During the last decade, customer complaint management received considerable attention in marketing literature, e.g., researchers examined the consequences of a negative incident on customer attitudes towards the provider and the associated behavioral intention such as self-reported repurchase intentions ( e.g. Evanschitzky, Brock, and Blut, 2011; Smith and Bolton, 2002; van Doorn and Verhoef, 2008). However, this stream of research has not examined actual purchase behavior after the complaint (e.g., de Matos, Henrique, and Rossi, 2007). Hence, it is unclear whether service recovery only affects self-reported outcomes (i.e., purchase intention) or actual purchase behavior. Moreover, recent research has indicated that customer inertia explains a large proportion of the variance of a customer’s repurchase behavior (e.g. van Doorn and Verhoef, 2008). So far, no research has assessed the impact of inertia in the service recovery context. It is indicated that the relationship between the provider and the customer is strongly affected by the service failure (van Doorn and Verhoef, 2008), but as of now, the role of past behavior has not been investigated. This study contributes to the complaint management literature by (1) analyzing the effects of service recovery on actual purchase behavior after recovery and (2) by assessing the role of inertia in situations of service recovery. Results indicate that complaint satisfaction has a significant positive impact on post complaining purchase behavior while overall satisfaction has no such effect. Furthermore, past purchase behavior has the strongest impact; thus, inertia plays a substantial role in complaint management.

Although the relationship marketing literature acknowledges the importance of switching costs for increasing customer retention in general, little is known about its relevance in industrial markets. In particular, it is unclear whether switching costs and its dimensions impact relevant behavioral outcomes of buyer-seller relationships in business-to-business (B2B) markets. Against this background, our research intends to make two main contributions: Since we assume differential effects for different types of switching costs, our research first explores the dimensions of switching costs for the B2B domain. Second, it tests the relative impact of the dimensions of switching costs on business customers’ actual purchase behavior. Results suggest that switching costs in B2B settings are a multi-faceted construct, including (i) procedural, (ii) financial, and (iii) relational switching costs. Moreover, we find relational switching costs to be most important for securing B2B buyer-seller relationships since they impact a customer’s (a) share-of-wallet, (b) cross buying behavior, and (c) actual switching behavior. While procedural switching costs only influence share-of-wallet, financial switching costs solely impact customer’s cross-buying behavior across a firm’s product and services categories. These findings contribute to a better understanding about how to secure B2B buyer-seller relationships.