Introduction

In the context of the social organization

within which all communication takes place,
current research in marketing can to a great
extent be located in the field of mass
communication. Owing to the strong position
of traditional marketing communications
(especially advertising) research and
consumer marketing related theories in the
general field of marketing, the concepts of
communication can be labeled as ``mass
communicative'' in current marketing
discourse as a whole. Concentrating on the
traditional one-way view of communication
seems to be prevalent in most current
marketing research. However, it is obvious
that members of the target audience
influence each other. The traditional one-way
communication process is therefore enriched
by interpretations of and interactions
between audience members in interpersonal
networks (see Delozier, 1976; Fill, 1995;
McQuail, 1994).
Since the late 1970s the traditional
marketing mix based view of marketing has
been increasingly questioned among
researchers interested in the relational
aspects of marketing (see Arndt, 1979;
Hakansson, 1982; Gummesson, 1987;
Gronroos, 1989). This growing criticism
toward the so-called transaction marketing
concept came primarily from three sources.
These included certain North American
academicians in services and industrial
marketing, North-European researchers in
services marketing and interaction/network
researchers related to the IMP group
(Gronroos 1990). The IMP International/
Industrial Marketing and Purchasing group
consists of researchers from Sweden,
Finland, France, Germany, the UK, Italy, the
USA, and Australia.
The interest in business relationships and
networks in marketing has also grown out of
the pronounced trend in business practice
towards ``non-traditional'' organization
forms. As opposed to hierarchical
organizations controlling all facets of a
business, both scholars and popular press
have been drawn to the phenomenon of firms
forming loose alliances to supply each other
with required productive functions
(Erickson and Kushner, 1999). Along with the
rise of the relational approaches in
marketing, the focus of marketing research
seems to shift from products and firms as a
unit of analysis to people, organizations and
the social processes that bind actors together
in ongoing relationships (Webster, 1992).
Consequently, also the role of
communication has to and will be somewhat
different in the research of business
relationships and networks from that of
traditional consumer marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on

the role of communication within business
relationships and networks. The IMP grouprelated
interaction and network approach
(see Ford, 1997) to interorganizational
marketing is briefly introduced in the
following section to facilitate this discussion.
Furthermore, a conceptual framework on the
role of communication in business
relationships and networks is proposed.
Finally, some managerial implications are
presented.

IMP-related interaction/network
approach: general principles
A large amount of research has been
conducted on business relationships and
networks. The earliest studies concentrated
mostly on understanding the nature of dyadic
relationships based on the seminal
observation that both customer and supplier
are active, hence the name ``interaction
approach'' (e.g. Hakansson, 1982; Turnbull
and Valla, 1987). In the next phase, the focus changed towards understanding the dynamic
development of dyadic relationships (e.g.
Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford et al., 1986). One of the
main conclusions of the Europe-based IMP
Group studies was that a dyadic relationship
has to be seen in the context of a larger set of
interfirm relationships forming the business
context of the focal dyad. The underlying
rationale was to understand the actions of the
buyer and seller and the longitudinal
development of their relationship. This
``network approach'' has recently attracted
considerable interest among business
marketing researchers (e.g. Hakansson and
Snehota, 1989, 1995; Webster, 1992). As can be
seen below, the interaction and network
approaches are very close to each other
differences being found mainly in the levels
and units of analysis.

The interaction approach

The primary research interest in the
interaction approach lies in studying dyadic
long-term exchange relationships between
economic actors. This interest can be dated
back to the late 1960s when exchange was
defined as one of the core concepts of
marketing (Kotler and Levy, 1969). The
concept of an exchange relationship gained
prominence during the latter half of the 1970s
on a general theoretical level in marketing
(e.g. Bagozzi, 1975; Arndt, 1979), in industrial
marketing (e.g. Hakansson, 1982), as well as
in channels research (e.g. Frazier, 1983).
Generally, the term interaction approach is
adopted to refer to studies that focus on
exchange processes and relationship
formation between organizations. It aims at a
more thorough understanding of interaction,
and its forms and development processes
over time (e.g. Mo ller, 1994). It is not only
goods, but also other kinds of resources that

are exchanged through interactive

relationships. The interaction approach
concerns issues such as interaction
processes, adaptation within and
investments into relationships, different
kinds of bonds between actors,
developmental phases of relationships and
relationship outcomes (see Mo ller and
Halinen-Kaila, 1998).

The network approach

As a theoretical extension of the interaction

approach, the network approach aims at
making sense of what happens in
complicated business markets in which
organizations are engaged in complex
business relationships. The ``markets-asnetworks''
perspective on
interorganizational exchange refers to a
description of markets as associated or

changed towards understanding the dynamic

development of dyadic relationships (e.g.
Dwyer et al., 1987; Ford et al., 1986). One of the
main conclusions of the Europe-based IMP
Group studies was that a dyadic relationship
has to be seen in the context of a larger set of
interfirm relationships forming the business
context of the focal dyad. The underlying
rationale was to understand the actions of the
buyer and seller and the longitudinal
development of their relationship. This
``network approach'' has recently attracted
considerable interest among business
marketing researchers (e.g. Hakansson and
Snehota, 1989, 1995; Webster, 1992). As can be
seen below, the interaction and network
approaches are very close to each other
differences being found mainly in the levels
and units of analysis.

The interaction approach

The primary research interest in the

interaction approach lies in studying dyadic
long-term exchange relationships between
economic actors. This interest can be dated
back to the late 1960s when exchange was
defined as one of the core concepts of
marketing (Kotler and Levy, 1969). The
concept of an exchange relationship gained
prominence during the latter half of the 1970s
on a general theoretical level in marketing
(e.g. Bagozzi, 1975; Arndt, 1979), in industrial
marketing (e.g. Hakansson, 1982), as well as
in channels research (e.g. Frazier, 1983).
Generally, the term interaction approach is
adopted to refer to studies that focus on
exchange processes and relationship
formation between organizations. It aims at a
more thorough understanding of interaction,
and its forms and development processes

over time (e.g. Mo ller, 1994). It is not only

goods, but also other kinds of resources that
are exchanged through interactive
relationships. The interaction approach
concerns issues such as interaction
processes, adaptation within and
investments into relationships, different
kinds of bonds between actors,
developmental phases of relationships and
relationship outcomes (see Mo ller and
Halinen-Kaila, 1998).

The network approach

As a theoretical extension of the interaction

approach, the network approach aims at
making sense of what happens in
complicated business markets in which
organizations are engaged in complex
business relationships. The ``markets-asnetworks''
perspective on
interorganizational exchange refers to a
description of markets as associated or
bonded structures which comprise not only
buyers and sellers, but also other relevant
organizations such as consultants and
governmental institutions (Easton, 1992).
The network approach aims to provide
understanding and descriptions of industrial
markets as complex networks of
interorganizational relationships. Mo ller
(1992) characterizes its aims as
understanding systems of relationships from
a positional perspective on the one hand
obtaining a particular focal firm's viewpoint;
and from a network perspective on the other
viewing networks from an aggregate,
holistic perspective. The role of marketing is,
to a great extent, in the establishment,
development, defence and maintenance of
network positions. This is done by
developing multiple relationships in the focal
net, i.e. in the relevant network in which the
firm is active by relating externally and
adapting internally (Hakansson and Snehota,
1989). Within the network approach, a broad
conceptual model has been developed
according to which interorganizational
markets consist of three basic groups of
variables or layers of substance: activities,
resources and actors (e.g. Hakansson and
Snehota, 1995). The aim of the model of
industrial networks is to make possible an
integrated analysis of stability and
development in an industry. It provides a
basis for studying the roles of actors and sets
of actors in interorganizational development
processes (e.g. Hakansson and Johanson,
1992).

Communication aspects of
business relationships and
networks: a conceptual framework

As stated earlier, most current marketing

research can be more or less directly linked
to mass-communication theory. However, the
interaction/network approach, i.e.

researching the development of a buyerseller

dyad, or of interorganizational
networks, means that complex interaction
phenomena occurring in both need to be
addressed on organizational, departmental
and personal levels (cf. Mo ller and Wilson,
1988). Although actors at different levels of
aggregation may be identified, individuals
are inevitably the basic interactants in all
possible collective actor configurations. In
other words, aspects of interpersonal
communication must be taken into
consideration in researching exchange
processes from an interaction/network
perspective (see also Alajoutsijarvi and
Eriksson, 1998).