Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships: Perspectives from advertising agency account managers

We do things for people we like, our friends. However, in firm-to-firm exchange relationships, boundary spanners are economic agents representing their firms contractually to achieve specific goals. Thus, questions arise as to whether close interpersonal relationships exist in business settings, how they are defined, and whether they influence the nature and functioning of interfirm exchange. A qualitative study with advertising agency account managers finds that analyzing interpersonal relationships across groups from both sides defines firm-to-firm relationships. Participants define these relationships based on the extent to which the agency is involved in the client’s business across categories including vendor, partner, and surrogate manager. Interpersonal relationship exist across categories including strictly business, business friends, and highly personal. The relationships are distinguished based on the knowledge base developed about the brand manager. Overwhelmingly, the participants claim that devoloping close, interpersonal relationships is beneficial to both their professional and personal lives. Diana L. Haytko (DianaHaytko@smsu.edu) is an associate professor of marketing at Southwest Missouri State University. She received a B.S. in advertising from the University of Colorado, an M.S. in advertising from the University of Illinois, and an M.B.A. and Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Wisconsin. Her research interests are in the field of relationship marketing, both from a business-to-business and a consumer perspective. Her work has been published in theJournal of Consumer Research, theJournal of Retailing, theJournal of Marketing Communications, and theJournal of Shopping Center Research.     

An examination of free elicitation and response scale measures of feelings and judgments evoked by television advertisements

Recent research has examined the role of feelings and judgments evoked by television advertisements through the use of large batteries of rating scales. In this study, free elicitations of feelings and judgments about ads are compared to scale responses. Some potential problems pertaining to the use of large batteries of items to measure feelings and judgments are illustrated, and complementary aspects of the two measurement approaches suggest some advantages of the concurrent use of both in gauging responses to ads. Results across both approaches confirm the importance of assessing feelings in models of the antecedents of attitude toward the ad and suggest that feelings explain about as much variance in Aad as do judgments.