Dimensional characteristics across intermediary types
| Dimension | Surrogate consumers | Opinion leaders | Expert sources | Supplier-affiliated intermediaries |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part I: type dimensions (structural qualities) | ||||
| 1.Control structure | HIGH – Stakeholder control | LOW – Distributed control | MODERATE-HIGH – Advisory control | MODERATE – Shared control |
| Unilateral decision authority through formal delegation; the client grants complete control over purchase decisions | No decision authority; influence limited to information provision without binding power | Strong prescriptive influence approaching directive authority; recommendations carry professional weight | Influence through information control and option presentation; steering within the supplier portfolio | |
| 2.Covariation of interest | COORDINATION dominant | COORDINATION dominant | MIXED coordination | COMPETITION potential |
| Direct customer compensation aligns interests; fiduciary duty ensures outcome correspondence | No commercial conflicts; genuine interest alignment through shared consumption values | Professional ethics promote coordination; potential conflicts from referral relationships | Dual allegiance creates interest divergence; supplier compensation may conflict with customer needs | |
| 3.Mutuality of dependence | ASYMMETRIC → symmetric | ASYMMETRIC | ASYMMETRIC | MODERATE symmetry |
| Initially customer-dependent; evolves toward mutual dependence through ongoing relationships | The customer depends on the leader for information; the leader is independent of individual followers | The customer depends on expert knowledge; the expert is less dependent on individual clients | Mutual dependence on transaction completion; intermediary needs sales, customer needs access | |
| 4. Information availability | HIGH transparency | VARIABLE transparency | MODERATE-HIGH transparency | MODERATE-LOW transparency |
| Full disclosure expected due to fiduciary duty; documented processes and clear communication | Depends on disclosure of commercial relationships; undisclosed sponsorships reduce transparency | Professional standards require disclosure; technical complexity may limit complete comprehension | Supplier relationships are often undisclosed; information is filtered through commercial interests | |
| 5.Temporal structure | CYCLICAL – Continuous | SEQUENTIAL – Episodic | SEQUENTIAL – Project-based | CONCURRENT – Transaction-linked |
| Ongoing relationships across multiple purchase cycles; sequential engagement through all stages | Concentrated in pre-purchase; one-directional communication; sporadic reengagement | Defined engagement periods; concentrated pre-purchase and purchase involvement | Peaks at purchase; maintains presence across stages tied to transaction lifecycle | |
| Part II: degree dimensions (quantitative intensity measures) | ||||
| 6.Engagement intensity | VERY HIGH | LOW-MODERATE | HIGH | MODERATE |
| Deep cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment; comprehensive involvement in customer decisions | Limited to content creation and sharing; no direct investment in individual customer outcomes | Intensive cognitive engagement during consultation; emotional investment in professional reputation | Variable based on transaction value; higher for complex products, lower for routine purchases | |
| 7.Interaction frequency | CONTINUOUS | SPORADIC | CONCENTRATED | VARIABLE |
| Regular touchpoints throughout the relationship; frequent communication across all journey stages | One-to-many communication; infrequent individual interaction; content-driven engagement | Intensive during project scope; minimal between engagements; appointment-based | High at the purchase point; sporadic pre-purchase; periodic post-purchase for service needs | |
| 8.Relationship duration | LONG-TERM | SHORT-TERM /episodic | PROJECT-BASED | TRANSACTION-LINKED |
| Multi-year relationships; ongoing retainer arrangements; lifecycle partnerships | No formal relationship; influence ends with content consumption; no commitment | Defined by engagement scope; may extend to ongoing advisory; relationship renewal optional | Tied to purchase cycle; may extend through warranty/service period; renewal at repurchase | |
| 9.Interdependence strength | STRONG | WEAK | MODERATE-STRONG | MODERATE |
| High mutual influence; customer outcomes directly affect intermediary reputation and income | Low mutual influence; leader success is not dependent on individual follower outcomes | Professional outcomes linked to recommendations; reputation effects create interdependence | Transaction completion creates mutual interest; limited post-purchase interdependence | |
| 10.Basis of influence | PRESCRIPTIVE | EXPERIENTIAL | INFORMATIONAL-PRESCRIPTIVE | TRANSACTIONAL |
| Authority-based influence through professional expertise and delegated decision power | Influence through personal experience, authenticity, and social identification | Influence through specialized knowledge, credentials and technical authority | Influence through transaction facilitation, access provision and convenience | |
| Dimension | Surrogate consumers | Opinion leaders | Expert sources | Supplier-affiliated intermediaries |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Control structure | MODERATE-HIGH – Advisory control | MODERATE – Shared control | ||
| Unilateral decision authority through formal delegation; the client grants complete control over purchase decisions | No decision authority; influence limited to information provision without binding power | Strong prescriptive influence approaching directive authority; recommendations carry professional weight | Influence through information control and option presentation; steering within the supplier portfolio | |
| 2.Covariation of interest | COORDINATION dominant | COORDINATION dominant | COMPETITION potential | |
| Direct customer compensation aligns interests; fiduciary duty ensures outcome correspondence | No commercial conflicts; genuine interest alignment through shared consumption values | Professional ethics promote coordination; potential conflicts from referral relationships | Dual allegiance creates interest divergence; supplier compensation may conflict with customer needs | |
| 3.Mutuality of dependence | ASYMMETRIC → symmetric | ASYMMETRIC | ASYMMETRIC | MODERATE symmetry |
| Initially customer-dependent; evolves toward mutual dependence through ongoing relationships | The customer depends on the leader for information; the leader is independent of individual followers | The customer depends on expert knowledge; the expert is less dependent on individual clients | Mutual dependence on transaction completion; intermediary needs sales, customer needs access | |
| 4. Information availability | VARIABLE transparency | MODERATE-HIGH transparency | MODERATE-LOW transparency | |
| Full disclosure expected due to fiduciary duty; documented processes and clear communication | Depends on disclosure of commercial relationships; undisclosed sponsorships reduce transparency | Professional standards require disclosure; technical complexity may limit complete comprehension | Supplier relationships are often undisclosed; information is filtered through commercial interests | |
| 5.Temporal structure | CYCLICAL – Continuous | SEQUENTIAL – Episodic | SEQUENTIAL – Project-based | CONCURRENT – Transaction-linked |
| Ongoing relationships across multiple purchase cycles; sequential engagement through all stages | Concentrated in pre-purchase; one-directional communication; sporadic reengagement | Defined engagement periods; concentrated pre-purchase and purchase involvement | Peaks at purchase; maintains presence across stages tied to transaction lifecycle | |
| 6.Engagement intensity | LOW-MODERATE | MODERATE | ||
| Deep cognitive, emotional and behavioral investment; comprehensive involvement in customer decisions | Limited to content creation and sharing; no direct investment in individual customer outcomes | Intensive cognitive engagement during consultation; emotional investment in professional reputation | Variable based on transaction value; higher for complex products, lower for routine purchases | |
| 7.Interaction frequency | CONTINUOUS | SPORADIC | CONCENTRATED | VARIABLE |
| Regular touchpoints throughout the relationship; frequent communication across all journey stages | One-to-many communication; infrequent individual interaction; content-driven engagement | Intensive during project scope; minimal between engagements; appointment-based | High at the purchase point; sporadic pre-purchase; periodic post-purchase for service needs | |
| 8.Relationship duration | LONG-TERM | SHORT-TERM /episodic | PROJECT-BASED | TRANSACTION-LINKED |
| Multi-year relationships; ongoing retainer arrangements; lifecycle partnerships | No formal relationship; influence ends with content consumption; no commitment | Defined by engagement scope; may extend to ongoing advisory; relationship renewal optional | Tied to purchase cycle; may extend through warranty/service period; renewal at repurchase | |
| 9.Interdependence strength | MODERATE-STRONG | MODERATE | ||
| High mutual influence; customer outcomes directly affect intermediary reputation and income | Low mutual influence; leader success is not dependent on individual follower outcomes | Professional outcomes linked to recommendations; reputation effects create interdependence | Transaction completion creates mutual interest; limited post-purchase interdependence | |
| 10.Basis of influence | PRESCRIPTIVE | EXPERIENTIAL | INFORMATIONAL-PRESCRIPTIVE | TRANSACTIONAL |
| Authority-based influence through professional expertise and delegated decision power | Influence through personal experience, authenticity, and social identification | Influence through specialized knowledge, credentials and technical authority | Influence through transaction facilitation, access provision and convenience | |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.