Journal of Service Science and Management, 2011, 4, 165-173
doi:10.4236/jssm.2011.42020 Published Online June 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)
165
The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing
Share of Wallet in the B2B Market
Aiwu Cheng, Lei Han, Cheng Cao
The Management Department, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China.
Received January 19th, 2011; revised March 17th, 2011; accepted April 3rd, 2011.
ABSTRACT
Share of wallet is a key factor in Customer relationship management system (CRM) which is an important application
of E-business. Research has found that share of wallet is an important indicator to measure customer loyalty and cus-
tomer potential value. On the basis of the existent marketing literatures, this study analyzes the variables influencing
share of wallet according the traits of the B2B market. This paper brings forward interrelated hypotheses and concep-
tual model, then test the hypotheses with enterprises survey in the B2B market. Finally we use path analysis to find the
principal factors influencing share of wallet and the relationships in them. The results of this research provide theo-
retical foundation to upgrade CRM management level of the B2B enterprises, and there is a certain reference value to
predict share of wallet in customer lifetime value’s (CLV) measurement.
Keywords: Share of Wallet, CRM, Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, CLV
1. Introduction
Along with the research and application of E-business,
the integrated research of artificial intelligence, WEB
technology and commercial model has obtained more
and more values. E-business-based customer relationship
management has a rapid development in recent years,
and share of wallet, an important indicator to measure
CRM, is taken seriously by managers. The high market-
ing costs and low profits result from satisfaction market-
ing strategies make managers begin to focus attention on
share of wallet, now many markets have become a battle
ground for a share of the customer’s wallet [1]. Re-
searchers have analyzed the value of share of wallet from
many aspects in the area of CRM. Garland examines the
strength of share of wallet as a proxy variable for meas-
uring customer profitability, and find that it has a strong
correlation with customer profitability [2]; Reinartz as-
sert that share of wallet has a positive effect on customer
retention and profitability [3]; Zeithaml treat share of
wallet as a factor of customer retention [4]; Coyles and
Gokey find that efforts to improve customers’ share of
spending and customer retention can add as much as ten
times greater value to a company than focusing on reten-
tion alone [5]; Research conducted by McKinsey &
Company also supports this change in focus from reten-
tion to share of wallet. Share of wallet reflects the con-
sumer’s brand level spending in a given product category,
and hence it is one way to measure behavioral loyalty,
and this will help managers to measure customer loyalty
and potential value [6,7]. Share of wallet begins to be an
important quantitative indicator in a variety of marketing
analysis.
Share of wallet is also an important factor in the
measurement of customer lifetime value (CLV). Some
scholars have pointed out that the CLV is directly pro-
portional with share of wallet, and the relationship be-
tween them is positive [8]. This shows that share of wal-
let is useful for managers to adopt optimal strategies to
improve the CLV, and provides foundation to predict
CLV. Despite its importance, research on the topic is
scarce. Moreover, prior research on share of wallet has
been limited to understanding the relationship between
satisfaction, share of wallet and customer retention.
There are little studies to fix share of wallet, or directly
give an estimate in accordance with experience. As an
indicator of customer loyalty, share of wallet is influ-
enced by a variety of factors. So we must analyze the
factors before fix the share of wallet.
Most of the research on share of wallet has focused on
the B2C market, there is little research to analyze the
*Financial supportwas provided the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (No.70672116).

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 166
factors influencing share of wallet in the B2B market.
The traits of the B2B market are different from the B2C
market, so customer acquisition and retention is different
too. Moreover, the factors influencing share of wallet in
the B2B market is different from the B2C market.
Therefore, it is necessary to study the factors influencing
share of wallet in the B2B market. On the base of the
existent marketing literatures, this study analyzes the
variables influencing share of wallet according the traits
of the B2B market. This paper brings forward interre-
lated hypothesis and conceptual model, then test the hy-
pothesis with enterprises survey in the B2B market. Fi-
nally we use path analysis to find the principal factors
influencing share of wallet and the relationship in them.
The results of this research provide theoretical founda-
tion to upgrade CRM management level of the B2B en-
terprises, and there is a certain reference value to predict
share of wallet in customer lifetime value’ measurement.
2. Theoretical Background
Share of Wallet is the percentage of a customer’s ex-
penses for a product that goes to the firm selling the
product [9]. Since this concept appeared in the nineties of
last century, people find it is not only an important indi-
cator to measure CLV [2], but also a key factor to evalu-
ate customer loyalty [10]. Through their research, Tim’s
team found that the leading position of the company will
be surly stabilized if they improve the pocket share [11].
Therefore, many scholars focused on share of wallet and
its influencing factors, and achieved a series of achieve-
ments.
Some researchers have found that there is direct rela-
tionship between share of wallet and customer satisfac-
tion, customer loyalty. Brucae Cooil finds that the size of
share of wallet depends on the baseline of satisfaction
level [12]; Chris Baumann points out that loyalty is a
crucial index; it affects customers’ pocket share [13].
Rust’s research finds that when customers’ satisfaction
improves, customers’ loyalty and pocket share will grow
as well [14].
Sabine has done some actual research on the elements
which can affect customers’ reservation, pocket share,
visit share and loyalty; among them, the study mainly
focus on the elements which are related with the conven-
ience of purchasing, such as decision for purchase, pur-
chase channel, acquiring of information, conveniences
for sales and after sales. As the result, it shows that there
are two elements affect visit share and pocket share, they
are decision for purchase and convenience of purchase
[15]. Fabriee did research from the perspective of service
elements and customers’ satisfaction, to see its contribu-
tion to pocket share [16]. Anne W. Magi studies custom-
ers’ satisfaction, consumers’ characteristics and the in-
fluence of membership program on visit share and pur-
chase share; therefore, it analyzes the relationship be-
tween customers’ satisfaction and pocket share change
[17]. Zou Peng finds that customer trust affects the size
of share of wallet. He also pointed out that the loyal and
habitual purchasers are high share of wallet customers
which have high behavioral loyalty [18].
Demographic variables are also important factors in-
fluencing share of wallet. Baumane and his colleagues
find that customer characteristics influence the distribu-
tion of share of wallet in retail banking, such as customer
age, income and education [19]. Kim’s team study the
influence on loyalty and pocket share given from three
components, merely age, income and education, mean-
while, the study also include the influence given by rela-
tionship expiration, products variation [20]. Perkins-
Munn asserts that family, friends, environmental factors,
service quality, perceived factors and reliability are the
factors influencing share of wallet [21]. Liu Jianxin sug-
gests that customer demand and the external environment
influence the formation of share of wallet, such as pro-
motion infection, low-priced temptation [15]. Rex Yu
analyses the relationship between competitive factors and
share of wallet, the results show that customer purchase
amount in a company is related to the purchase amount
from competitors, and this relationship is negative [22].
As pocket share means a lot to company’s profit im-
provement, it draws more and more attention. Therefore,
many documents and papers pick the topic such as study
the enlargement of pocket share. It has pointed out by
Charles that if companies can act on the eight measures
such as to pay more respect to customers, to enhance the
level of service, and to practice incentive policy, which
can get higher share of pocket [23]. In Landy’s study on
banks, she finds that customer service charge and quality
transparency can greatly affect the trust given by cus-
tomers. If banks are in lack of necessary transparency in
the two parts above, it will be hard for them to get the
expected pocket share, that is to say, more trust given by
customers, bigger share of pockets. Also, according to
them, banks who have already got falling numbers for
the pocket share would habitually neglect getting trust
from customers [24]. Here are suggestions given by Lee
H, for those who want to maximize their customers’
pocket share: try to make your clients like you and trust
you. Know better of your clients, you’d better be clear
about how they want to be served, push your men to sat-
isfy your clients more actively [25].
Other scholars may find some related elements which
affect pocket share when they are going through custom-
ers’ purchasing motivation and other related things. For
example, Paswan carried out an actual research on the
relationship among customers’ choice on convince stores,

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 167
the motivation, the incentive buying; by the result, it
shows that the incentive policy and preference because of
familiarity can be active motivation for convenience
stores, for it connects very actively on the pocket share
customers spending on stores [26]. Peter’s research finds
that effective recognition can affect customers’ share in a
positive way [27]. Jenny and her team study the vertical
growth of customers’ share, and find that historical share
can affect current customers’ share in a non linear way
[28]. Beth Davis-Sramek’s team study the loyalty of B2B
customers in retailing, according to their research cus-
tomers’ satisfaction can affect affection, trust and prom-
ise; however, for retailers with high pocket share, cus-
tomers’ satisfaction affecting emotions in a positive way,
which actually create an indirect path the loyalty im-
proving. Their study can make a great contribution since
currently B2B customers analyses are in short [29].
The researches above have analyzed factors influenc-
ing share of wallet from different aspects, and that is
helpful to understand the formation and change of share
of wallet, it also provide theoretical foundation to fore-
cast share of wallet. However, most of the research has
focused on the B2C market, and there is little research in
the B2B market. On the base of the existent marketing
literatures, this study analyzes the variables influencing
share of wallet according the traits of the B2B market,
finds the principal factors influencing share of wallet and
the relationship in them.
3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
The buyer in the B2B market is not the final consumer
who purchases for meeting the needs of himself or his
family. It is an individual or organization who gains
profits from sales through the purchase of goods and ser-
vices for production. The relationship between buyer and
bargainer, the buyer’s purchase motives, purchase be-
haviors in the B2B market are different from the final
consumer market. In the B2B market, the quantity of a
company’s customers is less, but the purchase amount is
large, the change of customer retention and share of wal-
let have a great impact on the company, the behaviors of
key customers will affect the other customers’ opinion
about product quality, company credibility, and cause
correlated effects. Customer purchase is for the purpose
of profit, so the purchase motive is intellectual. Suppli-
ers’ production conditions, product quality, price and
other objective factors have a great impact on the pur-
chasing decision. The single purchase of large quantities
which has high-risk makes the purchasing decision com-
plex, and it takes a long time to establish a relationship
on the first purchase. But when customers are satisfied
with the transaction results, it is often able to form a sta-
ble trading relationship, and with the development of
cooperation, they will most likely be strategic alliance
partners. To conclude, share of wallet in the B2B market
is related to customer satisfaction, supplier capability,
trade conditions, and length of relationship. Based on the
above analysis, we propose a conceptual model of this
study (see Figure 1).
3.1. Customer Satisfaction and Share of Wallet
Customer satisfaction is a measure of how products and
services supplied by a company meet or surpass cus-
tomer expectation [30]. Some researchers have study the
relationship between share of wallet and satisfaction.
Brucae Cooil finds that the size of share of wallet de-
Supplier
capability
Customer
satisfaction
Trading terms Length of
relationship
Share of
wallet
H1
H2
H4
H3
H7
H5
H6
Figure 1. Conceptual model.

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 168
pends on the baseline of satisfaction level [12]. Rust
points out that customer satisfaction is good for customer
retention and customer loyalty, customer satisfaction
make customers stay longer, and pay a higher share of
wallet [14]. Bruce Cooil’s study also proves that customer
satisfaction is a factor influencing share of wallet [12].
Bolton, Lemon, and Verhoef find that the customer satis-
faction has a positive influence on cross-buying, so it is
reasonable to suggest that the relationship between cus-
tomer satisfaction and share of wallet is positive [31].
Empirical research appears to confirm the link between
satisfaction and share of wallet across various industries,
Researchers have found a positive relationship between
satisfaction and share of wallet for the fleet trucking,
pharmaceutical, institutional securities, retail banking,
processed metals, and grocery retailing industries [32-35].
Customers in the B2B market purchase in order to repro-
duce or re-sale, so when they are satisfied with product
price and quality, they will not only increase the quantity
of purchasing, but also make cross-buying in order to
enhance the efficiency of procurement, these acts will
increase share of wallet.
Given the analysis of the relationship between cus-
tomer satisfaction and share of wallet, we hypothesize
the following (see Figure 1):
H1: The relationship between customer satisfaction
and share of wallet is positive.
3.2. Supplier Capability and Share of Wallet
Related research indicates that the factors influencing
customer satisfaction will indirectly influence the share
of wallet, such as age, income, education, expertise, and
length of relationship. Much of the research pointed out
that the quality of products and services, the sensibility
factors, and reliability influence the consumer’s share of
wallet [20]. In a B2B Environment, the Purchasing Clerks
are professionals with relevant expertise. Therefore, when
customers make purchase decisions, they will not only
concern about the quality and reliability of products, but
also pay attention to supplier capability, such as company
size, technical merit, and research productivity. When
supplier capability is high, the supplier could meet cus-
tomer’s demand better, and the customer will feel low-
risk. At the same time, high supplier capability provides
conditions for centralized procurement and Cross-buying,
so the share of wallet will be high. Given the above
analysis, we hypothesize the following (see Figure 1):
H2: The relationship between supplier capability and
share of wallet is positive.
3.3. Trading Terms and Share of Wallet
Attitudinal loyalty has a positive impact on share of wal-
let [18]. Customer trust is the foundation of customer loy-
alty, some related studies have proved it [36], so customer
trust will also influence the size of share of wallet. Cus-
tomer trust comes from the understanding and recognition
to the information given by supplier, in another words,
supplier provides trading terms in order to make customer
feel fair, that is the basic to convince customer. In the
B2B market, the buyer’s professional experts have the
capacity to discern product quality and price, and thus
they are very sensitive to the fairness of the trade. In this
case, when the seller’s trading terms are fairer, the higher
customer trust will be, and the customer will pay a higher
share of wallet. Trading terms involve the truthfulness of
information and just price. When the supplier provides
full of information and reasonable price, it will get higher
share of wallet. From the above discussion, we hypothe-
size the following (see Figure 1):
H3: Fairer trading terms are positively associated with
share of wallet.
3.4. Length of Relationship and Share of Wallet
Rex Yu suggests that the length of relationship has linear
relation with share of wallet [16]. It matches the situation
in the B2B market. In the B2B market the purchasing
decision is complex, the purchasing results have a great
impact on the operation of company, it not only influence
their competitiveness through product quality and cost,
but also relate to the company’s survival. Therefore, it
takes them a long time to establish trading relationships
with suppliers through observe, compare and select. Be-
cause purchase time costs and psychic costs are so high,
once trading relationship is established, it will remain
stable. With the extension of relationships, customers
will be habitual loyalty through repeat purchase behavior,
and customer loyalty and trust will increase share of
wallet. Loyal customers prefer to realize their full pur-
chase in the company they trust in. At the same time, if
an enterprise’s can provide full range of products and
meet the customer’s demand, customers will make the
cross-purchase purchase when they make repeat purchase,
thereby, that will increase the share of wallet. Given the
above analysis, we hypothesize the following (see Fig-
ure 1):
H4: The relationship between length of relationship
and share of wallet is positive.
3.5. The Relationship in the Factors Influencing
Share of Wallet
Customer satisfaction is a recessive factor influencing
share of wallet in the B2B market, and supplier capabil-
ity, trade conditions, and length of relationship are obvi-
ous factors which correlate with recessive factor. Kein-
inghams finds that supplier capability and trading terms

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 169
have positive effect on customer satisfaction [20], given
this, we hypothesize H5: The relationship between sup-
plier capability and customer satisfaction is positive; H6:
The relationship between trading terms and customer
satisfaction is positive. Rust points out that customer
satisfaction is good for customer retention, customer sat-
isfaction make customers stay longer, and pay a higher
share of wallet [18], so we hypothesize H7: The rela-
tionship between customer satisfaction and length of re-
lationship is positive.
4. Methodology
4.1. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
We collect empirical data through questionnaire survey
to test the hypothesis. On the base of available scales in
the existent marketing literatures, this study develops
questionnaire according the traits of the B2B market. The
scale about customer satisfaction refers to the study of
Tech-Hua Ho, Young-Hoon Park and Yong-Pin Zhou
[37]. The scale about trading terms refers to the study of
Patricia M. Doney and Joseph P. Cannon [38]. The scale
about supplier capability refers to the studies of Liu Yi,
and Rust [39,40]. We use five-level Likert scale to
measure the questions. The scale is from strongly dis-
agreeing to strongly agree (see Table 4-1).
The date we used in this study were collected from 36
small and medium-sized enterprises in Xi’an High-tech
Zone including IT, healthcare, electronics, optical and
entertainment. We collected data from the companies
who have CRM systems through interview in July and
August of 2009. We need to interview the purchasing
managers because share of wallet is a sensitive issue, we
can only get an approximation. We recycle a total of 35
questionnaires, invalid questionnaires the volume are 3,
effectively questionnaires volume are 32. The re-
turns-ratio is 91.4%. Although there is only 32 question-
naires, each of the questionnaire represent a company, so
the sampling representativeness is high.
4.2. Reliability Analysis
The design should reflect reliability and validity, and
should be complete in contents, structures and forms. In
this paper, we use Cronbach Alpha coefficients to test the
reliability. Cronbach Alpha can take values between mi-
nus infinity and 1 (although only positive values make
sense). Nunnally（1978）points out that the reliability is
good if the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the question-
naire is above 0.7 and 0.5 is the minimum acceptable
level of reliability. We use “Cronbach Alpha” tool in
SPSS16.0 to test the reliability. The results of calculating
indicate that the Cronbach Alpha coefficient of the ques-
tionnaire is above 0.7(α = 0.758), the coefficients of all
subscales were between 0.832 and 1.000 (see Table 4-1),
so the questionnaire is reliable.
4.3. Validity Analysis
The validity includes content validity and constructs va-
lidity. Content validity is a subjective index, because the
questionnaire is based on the available scales in the exis-
tent marketing literatures, it has a good content validity.
Construct validity refers to whether a scale measures or
correlates with the theorized psychological construct.
It includes convergent validity and discriminant valid-
ity. We use factor analysis to test the construct validity.
We put collected data into SPSS16.0 and get the test re-
sult. The KMO coefficient is 0.624, Bartlett coefficient is
0.00, which proves that it could make factor analysis.
Four main factors whose cumulative contribution of vari-
ance accounted to 90.635% are customer satisfaction,
supplier capability, trading terms and length of relation-
ship. Factor loading for each item is above 0.6 (see Table
4-2), and they all have passed the t test, significant level
are all below 0.05. Given above results, the questionnaire
has a good convergent validity. As shown in Table 4-2,
each item in component which it belongs to has a factor
loading above 0.6, and in components which it does not
belong to, its factor loading is below 0.5. So the ques-
Table 4-1. Questionnaire and its reliability.
Scale Number of terms Cronbach Alpha Item
Product quality（A1）
Service quality（A2）
Price（A3）
Customer satisfaction（A） 4 0.951
Product category（A4）
Company size（B1）
Technical merit（B2） Supplier capability（B） 3 0.832
Research productivity（B3）
The truthfulness of information（C1）
Trading terms（C） 2 0.886 Just price（C2）
Length of relationship（D） 1 1.000 Length of relationship（D1）

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 170
Table 4-2. Rotated component matrix.
Component
Customer satisfaction
（A）
Supplier capability
（B）
Trading terms
（C）
Length of relationship
（D）
Product quality（A1） 0.741 – 0.187 0.075 – 0.041
Service quality（A2） 0.733 – 0.227 0.044 0.169
Price（A3） 0.699 0.042 0.230 – 0.046
Product category（A4） 0.681 0.356 0.195 – 0.075
Company size（B1） 0.041 0.804 – 0.030 0.487
Technical merit（B2） –0.169 0.770 0.241 0.270
Research productivity（B3） 0.290 0.732 – 0.046 0.225
The truthfulness of information（C1） 0.215 – 0.305 0.784 0.135
Just price（C2） 0.129 0.418 0.692 0.232
Length of relationship（D1） 0.122 – 0.259 – 0.046 1.000
tionnaire has good discriminant validity. In summary,
this questionnaire has good construct validity.
5. Empirical Results
5.1. Correlation Analysis
The results of correlation analysis are shown in Table
5-1. There are significant correlations between share of
wallet and customer satisfaction (P < 0.01), trading terms
(P < 0.01), and length of relationship (P < 0.01). And the
correlation coefficients are 0.802, 0.570 and 0.450,
which indicates the three factors have high impact on
share of wallet. However, supplier capability does not
significantly related to share of wallet (P > 0.05) and
customer satisfaction (P > 0.05). There are significant
correlations among the other factors influencing share of
wallet.
5.2. Path Analysis
Path analysis which can be thought of as a form of mul-
tiple regressions focusing on causality is used to describe
the directed dependencies among a set of variables. In
this paper, we use multiple linear regressions to make
path analysis. We treat each variable in the conceptual
model as dependent variable and do linear regression in
order to get standardized regression coefficients which
are path coefficients. The results are shown in Table 5-2,
the path diagram are shown in Figure 2.
5.3. Hypothesis Testing
Given the above results, 5 of 7 proposed hypotheses have
been supported by empirical results. The greater cus-
tomer satisfaction is, the higher share of wallet is（r =
0.691，p < 0.01）, so H1 is supported. Fairer trading
terms are positively associated with share of wallet（r =
0.229，p < 0.05）, so H3 is supported.
The greater length of relationship is, the higher share
of wallet is（r = 0.226，p < 0.05）, so H3 is supported.
The three results are the main contribution of the paper.
The hypotheses from H6 and H7 are supported too.
There are only two hypotheses—H2 and H5 get no
supported (see Table 5-2).
6. Conclusions
In the framework of theory of share of wallet, the paper
emphases key factors influencing share of wallet in a
B2B environment. Customer satisfaction is the most im-
portant factor influencing share of wallet whose path
coefficient is as high as 0.691, this corresponds with the
research in B2C market. Trading terms and length of
relationship also positively influence share of wallet. The
three main factors not only influence share of wallet di-
rectly, but also influence share of wallet indirectly by the
correlativity among them. Customer satisfaction and
trading terms could influence share of wallet by influ-
encing length of relationship, and trading terms could
influence share of wallet by influencing length of rela-
tionship.
The hypothesis that supplier capability is an important
factor influencing share of wallet get no supported; And
the hypothesis that supplier capability has a positive im-
pact on customer satisfaction either get no supported.
The study proposes that in the B2B market customers
pay most of their attention to the products and services as
they allocating share of wallet which are the base of cus-
tomer satisfaction. Therefore, keeping in touch with the
customers in order to know the needs of customers, de-
veloping new products and services are the foundation to
increase share of wallet. Giving the real and full informa-
tion to customers, maintain integrity and honesty in all
dealings with customers, and striving to increase the rate
of customer retention are also important measures to in-
crease share of wallet. These conclusions provide sug-
gestions to develop CRM effectively, and have positive
impact on upgrading the CLV.
Through this article did some helpful researches, there
are some points that are worth to be studied. The factors
influencing share of wallet include not only the four

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 171
Table 5-1. Correlations (*P < 0.01).
Share of
wallet
Customer
satisfaction
Supplier
capability
Trading
terms
Length of
relationship
Share of wallet Pearson Correlation 1.000
Pearson Correlation 0.802* 1.000
Customer satisfac-
tion Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
Pearson Correlation 0.346 0.189 1.000
Supplier capability Sig. (2-tailed) 0.053 0.299
Pearson Correlation 0.570* 0.531 0.725* 1.000
Trading terms Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001 0.045 0.000
Pearson Correlation 0.450* 0.556 0.499* 0.501* 1.000
Length of relation-
ship Sig. (2-tailed) 0.010 0.023 0.004 0.004
Table 5-2. Hypothesis testing.
Figure 2. Path diagram (*P < 0.01).
principal factors in this article, but also environmental
factors and competitive factors which influence the
buyer’s purchasing decision-making. We will further
discuss the model for predicting share of wallet in the
B2B market in order to improve the ability of enter-
prises’ CRM.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Wirtz, A. S. Mattila and May Oo Lwin, “How Effective
are Loyalty Reward Programs in Driving Share of Wal-
let,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2006, pp.
327-334. doi:10.1177/1094670506295853
[2] R. Garland, “Share of Wallet’s Role in Customer Profit-
Hypothesis path
Path coefficient
(r) P Test result
H1 Customer satisfaction → Share of wallet 0.691 0.000 Support
H2 Supplier capability → Share of wallet 0.201 0.069 Nonsupport
H3 Trading terms → Share of wallet 0.226 0.041 Support
H4 Length of relationship → Share of wallet 0.229 0.031 Support
H5 Supplier capability → Customer satisfaction – 0.106 0.679 Nonsupport
H6 Trading terms → Customer satisfaction 0.408 0.019 Support
H7 Customer satisfaction → Length of relationship 0.102 0.037 Support
Supplier
capability
Customer
satisfaction
Share of
wallet
0.691
*
0.229
0.226
0.102
0.408
0.201
-0.106
Trading terms Length of
relationship

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 172
ability,” Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 8,
No. 3, 2004, pp. 259-264.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.fsm.4770124
[3] W. Reinartz, J. S. Thomas and V. Kumar, “Balancing
Acquisition and Retention Resources to Maximize Cus-
tomer Profitability,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 1,
2005, pp. 63-79.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.69.1.63.55511
[4] V. Zeithaml, “A Service Quality, Profitability, and the
Economic Worth of Customers: What We Know and
What We Need to Learn,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2000, pp. 67-85.
doi:10.1177/0092070300281007
[5] S. Coyles and T. C. Gokey, “Customer Retention Is Not
Enough,” The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2002,
pp. 81-89.
[6] T. L. Keiningham, L. Aksoy, B. Cooil, K. Peterson and T.
G. Vavra, “A Longitudinal Examination of the Asymmet-
ric Impact of Employee and Customer Satisfaction on
Retail Sales,” Managing Service Quality, Vol. 16, No. 5,
2006, pp. 42-59. doi:10.1108/09604520610686124
[7] M. D. Uncles, G. R. Dowling and K. Hammond, “Cus-
tomer Loyalty and Customer Loyalty Programs,” Journal
of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2003, pp.
294-316. doi:10.1108/07363760310483676
[8] T. Wang and L. Xun, “The Composition and Measure-
ment of Customer Asset,” Economic Management, Vol.
20, No. 24, 2002, pp. 48-52.
[9] J. Griffin, “Customer loyalty, How to Earn It and How to
Keep It,” Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, 1995.
[10] T. O. Jones and W. E. Sasser, “Why Satisfied Customers
Defect,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1995,
pp. 88-99.
[11] T. Coltman, J. Gattorna and S. Whiting, “Realigning Ser-
vice Operations Strategy at DHL Express,” Interface s,
Vol. 40, No. 3, 2010, pp. 175-183.
doi:10.1287/inte.1100.0491
[12] B. Cooil, T. L. Keiningham, A. Lerzan and M. Hsu, “A
Longitudinal Analysis of Customer Satisfaction and
Share of Wallet: Investigating the Moderating Effect of
Customer Characteristics,” American Marketing Associa-
tion Journal of Marketing, Vol. 71, No.1, 2007, pp. 67-83.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.1.67
[13] B. Chris, S. Burton and G. Elliott, “Determinants of Cus-
tomer Loyalty and Share of Wallet in Retail Banking,”
Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 3,
2005, pp. 231-248. doi:10.1057/palgrave.fsm.4770156
[14] R. T. Rust, C. Moorman and P. R. Dickson, “Getting
Return on Quality: Cost Reduction, Revenue Expansion,
or Both?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, 2002, pp.
7-24. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.4.7.18515
[15] S. Moeller, M. Fassnacht and A. Ettinger, “Retaining
Customers With Shopping Convenience,” Journal of Re-
lationship Marketing, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2009, pp. 313-329.
[16] F. Clerfeuille and Y. Poubanne, “Differences in the Con-
tributions of Elements of Service to Satisfaction, Com-
mitment and Consumers Share of Purchase: A Study from
the Tetraclass Model,” Journal of Targeting, Vol. 1,
2002.
[17] A. W. Magi, “Share of Wallet in Retailing: The Effects of
Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty Cards and Shopper Char-
acteristics,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79, No. 2, 2003, pp.
97-106. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00008-3
[18] P. Zhou and Y. Y. Hao, “The Customer Loyalty Meas-
urement Model: Based on Two Dimensions of Attitudes
And Wallet Share,” Management Science, Vol. 21, No. 4,
2009, pp. 47-59.
[19] Hye-Young Kim and Min-Young Lee, “Emotional Loy-
alty and Share of Wallet: A Contingency Approach,”
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17, No.
5, 2010, pp. 333-339.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.014
[20] Perkins-Munn Tiffany, L. Aksoy, T. L. Keiningham and
D. Estrin, “Actual Purchase as a Proxy for Share of Wal-
let,” Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2005, pp.
245-256. doi:10.1177/1094670504271149
[21] J. X. Liu and M. G. Sun, “The Formation of Share of
Wallet and Improving Strategy,” Journal of Business
Economics, Vol. 5, 2006, p. 74.
[22] R. Y. Du, W. A. Kamakura and C. F. Mela, “Size and
Share of Customer Wallet,” Journal of Marketing, Vol.
71, No. 2, 2007, pp. 94-113.
[23] C. Keenan, “8 Keys to Opening Door for More Wallet
Share,” American Banker, Vol. 175, No. 42, 2010, pp.
4-6.
[24] H. Landy, “Banks Retain Trust, Lose Wallet Share,”
American Banker, Vol. 174, No. 160, 2009, pp. 12-12.
[25] L. H. Eisenstaedt, “Maximizing your wallet share,” Ac-
counting Today, No. 12, 2005, p. 29.
[26] A. Paswan, Pineda María de los Dolores Santarriaga and
Ramirez Francisco Carlos Soto, “Small Versus Large Re-
tail Stores in an Emerging Market—Mexico,” Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 63, No. 7, 2010, pp. 667-672.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.020
[27] P. C. Verhoef, “Understanding the Effect of Customer
Relationship Management Efforts on Customer Retention
and Customer Share Development,” Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 67, No. 4, 2003, pp. 30-45.
[28] J. Van Doorn and P. C. Verhoef, “Critical Incidents and
the Impact of Satisfaction on Customer Share,” Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 72, No. 4, 2008, pp. 123-142.
doi: 10.1509/jmkg.72.4.123
[29] Davis-Sramek Beth, C. Droge and J. T. M. B. Myers,
“Creating Commitment and Loyalty Behavior among Re-
tailers: What Are the Roles of Service Quality and Satis-
faction?” Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, No.4,
2009, pp. 440-454.doi: 10.1007/s11747-009-0148-y
[30] F. F. Reichheld, and W. Earl Sasser, Jr. “Zero Defections:
Quality Comes to Services,” Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68, No. 5, 1990, pp. 105-111.
[31] R. N. Bolton, K. N. Lemon and P. C. Verhoef, “The
Theoretical Underpinnings of Customer Asset Manage-

The Empirical Research of Factors Influencing Share of Wallet in the B2B Market 173
ment: A Framework and Propositions for Future Re-
search,” Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32, No. 3,
2004, pp. 271-292. doi:10.1177/0092070304263341
[32] T. L. Keiningham, Perkins-Munn Tiffany, L. Aksoy and
D. Estrin, “Does Customer Satisfaction Lead to Profit-
ability? The Mediating Role of Share of Wallet,” Manag-
ing Service Quality, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2005, pp. 172-181.
doi:10.1108/09604520510585352
[33] B. Douglas and N. Das, “Linking Customer Management
Effort to Customer Profitability in Business Markets,”
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2004, pp.
433-447.
[34] A. W. Magi, “Share of Wallet in Retailing: The Effects of
Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty Cards and Shopper Char-
acteristics,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 79, No. 2, 2003, pp.
97-106. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00008-3
[35] R. Silvestro and S. Cross, “Applying the Service Profit
Chain in a Retail Environment,” International Journal of
Service Industry Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2000, pp.
244-268. doi:10.1108/09564230010340760
[36] M. L. Cheng, “Experimental Research on Determinants of
Customer Loyalty,” Journal of Management Sciences,
Vol. 6, No. 5, 2003, pp. 72-78
[37] Teck-Hua Ho, Young-Hoon Park and Yong-Pin Zhou,
“Incorporating Satisfaction into Customer Value Analysis:
Optimal Investment in Lifetime Value,” Johnson School
Research Paper Series No. 03-06.
[38] P. M. Doney and J. P. Cannon, “An Examination of the
Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 61, No. 2, 1997, pp. 35-51.
doi:10.2307/1251829
[39] Y. Liu, “Research on Evaluation of Customer Satisfaction
of BPO Enterprise Based on Analytic Hierarchy Process,”
Economic Management, Vol. 24, No. 5, 2008, pp. 65-68.
[40] R. T. Rust, K. N. Lemon and V. A. Zeithaml, “Return on
Marketing: Using Customer Equity to Focus Marketing
Strategy,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, 2004, pp.
109-127.doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.109.24030