride in operating railroad

P14: Good network in Europe. Not fully international. A visible brand

P15: Deutsche Bahn… very active currently in the green area… sustainability

P16: All fields of logistics like ocean, air and but also road freight and train… a lot of warehouses… Deutsche Bahn

− network

➢ Attitude

− professionalism

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Visibility/design

➢ Price

FedEx P1: An American company. Privately owned… growing…

P2: Express shipments… big

P5: With TNT now a bit stronger… TNT is also not so easy to digest

P9: Parcel delivery… small quantities, ad-hoc deliveries

P13: Movie with Tom Hanks… envelopes and packages… efficient

P15: Big major cap companies… express business… global basis… very fast with a

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Superiority-market leadership

➢ Profile

− ownership & entity

− origin

− size of company

− mergers & acquisitions

− global/international

− strength/solidity

➢ Service efficiency

➢ Consideration

− issues/crises

➢ Capability

− network

➢ Awareness/market awareness

➢ Attitude

− customer categorization

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Service efficiency and empathy

− Processes

− Price

➢ Personification

− Attitude & Demeanor

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

− Credibility

76

very structured and secure approach… different picture with TNT and FedEx… different approach towards customers… stronger company… You're not into the legal guys, you're not talking to the operational guys… talking about the legal and finance guys

➢ Demeanor

− rigidness

➢ People

− finance/legal

➢ Promotion

− product replacement

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ Processes

− people

➢ Client-Brand Relationships

− Interpersonal

TNT P12: Airfreights… premium freights… this was the previous company that named as CEVA that TNT converted

P13: Good quality

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Consideration

− complexity

➢ Profile

− mergers & acquisitions

➢ Service quality

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Distribution

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

Expeditors P1: U.S. company… growing

P3: Very good IT infrastructure… don’t manage assets… they only manage their network … good service, but the price is not maybe the very best

➢ Profile

− Origin

− size of company

− asset ownership

➢ Capability

− IT infrastructure

− network

➢ Service quality

➢ Price

➢ Salience

− Category identification

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Price

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

DSV P3: Try to catch up… not good… lack of reliability

P4: Very big… global… everything everywhere… fragmented… very aggressive… service level or the reliability is not as good as always expected

P5: Global… Danish… bought Panalpina

P9: Backup provider…airfreight… reliable… no frills

P11: Landline freight

P13: Efficient… not organized around one let's say center… very

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Service quality

➢ Reliability

➢ Profile

− global/international

− size of company

− business setup/culture

− origin

− mergers & acquisitions

➢ Purchase situations

− issues/crises

➢ Price

➢ Service effectiveness/delivery

➢ Service efficiency

➢ Capability

− network

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Service reliability

− Service effectiveness and efficiency

− Price

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

77

aggressive… profit oriented

Panalpina P1: Acquired by DSV…Swiss… known in the market

P8: Traditional… big

P11: Air freight and intercontinental freight

P14: Big…strong in Europe. Overseas business

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Profile

− ownership & entity

− origin

− size of company

− mergers & acquisitions

− business setup/culture

− strength/solidity

➢ Awareness/market awareness

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

UPS P2: Big... focus on express

P4: Leading integrators, U.S. business, huge, strong... integrator network. Network driven

P10: Parcel service... North America

P13: Worldwide... very expensive

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Superiority-market leadership

➢ Profile

− size of company

− origin

− global/international

➢ Capability

− network

➢ Price

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Price

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Credibility

Dachser P3: Midsize company, family owned… innovation… strong in the truck… good logistics

P4: Small business… traditional very old company… trucking in Europe… very reliable and customer oriented… growing very fast… not having the same global presence

P5: European…global reach… stronger outbound… overland… work with them… blue-yellow

P8: Regional midsize company… very good in airfreight

P16: Best… in LTL… in Germany… in European market. High

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Profile

− ownership & entity

− size of company

− strength/solidity

− business setup/culture

− origin

− global/international

➢ Service quality

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Reliability

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ Visibility/design

➢ Consideration

− location

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Service reliability

− Service empathy

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

78

prices… good for ocean and airfreight

Hellmann P9: Container ships… conservative, large bulk… need of having good booking data… they're quite slow… not so customer-centric

P11: Global container shipping. But also warehousing

P14: International… good oversea partner. Smaller size… for company like us more leverage

P16: Ocean and airfreight… North Germany… had some some colleagues… from Hellman

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Profile

− business setup/culture

− size of company

− global/international

− origin

➢ Service efficiency

➢ Standards/principles

− flexibility

➢ Attitude

− bargaining power

➢ Demeanor

− rigidness

➢ Capability

− data interchange/EDI

− network

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Collaboration/partnership

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

− Service efficiency and empathy

− Distribution

➢ Personification

− Attitude & demeanor

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Relationships

− Partnerships

Hartrodt P9: Traditional… prestigious… big supplier… they make it happen

➢ Profile

− size of company

− business setup/culture

➢ Reputation

➢ Service quality

➢ Salience

− Category identification

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Credibility

− Service quality

Geodis P7: Some… bad experiences in their service quality… nothing specific

P10: Service provider you can have here

➢ History, heritage & experiences

➢ Service quality

➢ Awareness/market awareness

➢ Consideration

− location

➢ Salience

− Category identification

➢ Performance

− Distribution

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

Nippon Express

P15: Network in Asia… very strong in that, also in the transpacific area on the freight area… very good capability in technology… automation… automated warehouses… good competency

➢ Profile

− Strength/solidity

➢ Capability

− Network

− Technology/automation

➢ Service quality

➢ Consideration

− location

➢ Salience

− Category identification

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

79

Agility P16: Good… air and ocean freights… Arabian owned

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Profile

− origin

➢ Service quality

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

BLG P7: Very competitive in contract logistics. Customized approach… customer-oriented

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Price

➢ Caring & understanding

➢ Salience

− Category identification

➢ Performance

− Price

− Service empathy

XPO P7: Nothing specific ➢ Service quality ➢ Client-Brand Opinions

− Service quality

Duvenbeck P10: Overland service provider

➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience

− Category identification

GLS P11: Small boxes… packages

➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience

− Category identification

DPD P11: Packaging or small ➢ Expertise/coverage ➢ Salience

− Category identification

HG Logistics P12: Milkrun or the pickups from the suppliers

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Consideration

− complexity

− location

➢ Salience

− Category identification

Grupo Logico P14: Truck business, America’s 4PL… interesting network… they have a good fit with us

➢ Expertise/coverage

➢ Profile

− origin

− business setup/culture

➢ Capability

− network

➢ Salience

− Category identification

− Needs satisfied

➢ Performance

− Primary characteristics and secondary features

➢ Personification

− Personality & values

80

4.5. Performance Criteria in Purchasing Process

Criteria Subdimensions of the

Servbrand Framework

(Steenkamp et al., 2020, p. 66)

Expertise/coverage (P2; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P12; P13;

P14; P15; P16)

Wide network and presence (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7;

P8; P12; P13; P14; P15)

Operational infrastructure (P5; P8; P15)

Capacity (P5; P8; P9; P15)

Technology (P3; P5; P6; P9; P12; P15)

• IT infrastructure (P3; P5; P9; P12; P14)

• Data interchange (P5; P7; P9; P12; P13; P15)

Digitalization (P3; P5; P9; P15)

Goodwill/knowhow (P6; P9; P12)

• Custom knowledge (P12; P13)

Good employer (P7; P14)

Sustainability (P5; P7; P12; P14; P15)

Primary characteristics and

secondary features

Effective delivery and good quality (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5;

P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12; P13; P15)

Service effectiveness

Efficiency (P1; P2; P3; P4; P6; P7; P8; P9; P11; P12; P13;

P14; P15; P16)

Service efficiency

Customer-centric, caring (P1; P3; P4; P7; P8; P9; P12;

P13; P14; P15)

Service empathy

Reliability (P3; P4; P5; P6; P9; P11; P13; P14; P15)

• Data quality (P5; P6; P7; P9; P10; P11; P13; P15)

• Transparency (P1; P3; P8)

Service reliability

Price (P1; P2; P3; P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P9; P10; P11; P12;

P13; P14; P15; P16)

Costs (P1; P3; P4; P7; P8; P9; P15)

Price

Processes (P3; P15)

• People (P3; P4; P8; P11; P13; P15; P16)

• Fit payment terms (P13; P16)

• ISO Certification (P5; P16)

• Frame contracts (P3)

• Electronic data interchange (EDI) (P5; P12; P15)

Processes

RFQ Process (P1; P4; P5; P10; P14)

• e-tender platform (P4; P13; P16)

• Supplier database (P4; P5; P6; P7; P8; P11; P13;

P14)

Distribution

81

Appendix 5: Consent Form

Consent to participate in the study:

Master Thesis: [Building Brand Equity in B2B Service Industry:

Examination of Logistics Service Providers]

I have been informed in written form about the study and agree to participate.

I am aware that my participation is completely voluntary and that I can cancel

my participation in the study without giving any reason.

I am aware that the interview will be manually recorded, and a digital record of

the interview will take place only after my consent is given at the beginning of

the interview.

My signature below means that I choose to participate in the study and agree

that Karlstad University processes my personal data following current data

protection legislation and information provided.

……………………………

Signature

…………………………… ………………………………………

Name Place and Date

Contact information:

Researchers:

Dilara Fulya Egesoy, dilaeges100@student.kau.se

Oğuzhan Bilgili, oguzbilg100@student.kau.se

Supervisor:

Prof. Bo Rundh, bo.rundh@kau.se

82

Appendix 6: Information Letter

Master Thesis: [Building Brand Equity in B2B Service Industry:

Examination of Logistics Service Providers]

Introduction:

We (Dilara Egesoy & Oğuzhan Bilgili) invite you to participate in our Master

thesis research for Karlstad University, Sweden. You were contacted because

you are a decision-maker in purchasing logistics services, and can provide

insights regarding logistics industrial branding. Participation in the study

consists of no risks or issues in terms of confidentiality of processing the

personal data. The personal data is processed according to your informed

consent. Participation in the study is completely voluntary. You can revoke your

consent at any time without giving a reason, which, however, does not affect

the treatment that took place before the revocation. All information that comes

to us is processed in such a way that no unauthorized persons can access it.

Purpose of the Study:

To develop a brand equity framework that guides logistics service providers to

manage their branding activities.

Research Method and Purpose of the Processing Personal Data:

An in-depth interview is to be conducted as the data collection method of the

study. The interview will be manually recorded and the consent for the digital

recording will be asked at the beginning of the interview. Only after the given

consent, the interview will also be digitally recorded, to check the accuracy of

the obtained data. The data will be retained until the thesis has been approved

and the grade has been registered in Karlstad University's study register and then

destroyed.

The interview will be conducted with MS Teams or Zoom as audio and video-

coference tools, and processed through Atlas.ti9 as a qualitative data analysis

and research software, which are web-based tools provided outside of Karlstad

University.

Karlstad University is responsible for personal data. According to the Personal

Data Act (the Data Protection Ordinance from 25 May 2018), you have the right

to access all information about yourself that is handled free of charge and, if

necessary, have any errors corrected. You also have the right to request deletion,

83

restriction, or to object to the processing of personal data, and it is possible to

submit a complaint to the Data Inspectorate.

Contact information for the data protection officer at Karlstad University is

dpo@kau.se.

Contact information:

Researchers:

Dilara Fulya Egesoy, dilaeges100@student.kau.se

Oğuzhan Bilgili, oguzbilg100@student.kau.se

Supervisor:

Prof. Bo Rundh, bo.rundh@kau.se