The existing literature of brand loyalty has been essentially focused on the roles of perceived quality, brand reputation and especially satisfaction, due to the fact that they summarise consumers’ knowledge and experiences, guiding their subsequent actions. In this context, the shifting emphasis to relational marketing has devoted a lot of effort to analyse how other constructs such as trust predict future intention. The fact that there are conceptual connections of trust to the notion of satisfaction and loyalty, and thatthis effort is especially lacking in the brand‐consumer relationship, moves the authors to focus on analysing the relationships existing among these concepts. Research methodology consisted of regressions and multivariable analysis with a sample of 173 buyers. The results obtained suggest the key role of brand trust as a variable that generates customers’ commitment, especially in situations of high involvement, in which its effect is stronger in comparison to overall satisfaction.

Purpose-The most recent literature on competitive advantage views brand equity as a relational market-based asset because it arises from the relationships that consumers have with brands. Given the fact that trust is viewed as the cornerstone , as well as one of the most desirable qualities in any relationship, the objective of this study is to analyze the importance of brand trust in the development of brand equity. Specifically, the paper examines the relationships network in which brand trust is embedded. Design/methodology/approach-A quantitative methodology was adopted. The data are based on a survey conducted in a region in the southeastern part of Spain, resulting in 271 surveys. Findings-The findings reveal that brand trust is rooted in the result of past experience with the brand, and it is also positively associated with brand loyalty, which in turn maintains a positive relationship with brand equity. Furthermore, the results suggest that, although brand trust does not play a full mediating role as suggested by Morgan and Hunt, it contributes to a better explanation of brand equity. Originality/value-These results have significant implications. The fact that brand equity is best explained when brand trust is taken into account reinforces the idea that brand equity is a relational market-based asset. Therefore, branding literature may be enriched through the integration with the literature on the resource-based-view of the firm. From a practical point of view, companies must build brand trust in order to enjoy the substantial competitive and economic advantages provided by brand equity as a relational, market-based asset.

No abstract

Research about the critical drivers of new product success is perhaps one of the thorniest issues confronting academic research in the field. Among them, product quality is considered a crucial element to obtain a competitive advantage. However, empirical evidence suggests low returns on product quality investments in new products, and consequent manager claims for an explanation of whether quality investments are fruitful for the firm. Recently, a new research stream has suggested that the role of other complementary products (indirect network externalities) and the critical mass of adopters (direct network externalities) lead to higher market returns than quality itself. Moreover, researchers disagree about the perverse or positive effects that the switching costs associated with the product have on the short-and long-term performance of the firm. In this paper, we propose that, as products and technologies become more interconnected, the associated network effects and switching costs will play an important role with regard to new product performance, both independently and in conjunction with its quality. We empirically test a model that relates product quality, network effects, and switching costs to short-term/long-term new product performance, using data collected from 255 innovative products. The data analysis indicates that network effects, and consumers' switching costs, can modify previous findings with regard to the isolated product quality consequences concerning new product performance. Overall, the results of this study may help firms manage the relationship between quality, network externalities, and switching costs more efficiently, both in the short term and in the long term.

The subject of stress and its impact on performance has received limited empirical attention in the new product development field. The present study examines the impact of three work stressors (i.e., role ambiguity, role conflict, and pressure for performance) on team job satisfaction and three dimensions of new product performance: adherence to budget and schedule, product quality, and market success. Data were collected using a cross sectional, Webbased survey among Spanish innovative firms. A total of 197 questionnaires was received. Findings from this research suggest that role conflict and role ambiguity are negatively related to team job satisfaction. Results, however, show a lack of association between pressure for performance and job satisfaction. Regarding the effect of work stressors on new product performance, findings indicate that different stressors have different relationships with performance. Concerning role ambiguity, findings provide empirical evidence of a U-shaped relationship between role ambiguity and adherence to budget and schedule and between role ambiguity and product quality. Thus, intermediate levels of role ambiguity are hurtful, but low and high levels of role ambiguity are helpful. Nonetheless, given that the levels of ambiguity measured in this study are not high enough, the findings regarding the impact of moderate to high levels of ambiguity on new product performance should be viewed as tentative. Role conflict has a negative linear relationship with adherence to budget schedule and an inverted U-shaped relationship with product quality. For pressure for performance, findings indicate a triphasic effect on product quality. Specifically, the initial phase is characterized by increasingly lower levels of product quality owing to increasing levels of pressure for performance. As pressure for performance keeps further increasing, a positive effect on product quality begins to manifest. Beyond some threshold, however, a new phase starts in which product quality decreases with increasing amounts of performance pressure. Finally, results show a lack of association between pressure for performance and adherence to budget and schedule. All three stressors were found to have an indirect, rather than a direct, effect on market success via job satisfaction, adherence to budget and schedule, or product quality. Several managerial implications follow from these results. First, product managers should make every effort to reduce role ambiguity to minimal levels, ensuring that team members fully understand their role requirements and have adequate information about their job. Second, rather than reducing the level of role conflict to zero, managers must take into account the positive effect that moderate levels of role conflict have in product quality. Finally, management should put some pressure on the team members and make sure they understand that there is a sense of urgency.