0019-8501/98/$19.00PII S0019-8501(97)00064-3

Industrial Marketing Management

27

, 305–313 (1998)© 1998 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

Strategy-Based Segmentation of

Industrial Markets

Theo M. M. VerhallenRuud T. Frambach

Jaideep Prabhu

Segmentation of industrial markets is typically based on ob-servable characteristics of firms such as their location andsize. However, such variables have been found to be poor pre-dictors of industrial buying behavior. To improve the effective-ness and power of existing approaches to industrial marketsegmentation, we propose using unobservable characteristicssuch as organizational strategy in addition to the observablecharacteristics currently used. An important justification forour approach is that a firm’s strategy influences its behavior,especially its buying behavior; as a result, adding the strategictype and orientation of firms to a segmentation scheme isbound to improve the effectiveness of the scheme. To test the

effectiveness of our approach, we conducted an empiricalstudy of the purchase of car phones by 200 Dutch firms. Theresults support our predictions. In fact, they indicate that afirm’s strategy is an even more important determinant of in-dustrial buying behavior than the variables currently used.Thus, strategy-based segmentation may be a more powerfuland effective approach to industrial segmentation than currentapproaches. © 1998 Elsevier Science Inc.

INTRODUCTION

The segmentation of consumer markets has receivedconsiderably more attention in the literature than the seg-mentation of industrial markets. According to Bonomaand Shapiro [1], “a careful search of the literature showsthat only a few articles have had any direct, importantimpact upon the development of industrial market seg-mentation” (p. 4). Consequently, industrial market seg-

Address correspondence to Dr. T. M. M. Verhallen, Department of BusinessAdministration, Marketing and Marketing Research, Tilburg University, P.O.Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.

The authors acknowledge the financial support of Heliview and thankCorma Otte for research assistance.

306

mentation is currently primarily based on geographicsand demographics [2, 3]. However, this leaves industrialsuppliers unsatisfied, for segmentation of the market intohomogeneous groups with regard to buying behavior hasproved to be very difficult based on these criteria. There-fore, Laughlin and Taylor [4] point out that there is astrong need for a managerial approach in industrial mar-ket segmentation. In consumer markets, homogeneoussegments have been defined on the basis of consumercharacteristics such as personality type and psychograph-ics to explain differences in buying behavior [5]. Analo-gous to this, similar characteristics of firms have beenused to explain organizational buying behavior.

Robertson and Wind [6] argue for the use of organiza-tional psychographics to study the innovation buying be-havior of firms. Strategic orientation could well be suchan organizational psychographic, parallel to personalityvalues in consumer segmentation. In industrial markets,the products and services bought by firms are related totheir objectives and strategies [7]. If industrial buying be-havior is primarily driven by the strategy pursued by thebuying organization, then knowledge of these strategiescould provide a valid basis for segmenting the marketinto relatively homogeneous groups. It is the objective ofthis study, therefore, to explore the extent to which thestrategic type and orientation of firms relate to their in-

dustrial buying behavior and, as a consequence, contrib-ute to the effective segmentation of industrial markets.

INDUSTRIAL MARKET SEGMENTATION

Selection of segmentation variables typically includessuch conditions as measurability, substantiality, accessi-bility, and actionability [8]. Often, a trade-off betweenthe costs and applicability of the segmentation basis ismade. As Bonoma and Shapiro [1] point out, “Manage-ment often faces segmentation tension between the theo-retically desirable and the managerially possible” (p.258). Segments based on demographics of buyer firms,for example, are usually more easy to identify than seg-ments based on needs and benefit segmentation. Cogni-zant of this, Bonoma and Shapiro [1] propose generalguidelines for segmenting industrial markets following anested approach. Specifically, they distinguish five gen-eral categories of segmentation variables that vary in op-erational costs and complexity. Ranging from relativelycheap and easy to implement to costly and difficult to im-plement, they identify the following segmentation vari-ables: (1) demographics, such as firm size and industry,(2) operating variables, (3) purchasing approaches, (4)situational factors, and (5) personal characteristics. Thesecriteria are related to the several levels that Webster andWind [9] distinguish in their model of industrial buyingbehavior. Webster and Wind argue that four groups ofvariables are relevant in the buying process. First, the ex-ternal environment of a firm determines the contextwithin which industrial buying takes place. Second, buy-ing behavior is influenced directly by factors related tothe internal environment: the operating variables of thefirm, i.e., technology, structure, tasks and objectives, andpeople. The buying process is driven by the objectives ofthe firm and limited by available means. Third, the groupof people involved in the buying process directly influ-

THEO M. M. VERHALLEN is Professor of Marketing and Marketing Research at Tilburg University, The Netherlands.

RUUD T. FRAMBACH is Associate Professor of Marketing at Tilburg University, The Netherlands and at the University of Ghent Vlerick School of Management, Belgium.

JAIDEEP PRABHU is Assistant Professor of Marketing at

Tilburg University, The Netherlands.

Industrial market segmentation is currently primarily based on geographics and

demographics.

307

ences the buying decision (decision-making unit). Fi-nally, each individual exerts influence on the final decision.

In terms of the Webster and Wind model of industrialbuying behavior, the strategy pursued by a firm is one ofits most important operating variables. Because the prod-ucts and services bought by industrial buyers are relatedto their objectives and needs, their buying behavior willbe influenced by these considerations [7]. Further, asstrategy is the means by which firms meet these objec-tives and satisfy these needs, the strategy of firms isbound to directly influence their industrial buying behav-ior. This makes strategy a potentially valuable basis forsegmentation of industrial markets. Following Shappiroand Bonoma, such a basis for segmentation would be fa-vorable in terms of costs and complexity.

STRATEGY AS A BASIS FOR SEGMENTATION

A firm’s strategy is influenced by both external, mar-ketplace, as well as internal, organizational, consider-ations. In the literature, both considerations have beenused quite extensively to derive typologies of strategictypes and orientations of firms.

Strategic Types

In general, several typologies of (marketing) strategieshave been proposed, viz. Mintzberg [10], Porter [11], andMiles and Snow [12]. The Mintzberg typology is basedon the process of strategy formulation within the organi-zation. Mintzberg identifies three different modes of strat-egy formulation: entrepreneurial, adaptive, and planning.Emphasis in this typology is on “the motives for deci-sions, who makes them, how alternatives are evaluated,the decisions’ horizons, linkages, organizational goals,flexibility of modes, age of organization, and types of en-vironments beneficial to each mode” [13]. The Porter ty-pology concerns a classification of competitive strategiesinto three generic strategic types: differentiation, costleadership, and focus strategy. Finally, Miles and Snowhave empirically identified four different types of strate-

gies: prospector (innovative), defender (efficient), ana-lyzer (efficient and adaptive), and reactor (no consistentstrategy). Of these typologies, the Mintzberg typology fo-cuses on the process of strategy formulation rather thanstrategy content and is therefore less relevant to the issueof market segmentation. Comparing the Porter typologywith that of Miles and Snow, Segev [14] concluded thatthe latter has a richer conception of the strategic environ-ment in which firms operate. Consistent with this conclu-sion, we use the Miles and Snow typology as being the bestsuited to the objectives of industrial market segmentation.

Strategic Orientation

Hofstede et al. [15] identify six dimensions of organi-zational culture or “people’s perceptions of the practicesin their work unit.” These cultural dimensions of firms(normative vs. pragmatic; loose vs. tight control; openvs. closed system; parochial vs. professional; employeevs. job oriented; process vs. results oriented) can becompared with personal values of consumers as they de-scribe “enduring basic orientations toward actions and astandard for guiding action and for maintaining attitudestoward objects and situations” [16, 17]. Nevertheless,these dimensions are not well suited for segmentationpurposes as they are not directly linked to behavior [18].On the other hand, very specific evaluations and beliefsof actions are not stable enough to form a basis for seg-menting markets. For this reason, Van Raaij and Ver-hallen [5] advocate the use of domain-specific values asthe most suited basis for market segmentation. Domain-specific values consist of a basic orientation within a do-main that describes a whole range of actions guided by acommon goal such as vacation, breakfast, or work.These domain-specific values play a moderating role be-tween general personal values and specific brand evalua-tions. Davis and Schul [19] examine the moderating roleof strategic orientation analogous to the domain-specificvalues in the consumer literature. They argue that strate-gic orientation moderates between general organizationalcontext variables and specific measures of business unit

The strategic orientation of firms directly

influences their buying behavior.

308

performance similar to domain-specific values in con-sumer segmentation literature.

With respect to the strategic orientation of the firm,Kohli and Jaworski [20] introduce the market orientationconstruct. This construct reflects the degree to which afirm is oriented toward getting information from the mar-ketplace and diffusing this information within the firm. Amajor aspect of market orientation is therefore the firm’sorientation toward the customer [21], in contrast to otherorientations that may be more internally oriented [22]. Inthe present study, we consider both the customer orienta-tion of the firm (i.e., its focus on customers needs as inVan Bruggen and Smidts [21]) as well as the firms inter-nal process orientation (i.e., its focus on internal effi-ciency, procedures, and task division [22]). Further,Doyle and Hooley [23] distinguish two types of compa-nies: those oriented to long-run market share and thosemore oriented to short-run profit performance. Thisshort-run orientation in which management is mainly ori-ented toward financial performance, profit, and turnover,is included as the third type of strategic orientation in ourstudy. Despite the intuitive appeal of the marketing con-cept, Cahill et al. [24] describe two cases of high-tech-nology products that illustrate the dominance of R&Dwithin companies over other orientations. This R&D ori-entation, in which the firm is mainly focused on productdevelopment and new product/service possibilities, alsotypifies certain companies. Finally a human resourcesorientation, i.e., a focus on a pleasant working climateand good personal relations, is added to our scheme. Le-wandowski and MacKinnon [25] attribute the success ofSaturn Corp. of General Motors to an active human re-source strategy and a people-focused organization. Alsoin comparing U.S. with Japanese firms, the difference inthe human resources orientation of the respective groupsis mentioned [26]. By using these five strategic orienta-tions, we cover the main organizational functions: pro-duction, marketing, human resources, R&D, and finance.

In sum, strategic type and orientation are likely to behighly related, since both the nature and the priority ofactivities carried out by a firm are likely to reflect its stra-tegic choices [22]. Further, each of these aspects of afirm’s strategy is likely to influence its buying behaviorand therefore be an important variable in segmenting in-dustrial markets. We now turn to an empirical study con-ducted to investigate the relationship between strategyand industrial buying behavior and hence the use of strat-egy as a variable in industrial segmentation.

METHOD

The study focused on the purchase decision of carphones by firms in The Netherlands. There are severalreasons why the adoption of car phones is an interestingand suitable context in which to investigate the relation-ship between strategy and industrial buying behavior.First, car phones are still in the adoption phase of the lifecycle; most firms are still in the process of buying carphones for the first time. Thus, studying this purchase de-cision helps us focus on a newbuy, an important aspect ofindustrial buying behavior. Additionally, first-time buysare a powerful basis on which to discriminate betweenadopters and non-adopters. Second, car phones are likelyto be equally important to firms regardless of the industryin which they operate. Thus, there are unlikely to be anyindustry-specific biases in our sample. Third, both tradi-tional segmentation variables (such as size) as well as thevariables proposed in this study (such as strategic typeand orientation) are likely to influence the adoption ofcar phones, thus avoiding a bias toward a particular seg-mentation basis or scheme.

A disproportional stratified sample was drawn from adata base of 100,000 Dutch profit firms with more thanfive employees. Non-profit firms were excluded from thesample due to their deviant buying behavior. Stratifica-tion variables were type of industry (six groups) and

Firms’ strategic orientations relate to production, marketing, human resources,

R&D, and finance.

309

number of employees (six groups). An effective sampleof 205 firms was obtained, of which 104 respondentspurchased one or more car phones and 101 respondentsdid not. The sample represents a response rate of 32%.Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents over thestratification variables. The sample is not completely rep-resentative of the population as relatively large firms aresomewhat oversampled. However, because oversamplingof large firms took place for both adopters and nonadopt-ers, the results will not be biased.

Data were collected by means of a computer assistedtelephone interview (CATI), using a structured question-naire. Computer assisted interviewing extends the scopeof telephone interviewing in terms of number and com-plexity of questions asked and processed. Interviewersasked for the key decision-maker regarding the purchaseof car phones [27, 28]. These respondents can be expectedto provide the required information, because they areknowledgeable about the adoption decision process [29].

Research variables were measured as follows. Strate-gic type was measured using the paragraph method inwhich the respondent classifies the firm based on stan-

dard type descriptions (see Snow and Hambrick [30]).The strategic orientation of a firm was also measured us-ing the paragraph method. Respondents were asked torank their firm for different kinds of orientations basedon standard statements. In addition, respondents wereasked to score the orientation of their firm relative to oth-ers in the industry. Thus, a relative measure of strategicorientation was also obtained. Descriptions of strategictypes and strategic orientations are shown in Table 2.

RESULTS

In this section, we present results of the distribution offirms over strategic types and orientations as well as therelationship between the two. We then turn to the centralissue of this study, namely the use of strategic type andorientation as bases for segmentation.

Strategic Type and Orientation

Table 3 shows the distribution of the respondents overthe strategic types and orientations. Surprisingly, 80% of

TABLE 1Distribution of Respondents over Stratification Variables

Industry Size ManufacturingConstruction &

InstallationTrade, Hospitality,

& RepairTransport, Warehousing,

& CommunicationsFinancial &

Business ServicesOther

Services Total

10–20 13 10 30 5 13 6 7720–50 13 11 19 4 11 8 6650–100 6 4 6 3 5 7 31100–200 4 2 2 2 2 5 17200–500 1 1 1 3 6500

1

1 2 1 1 2 1 8Total 38 29 59 16 33 30 205

TABLE 2Description of Strategic Types and Strategic Orientations

Strategic Types

• Defenders

perform relatively well in a specific product/market-combination and do not actively seek new opportunities outside their business domain.

• Prospectors

are always ahead of competitors due to their innovative behavior and cause changes in the environment.

• Analyzers

often are behind the market leader with differentiated products and services.

• Reactors

tend to wait before reacting to environmental changes.

Strategic Orientations:

• Customer orientation

: All employees within the organization are always available for customers.

• Financial orientation

: Management is primarily focused on increasing sales and making profits.

• Internal orientation

: There is an emphasis on the internal coordination of departments as well as on procedures and efficiency in the business process.

• Human relations orientation

: The organization emphasizes a pleasant working environment and good personal relations.

• Research and development orientation

: The organization emphasizes technological innovation, product and service development, and rapid reaction to new opportunities.

310

interesting to investigate how effective these “tradi-tional” segmentation variables are in comparison with“psychographic” variables such as strategic type. The rel-ative importance of strategic type, firm size, and industryin segmenting the industrial market with respect to thepurchase of car phones was investigated by means of ananalysis of variance on these variables. Results are re-ported in Table 4.

The results show that when strategic type, industry,and firm size are considered together, strategic type is theonly variable (F

5

3.76,

P

,

.01) that distinguishes sig-nificantly between firms that adopt and those that do notadopt car phones. From this we can strongly concludethat the strategy pursued by a firm is a better predictor ofadoption behavior than other, more general, demographicvariables such as firm size and industry. This findingsupports the central idea of our study, namely that afirm’s strategy is a useful segmentation variable in indus-trial markets.

Strategic Orientation and Industrial Buying Behavior

To investigate the extent to which the strategic orienta-tion of a firm influences its industrial buying behavior,we tested, for each one of the primary relative orienta-tions, the relationship between the adoption of car phonesand the potential segmentation variables strategic type,firm size, and strategic orientation. The results are shownin Table 5. The significance of the F-values for separateanalyses of variance is reported for each of the relativeorientations of the firm, with strategic type, firm size,and the specific strategic orientation as independent vari-ables. Because respondents were asked to suggest multi-ple orientations their firm stresses to a larger extent thanothers in the industry, estimation of one (simultaneous)

the respondents indicated that their firms are primarilycustomer oriented. Asked to what extent their firm ismore customer oriented than other firms in the industry,this percentage drops to 67. The high percentage of firmssaying that their primary orientation is a customer orien-tation might be a result of respondents giving the sociallyacceptable answer. Being customer and market orientedis nowadays considered to be essential in most markets[31]. Based on this, the relative orientation seems to be amore reliable measure of strategic orientation [32].

To test for a relationship between strategic type andorientation, we used the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallisone-way analysis of variance. First, we tested whetherthe primary orientation differs for the four strategictypes. No significant differences were found (

P

5

.558).Because most respondents classified their organization asprimarily customer oriented, this result may be due to theskewness of the measure of orientation. Therefore, wealso analyzed whether the relative orientation differs be-tween the various strategic types. It was found that onlythe relative customer orientation differs significantly be-tween the strategic types (

P

,

.05,

n

5

105). Prospectorsare most often found to be relatively customer oriented,followed by analyzers, defenders, and reactors, respec-tively. Because prospectors are generally most engagedin seeking new product-market opportunities, followedby analyzers, defenders, and reactors, this finding is con-sistent with expectations.

Strategic Type and Industrial Buying Behavior

As pointed before, demographics such as firm size andindustry have been found to be potentially useful seg-mentation variables for industrial markets [33]. It is inter-esting to investigate whether these variables prove to beuseful in segmenting the market for car phones. It is also

TABLE 4Analysis of Variance on Segmentation Variables(Dependent Variable:Purchase Behavior)

Source ofVariation

Sum ofSquares

Degrees ofFreedom

Mean SquareError F

Significanceof F

Main effects 6.453 10 0.645 2.829 0.003Strategic type 2.563 3 0.854 3.746 0.012Firm size 1.364 3 0.455 1.993 0.117Industry 1.523 4 0.381 1.669 0.159Explained 6.453 10 0.645 2.829 0.003Residual 39.687 174 0.228Total 46.141 184 0.251

TABLE 3Relative Frequency of Strategic Type and Strategic Orientationof Firms in the Sample

Strategic Orientation

Strategic Type First Position Relatively Higher

Prospector 66 Customer 80% (

n

5

202) 67% (

n

5

177)Analyzer 55 Financial 4% (

n

5

196) 31% (

n

5

155)Defender 38 Internal process 4% (

n

5

195) 45% (

n

5

140)Reactor 26 Human relations 4% (

n

5

195) 65% (

n

5

158)None 20 R&D 10% (

n

5

189) 57% (

n

5

138)Total 205

311

analysis of variance with all orientations as independentvariables was not possible.

The results reported in Table 5 confirm the findingsshown in Table 4. Specifically, the results suggest thatstrategic type is the main discriminator between adoptersand nonadopters of car phones among firms in our sam-ple. Except for the R&D-oriented firms, strategic type isfound to be the most important variable in segmentingthe market with respect to buying behavior (

P

,

.05 inall cases). For none of the orientations does firm size dis-criminate between adopters and nonadopters. Finally, thestrategic orientation of the firm only discriminates cus-tomer-oriented firms from firms with other orientationswith respect to the adoption of car phones (

P

,

.05).Customer-oriented firms are more likely to have adoptedthis innovation than others. This can probably be ex-plained by the fact that telecommunications is one of themeans by which customer-oriented firms maintain con-tact with their customers. The fact that customer-orientedand R&D-oriented firms exhibit different results empha-sizes that it is necessary to take into account the strategicorientation of firms in trying to predict purchase behavior.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations and Future Research

Using strategy as a basis for segmenting industrialmarkets is consistent with the plea of several scholars fora more managerial approach to industrial buying research[4]. Based on the findings of our study, we conclude thatfirms’ strategic type and orientation are potentially im-portant variables in segmenting industrial markets. Ourresults indicate that a firm’s strategy is an even more im-portant determinant of industrial buying behavior thanthe variables commonly considered in industrial market-ing, i.e., demographic variables such as size and industry.However, several limitations of the present study shouldalso be noted. First, the empirical study focused on theadoption of one particular product, i.e., car phones. Thevalue of strategy-based segmentation should be investi-gated further by considering the industrial purchases ofother products as well. In this respect, one could differen-tiate between products with different levels of perceivedinfluence on the implementation of the firm’s strategy.Second, the type of purchase decision considered was anew buy as opposed to a straight or modified rebuy.Whereas rebuys are important purchase contexts forfirms, segmentation is most difficult for newbuys be-cause no prior relationships exist on which the supplyingfirm may base its marketing plans. Thus, our studymakes a contribution to an important aspect of industrialbuying behavior. Third, both strategic type and orienta-tion were measured using the method of self-indicationby the respondent. Although this type of measurement iscommonly used in strategy research, one should be awareof the biases that may occur when respondents feel theymust give socially acceptable answers. Subjectivity maybe avoided by using the observation method. However,in strategy research this is obviously very difficult. Onemeans of observation of strategic type and orientation offirms would be by content analyzing their strategic mar-keting plans [32], although this is a rare opportunity in

TABLE 5Analyses of Variance on Segmentation Variables for Different Orientations (Dependent Variable: Purchase Behavior)

Relative StrategicOrientation

Segmentation Variables

MainEffects

StrategicType

FirmSize

StrategicOrientation

SampleSize

Customer 0.006

a

0.066

c

0.188 0.051

c

158Financial 0.032

b

0.037

b

0.139 0.537 143Internal process 0.054

c

0.030

b

0.218 0.530 128Human relations 0.031

b

0.031

b

0.286 0.161 143R&D 0.091

c

0.118 0.188 0.492 128

The values indicated in the table represent the significances of the F values.

a

P

,

.01.

b

P

,

.05.

c

P

,

.10.

A firm’s strategy is a better predictor

of adoption.

312

practice. Finally, in this study only a limited relationshipbetween strategic type and orientation on the one handand between strategic orientation and industrial buyingbehavior on the other hand were found. Further researchshould investigate these relationships in greater detail.Perhaps better operationalizations of the relevant con-cepts may contribute to a better understanding of theserelationships.

Managerial Issues

Although strategy-based segmentation is a potentiallymore effective approach than existing approaches, its im-plementation poses apparently greater problems than theimplementation of size- or industry-based segmentation.Size, location, and industry are all observables that canbe noted quickly, objectively, and unobstrusively. Strate-gic variables, on the other hand, are unobservable andtheir measurement is arguably more costly and time con-suming. Further, it could be argued that the strategy pur-sued by firms is in reality not always clear and, therefore,cannot be easily identified as a segmentation variable.These considerations, however, do not necessarily poseproblems to industrial marketers (segmenting firms).Specifically, suppliers of industrial products do not needto gather data on the strategy of firms they wish to seg-ment. They merely need to keep in mind that potentialbuyers differ in their strategic type and orientation and,as a consequence, are likely to respond in different waysto marketing plans and strategies. For instance, cus-tomer-oriented firms are likely to respond more enthusi-astically to products and services that can be shown to beof value to their own end-users. Indeed, our results sug-gest that this may explain the success of car phones withcustomer-oriented buyers. Because car phones providefirms with the opportunity of staying in closer contactwith customers, customer-oriented firms are more likelyto see the value of such purchases than firms that aremore R&D or human resources or financial performanceoriented. Thus, a manufacturer of car phones would not

need to know which specific firms are customer-orientedbut only that: (1) there are such firms in the market; and(2) that they are likely to respond most favorably to ap-peals that emphasize the importance of car phones to thebuilding and maintaining of relationships with their ownconsumers. In sum, therefore, whereas strategic variablesinfluence buying behavior, a detailed knowledge of thespecific strategic type and orientation of specific firms isunnecessary because targeted firms will self-select in re-sponse to the marketing effects of the supplier firm.

The use of strategy-based segmentation has several ad-ditional managerial implications. First, it forces the sup-plier firm to focus more specifically on the kind of buy-ing firm it wishes to target. Such an approach toformulating marketing strategy is more proactive be-cause it explicitly requires the supplier to look for poten-tial customers. The question “who do we want to do busi-ness with” prevails over “who do we do business with.”As a result the supplier makes more explicit choices re-garding market targeting and positioning, choices thatcould be made to reflect the firm’s strategic objectives.Second, a strategy-based segmentation approach ensuresa more market-oriented targeting of and positioning forcustomers. It helps the supplier firm to focus more pre-cisely on the customer’s needs and, as a consequence,better customize the product offerings to meet these spe-cific needs. Third, knowing the buying firm’s strategyprovides the supplier with a knowledge of the buyingfirm’s approach to its target markets. Thinking in termsof the customer’s strategy automatically enables the sup-plier firm to think in terms of the customer’s customers, acritical aspect of success in industrial marketing.

Finally, an understanding of the process by whichfirms’ purchase decisions are made will improve the abil-ity of suppliers to influence these decisions. This re-search helps to shed light on the process by which afirm’s strategic type and orientation influence its buyingdecisions, in addition to variables such as size, whichmay be merely correlational indicators of behavior ratherthan causal influencers. For example, customer-oriented

Strategy-based segmentation ensures more

market-oriented targeting and positioning.

313

firms, i.e., firms with a strategic commitment to satisfy-ing their customers, are likely to make buying decisionsthat improve their relationships with customers. Thesefirms are also more likely to be responsive to supplier’smarketing appeals that emphasize the value of such prod-ucts and/or services to the buying firm’s end-consumers.In sum, therefore, using or considering the strategic typeand orientation of industrial buyers is likely to improveconsiderably the effectiveness of segmenting schemesapplied to industrial markets.

REFERENCES

1. Bonoma, Thomas V., and Shapiro, Benson P.:

Segmenting the IndustrialMarket

. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1983.

2. Griffith, Rodney L., and Pol, Louis G.: Segmenting Industrial Markets.

Industrial Marketing Management

23,

39–46 (1994).

3. Dibb, Sally, and Simkin, Lyndon: Implementation Problems in IndustrialMarket Segmentation.

Industrial Marketing Management

23,

55–63(1994).

4. Laughlin, Jay L., and Taylor, Charles R.: An Approach to Industrial Mar-ket Segmentation,

Industrial Marketing Management

20,

127–136 (1991).

5. Van Raaij, W. Fred, and Verhallen, Theo M. M.: Domain-Specific MarketSegmentation.

European Journal of Marketing

28,

49–66 (1994).

6. Robertson, Thomas S., and Wind, Yoram: Organizational Psychographicsand Innovativeness.

Journal of Consumer Research

7,

24–31 (1980).

7. Chisnall, Peter M.:

Strategic Industrial Marketing

. Prentice Hall, HemelHempstead, U.K., 1989.

8. Kotler, Philip:

Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementa-tion and Control

. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.

9. Webster, F. E., and Wind, Y.: A General Model for Understanding Orga-nizational Buying Behavior.

Journal of Marketing

36,

12–19 (1972).

10. Mintzberg, Henry: Strategy-Making in Three Modes.

California Manage-ment Review

16,

44–53 (1973).

11. Porter, Michael E.:

Competitive Strategy

. The Free Press, New York,1980.

12. Miles, R. E., and Snow, C. C.:

Organizational Strategy, Structure andProcesses

. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978.

13. Segev, E.: Strategy, Strategy Making, and Performance—An EmpiricalInvestigation.

Management Science

33,

258–269 (1987).

14. Segev, E.: A Systematic Comparative Analysis and Synthesis of TwoBusiness-Level Strategic Typologies.

Strategic Management Journal

10,487–505 (1989).

15. Hofstede, Geert, Neuijen, Bram, Ohayv, Denise Daval, and Sanders,Geert: Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and QuantitativeStudy across Twenty Cases, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 286–316 (1990).

16. Kamakura, W. A., Novak, T. P., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and Verhallen,

Th. M. M.: Identification de Segments de Valeurs Pan-Europeens par unModele Logit sur les Rangs avec Regroupements Successifs (IdentifyingPan-European Value Segments with a Clusterwise Rank-Logit Model).Recherche et Applications en Marketing 29–56 (1994).

17. Pitts, Robert E., and Woodside, Arch G.: Personal Values and ConsumerPsychology. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1986.

18. Vinson, David E., Scott, Jerome E., and Lamont, Lawrence M.: The Roleof Personal Values in Marketing and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Mar-keting 41, 44–50 (1977).

19. Davis, Peter S., and Schul, Patrick L.: Addressing the Contingent Effectsof Business Unit Strategic Orientation on Relationships between Organi-zational Context and Business Unit Performance. Journal of BusinessResearch 27, 183–200 (1993).

20. Kohli, A. K., and Jaworski, B. J.: Market Orientation: The Construct,Research Propositions and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing54, 1–18 (1990).

21. Van Bruggen, Gerrit H., and Smidts, A.: The Measurement of Market Ori-entation:A Promising Tool for Management? Proceedings CEMS Aca-demic Conference 1–18 (1995).

22. Quinn, R. E., and Hall, R. H.: Environments, Firms and Policymakers:Toward an Integrative Framework, in Organizational Theory and PublicPolicy, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1983, pp. 281–296.

23. Doyle, Peter, and Hooley, Graham J.: Strategic Orientation and CorporatePerformance. International Journal of Research in Marketing 9, 59–73(1992).

24. Cahill, Dennis J., Thach, Sharon V., and Warshawsky, Robert M.: TheMarketing Concept and New High-Tech Products: Is There a Fit? Journalof Product Innovation Management 11, 336–343 (1994).

25. Lewandowsky, James L., and MacKinnon, William P.: What We Learnedat Saturn. Personnel Journal 71, 30–32 (1992).

26. Johnstone, Bob: Research & Innovation: Japanese Diversity. Far EasternEconomic Review 156, 36 (1993).

27. Gatignon, Hubert, and Robertson, Thomas S.: Technology Diffusion: AnEmpirical Test of Competitive Effects. Journal of Marketing 53, 35–49(1989).

28. Gauvin, Stéphane, and Sinha, Rajiv K.: Innovativeness in Industrial Firms:A Two-Stage Model of Adoption. International Journal of Research inMarketing 10, 165–183 (1993).

29. Wilson, Elizabeth J., and Lilien, Gary L.: Using Single Informants toStudy Group Choice: An Examination of Research Practice in Organiza-tional Buying. Marketing Letters 3, 297–305 (1992).

30. Snow, C. C., and Hambrick, D. C.: Measuring Organizational Strategies:Some Theoretical and Methodological Problems. Academy of Manage-ment Review 5, 527–538 (1980).

31. Day, George S.: The Capabilities of Market-Driven Firms. Journal ofMarketing 8, 37–52 (1994).

32. Frambach, Ruud T., Verhallen, Theo M. M., and Roest, Henk C. A.: Mar-keting as Most Important Weakness: An Investigation of the Market Ori-entation of Dutch Companies [in Dutch]. Tijdschrift voor Marketing 29(July/August), 48–51 (1995).

33. Shapiro, Benson P., and Bonoma, Thomas V.: How to Segment IndustrialMarkets. Harvard Business Review May-June, 104–110 (1984).