Returns on key accounts: do the results justify the expenditures?

Arun Sharma*, Heiner Evanschitzky

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose – The use of key accounts has become a mature trend and most industrial firms use this concept in some form. Selling firms establish key account teams to attend to important customers and consolidate their selling activities. Yet, despite such increased efforts on behalf of key accounts, sufficient research has not quantified the returns on key account strategy nor has it firmly established performance differences between key and non-key accounts within a firm. In response to this shortcoming, this study aims to examine returns on key accounts. Design Methodology/approach – Data were collected from a global consulting firm. The data collection started two years after the implementation of the key account program. Data were collected on recently acquired customers (within the previous year) at two time periods: year 1 and year 3 (based on company access of data). Findings – Initially, key accounts perform as well or better than other types of accounts. However, in the long term, key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Because the returns to key account expenditures, thus, appear mixed, firms should be cautious in expanding their key account strategies. Research limitations implications – The study contributes to research in three areas. First, most research on the effectiveness of key accounts refers to the between-firm level, whereas this study examines the effect within a single firm. Second, this study examines the temporal aspects of key accounts, namely, what happens to key accounts over time, in comparison with other accounts in a fairly large sample. Third, it considers the survival rates of key accounts versus other types of accounts. Practical implications – The authors suggest that firms also need to track their key accounts better because the results show that key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Originality/value – Extant research has not examined these issues.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)174-182
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Business and Industrial Marketing
Volume31
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Mar 2016

Fingerprint

Expenditure
Key accounts
Firm growth
Data collection
Consulting
Survival rate
Design methodology

Keywords

  • buyer–seller relationships
  • key accounts

Cite this

@article{fa80ebb745504bc5ad8e1c69031021d0,
title = "Returns on key accounts: do the results justify the expenditures?",
abstract = "Purpose – The use of key accounts has become a mature trend and most industrial firms use this concept in some form. Selling firms establish key account teams to attend to important customers and consolidate their selling activities. Yet, despite such increased efforts on behalf of key accounts, sufficient research has not quantified the returns on key account strategy nor has it firmly established performance differences between key and non-key accounts within a firm. In response to this shortcoming, this study aims to examine returns on key accounts. Design Methodology/approach – Data were collected from a global consulting firm. The data collection started two years after the implementation of the key account program. Data were collected on recently acquired customers (within the previous year) at two time periods: year 1 and year 3 (based on company access of data). Findings – Initially, key accounts perform as well or better than other types of accounts. However, in the long term, key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Because the returns to key account expenditures, thus, appear mixed, firms should be cautious in expanding their key account strategies. Research limitations implications – The study contributes to research in three areas. First, most research on the effectiveness of key accounts refers to the between-firm level, whereas this study examines the effect within a single firm. Second, this study examines the temporal aspects of key accounts, namely, what happens to key accounts over time, in comparison with other accounts in a fairly large sample. Third, it considers the survival rates of key accounts versus other types of accounts. Practical implications – The authors suggest that firms also need to track their key accounts better because the results show that key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Originality/value – Extant research has not examined these issues.",
keywords = "buyer–seller relationships, key accounts",
author = "Arun Sharma and Heiner Evanschitzky",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1108/JBIM-11-2014-0234",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "174--182",
journal = "Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing",
issn = "0885-8624",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Returns on key accounts : do the results justify the expenditures? / Sharma, Arun; Evanschitzky, Heiner.

In: Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 2, 07.03.2016, p. 174-182.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Returns on key accounts

T2 - do the results justify the expenditures?

AU - Sharma, Arun

AU - Evanschitzky, Heiner

PY - 2016/3/7

Y1 - 2016/3/7

N2 - Purpose – The use of key accounts has become a mature trend and most industrial firms use this concept in some form. Selling firms establish key account teams to attend to important customers and consolidate their selling activities. Yet, despite such increased efforts on behalf of key accounts, sufficient research has not quantified the returns on key account strategy nor has it firmly established performance differences between key and non-key accounts within a firm. In response to this shortcoming, this study aims to examine returns on key accounts. Design Methodology/approach – Data were collected from a global consulting firm. The data collection started two years after the implementation of the key account program. Data were collected on recently acquired customers (within the previous year) at two time periods: year 1 and year 3 (based on company access of data). Findings – Initially, key accounts perform as well or better than other types of accounts. However, in the long term, key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Because the returns to key account expenditures, thus, appear mixed, firms should be cautious in expanding their key account strategies. Research limitations implications – The study contributes to research in three areas. First, most research on the effectiveness of key accounts refers to the between-firm level, whereas this study examines the effect within a single firm. Second, this study examines the temporal aspects of key accounts, namely, what happens to key accounts over time, in comparison with other accounts in a fairly large sample. Third, it considers the survival rates of key accounts versus other types of accounts. Practical implications – The authors suggest that firms also need to track their key accounts better because the results show that key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Originality/value – Extant research has not examined these issues.

AB - Purpose – The use of key accounts has become a mature trend and most industrial firms use this concept in some form. Selling firms establish key account teams to attend to important customers and consolidate their selling activities. Yet, despite such increased efforts on behalf of key accounts, sufficient research has not quantified the returns on key account strategy nor has it firmly established performance differences between key and non-key accounts within a firm. In response to this shortcoming, this study aims to examine returns on key accounts. Design Methodology/approach – Data were collected from a global consulting firm. The data collection started two years after the implementation of the key account program. Data were collected on recently acquired customers (within the previous year) at two time periods: year 1 and year 3 (based on company access of data). Findings – Initially, key accounts perform as well or better than other types of accounts. However, in the long term, key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Because the returns to key account expenditures, thus, appear mixed, firms should be cautious in expanding their key account strategies. Research limitations implications – The study contributes to research in three areas. First, most research on the effectiveness of key accounts refers to the between-firm level, whereas this study examines the effect within a single firm. Second, this study examines the temporal aspects of key accounts, namely, what happens to key accounts over time, in comparison with other accounts in a fairly large sample. Third, it considers the survival rates of key accounts versus other types of accounts. Practical implications – The authors suggest that firms also need to track their key accounts better because the results show that key accounts are less satisfied, less profitable and less beneficial for a firm’s growth than other types of accounts. Originality/value – Extant research has not examined these issues.

KW - buyer–seller relationships

KW - key accounts

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960421743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/JBIM-11-2014-0234

DO - 10.1108/JBIM-11-2014-0234

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84960421743

VL - 31

SP - 174

EP - 182

JO - Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing

JF - Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing

SN - 0885-8624

IS - 2

ER -